I've read the article now.

 

He makes many very good points but if his points are valid then why does he feel that he is different form the vast majority of men who have been called to the priesthood who have had to choose between possible marriage and their vocation.

 

I was aware that dispensations can be granted to married men of the cloth from certain other faiths.

 

One question he didn't answer (or at least I didn't see it) was does he now practice celebacy? He clearly stated that he felt that the priesthood and marriage were mutually exclusive so does he now ignore his wife in order to be an effective priest?

 

If he as a married man can be an effective priest then why can others not be effective as both?

 

If he is such a strong proponent of priestly celebacy then why when he converted did he choose to apply for and accept a dispensation from the rule of celebacy? For that matter why did he choose to become a priest at all? I know two fine priests who were forced to leave because they had the audacity to fall in love. If he truly believes celebacy is so important in a priest then IMVHO he is being more then a little hypocritical if he continues to maintain any kind of marital relationship with his wife.

Interesting perspective. I'd imagine a large (although not sure if a majority) of numbers would remain with Rome- I know that I probably would.

 

 

I honestly don't know which side I would go with in that situation but I do believe at some point it will happen and likely not in my lifetime so I won't have to make that choice.

I've read the article now.

 

He makes many very good points but if his points are valid then why does he feel that he is different form the vast majority of men who have been called to the priesthood who have had to choose between possible marriage and their vocation.

 

I was aware that dispensations can be granted to married men of the cloth from certain other faiths.

 

One question he didn't answer (or at least I didn't see it) was does he now practice celebacy? He clearly stated that he felt that the priesthood and marriage were mutually exclusive so does he now ignore his wife in order to be an effective priest?

 

If he as a married man can be an effective priest then why can others not be effective as both?

 

If he is such a strong proponent of priestly celebacy then why when he converted did he choose to apply for and accept a dispensation from the rule of celebacy? For that matter why did he choose to become a priest at all? I know two fine priests who were forced to leave because they had the audacity to fall in love. If he truly believes celebacy is so important in a priest then IMVHO he is being more then a little hypocritical if he continues to maintain any kind of marital relationship with his wife.

 

:thumb:

 

That's what I thought when I read the article. It seems that it would be awfully easy to write what he did from his position...he's getting "the best of both worlds" for lack of a better term.

:thumb:

 

That's what I thought when I read the article. It seems that it would be awfully easy to write what he did from his position...he's getting "the best of both worlds" for lack of a better term.

 

You are not quoting Hannah Montana, are you?

I've read the article now.

 

He makes many very good points but if his points are valid then why does he feel that he is different form the vast majority of men who have been called to the priesthood who have had to choose between possible marriage and their vocation.

 

I was aware that dispensations can be granted to married men of the cloth from certain other faiths.

 

One question he didn't answer (or at least I didn't see it) was does he now practice celebacy? He clearly stated that he felt that the priesthood and marriage were mutually exclusive so does he now ignore his wife in order to be an effective priest?

 

If he as a married man can be an effective priest then why can others not be effective as both?

 

If he is such a strong proponent of priestly celebacy then why when he converted did he choose to apply for and accept a dispensation from the rule of celebacy? For that matter why did he choose to become a priest at all? I know two fine priests who were forced to leave because they had the audacity to fall in love. If he truly believes celebacy is so important in a priest then IMVHO he is being more then a little hypocritical if he continues to maintain any kind of marital relationship with his wife.

 

:thumb:

 

That's what I thought when I read the article. It seems that it would be awfully easy to write what he did from his position...he's getting "the best of both worlds" for lack of a better term.

He spoke of celibacy in the priesthood as a gift repeatedly. I think this passage is relative to what you are saying:

The Church is both human and divine, a duality of structure (organization) and the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. That which gives the Church her permanency of structure is itself a sacrament—the sacrament of orders. This means that the Church's structure is continuously created by God's unfailing action through the sacrament. The Church as an institution cannot herself choose those who will serve in the hierarchy. The call to holy orders comes from God, and the Church can only recognize that call. Thus our Lord commanded us, "Pray the Lord of the harvest to send workers into his harvest" (Mt 9:37).

 

So the priestly ministry has a "strictly charismatic character," in the words of Benedict XVI. The Church emphasizes that fact by "linking . . . priesthood with virginity, which clearly can be understood only as a personal charism, never simply as an official qualification." Any attempt to separate priesthood from celibacy ("the demand for their uncoupling") would in effect deny the charismatic nature of priesthood. It would reduce it to an office completely under the control of the institution. Thus the Church in effect would be regarded as a purely human institution.

Basically, what it is saying is that in a similar manner to how you are called to be a Priest, you are also called to remain chaste. Separating the two risks the chance of the Church becoming a more human institution.

 

Furthermore, I don't find it hypocritical at all. I find divorce to be wrong, because marriage is an institution that should exist for life. He was an Episcopalian but converted to Catholicism. Should he choose to give up his calling (priesthood) or his commitment (marriage)?

 

It's not like he grew up Catholic, decided he wanted to be a priest but also wanted to be married, and hatched this plan. No, I think someone else had this plan.

 

Lastly, at least when we assign ulterior motives to Obama, we have reasons behind it (elections).

What do you two believe that his ulterior motive is for supporting priestly celibacy?

I honestly don't know which side I would go with in that situation but I do believe at some point it will happen and likely not in my lifetime so I won't have to make that choice.

 

This is why I hate being young. :lol:

Furthermore, I don't find it hypocritical at all. I find divorce to be wrong, because marriage is an institution that should exist for life. He was an Episcopalian but converted to Catholicism. Should he choose to give up his calling (priesthood) or his commitment (marriage)?

 

 

I don't see it that way. I don't say he should divorce his wife BUT if as he asserts celibacy is a gift for all other priests then he should be living a celibate life away from his wife because as he says

The priesthood and marriage are both full-time vocations. The fact is, no one can do complete justice to both simultaneously.

If that statement is true then as long as he lives a married life with his wife there's no way he can be a good priest. He should support her but he should not live with her, nor should he engage in marital activities with her. As I said in another post in this thread I know two very good priests who had to make the choice that this man didn't have to make. If upon conversion he wanted to follow his calling then he should have chosen to end his married life (not his marriage) with his wife. After all that's exactly what he expects other priests to do, why not him? Just because he wasn't raised Catholic is not relevant to the discussion. What is is that it seems he is espousing a certain priestly lifestyle that he seems unwilling to choose for himself.

 

FWIW I have no problem with the Church allowing married men like him to become priests when they convert. Nor do I have a problem with the church allowing them to remain in married life. I do have a problem with this man celebrating the celibate lifestyle for other priests while seeming to be unwilling to live it himself.

 

It's as simple as his assertion, you can't be a good husband and a good priest. If he really believes that then yes, he should make a choice, husband or priest but not both.

What do you two believe that his ulterior motive is for supporting priestly celibacy

Allegiance to the dictates of Rome and what better an example to hold up then a married priest who believes that celibacy is the proper priestly lifestyle, particularly when that lifestyle is being questioned more by American Catholics.

I don't see it that way. I don't say he should divorce his wife BUT if as he asserts celibacy is a gift for all other priests then he should be living a celibate life away from his wife because as he says

If that statement is true then as long as he lives a married life with his wife there's no way he can be a good priest. He should support her but he should not live with her, nor should he engage in marital activities with her. As I said in another post in this thread I know two very good priests who had to make the choice that this man didn't have to make. If upon conversion he wanted to follow his calling then he should have chosen to end his married life (not his marriage) with his wife. After all that's exactly what he expects other priests to do, why not him? Just because he wasn't raised Catholic is not relevant to the discussion. What is is that it seems he is espousing a certain priestly lifestyle that he seems unwilling to choose for himself.

 

FWIW I have no problem with the Church allowing married men like him to become priests when they convert. Nor do I have a problem with the church allowing them to remain in married life. I do have a problem with this man celebrating the celibate lifestyle for other priests while seeming to be unwilling to live it himself.

 

It's as simple as his assertion, you can't be a good husband and a good priest. If he really believes that then yes, he should make a choice, husband or priest but not both.

I agree with everything you said here. It only makes sense for him to be living a celibate life now (the article does not state whether he does or not). If you are advocating leaving his wife, then I disagree.

 

Also, the biggest thing that I got out of the article was not what you are focusing on, but instead how he defines callings to the priesthood and callings to celibacy as "charismatic" attributes, and their separation would in turn affects the divinity of the priesthood & Catholic institution. Any comment here?

Allegiance to the dictates of Rome and what better an example to hold up then a married priest who believes that celibacy is the proper priestly lifestyle, particularly when that lifestyle is being questioned more by American Catholics.

So, in essence, you believe he was forced to write this article? Or it was for brownie points?

I agree with everything you said here. It only makes sense for him to be living a celibate life now (the article does not state whether he does or not). If you are advocating leaving his wife, then I disagree.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with him remaining married, I have the problem with the apparant double standard he is applying. In my mind you can remain married and be celibate. If he really believes what he wrote then while he and his wife should remain married they shouldn't live together nor should they be intimate. He should continue to support her, they should maintain a relationship but if he truly believes what he has written it should be a strictly platonic relationship.

 

Also, the biggest thing that I got out of the article was not what you are focusing on, but instead how he defines callings to the priesthood and callings to celibacy as "charismatic" attributes, and their separation would in turn affects the divinity of the priesthood & Catholic institution. Any comment here?

I don't disagree at all with that but it was very hard for me to put a whole lot of stock in what he was saying regarding the importance of celibacy when it appears he is not living a celibate life yet expects other priests to.

 

So, in essence, you believe he was forced to write this article? Or it was for brownie points?

I doubt he was forced to write it but I can't say that he didn't write it to curry favor. My grandfather was a permanant deacon for over 20 years. He was very disappointed when he saw the levels of political maneuvering within the priesthood. I know that there are priests that will express a certain viewpoing just to make points with superiors. In that regard it's no different then any other profession.

Hearing (part of) the reading at Church made me think of this topic:

 

1 Corinthians: 32-35

I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction.

Jesus said many will come forbidding marriage and forbidding certain meets. I say, don't follow after them.

 

How can an unmarried man counsel his flock about marriage?

 

The book of Timothy says a bishop or deacon must be "the husband of one wife."

 

Another scripture implies that a pastor must have his house in order and his children under subjection for "how can he rule the house of God, if he can't rule his own family."

Jesus said many will come forbidding marriage and forbidding certain meets. I say, don't follow after them.

 

How can an unmarried man counsel his flock about marriage?

 

The book of Timothy says a bishop or deacon must be "the husband of one wife."

 

Another scripture implies that a pastor must have his house in order and his children under subjection for "how can he rule the house of God, if he can't rule his own family."

 

Read I Corinithians Chapter 7. Paul very clearly states that it is better if a man does not marry, because marriage divides a man's allegiences and attentions between his wife and God. He counsels that if one cannot control his "passions," then by all means marry, but he very clearly states that a man who can control his passions seeks a higher calling by remaining single and celibate. He states that he remained single and celibate so he could focus all his attention on God.

 

Do you believe the Apostle Paul was qualified to be a deacon in your church?

I know Paul wrote that, but if you read it carefully, he clearly distinguishes which part of his writing is his opinion and which part is a direct command from God.

 

As far as the qualifications for a deacon, read I Timothy Ch. 3. Then, you can answer that question for yourself.

 

It does seem odd that he would write these qualifications, being unmarried, himself. Must have truly been the will of God, not just what Paul thought?????????????

Paul had a different job, and needed to focus on preaching the Gospel.

I know Paul wrote that, but if you read it carefully, he clearly distinguishes which part of his writing is his opinion and which part is a direct command from God.

I assume you believe that every word of the Bible is inspired by God, right? If that is the case, I'm not sure how you can disregard certain passages as "Paul's opinion".