As you know disaffected Episcopalians are coming into their very own Ordinariate under a seperate nationwide "diocese." Many married Episcopal priests are coming over too with their wives and children and will function as Catholic priests, but will have to be re-confirmed and re-ordained as the Catholic Church does not view Anglican orders as valid, so even their confirmation is invalid, but not their baptism.
When I was in Augusta at Most Holy Trinity from 1991 to 2004, my parochial vicar was Father Dan Munn (RIP). He was married and had a slew of children and grandchildren and his wife was a lector and sometimes lectored when he was celebrating the Mass. We also had Fr. Miguel Grave de Paralta a married former Episcopal priest who was ordained a Melkite Rite priest and has bi-ritual faculties in the Latin Rite. He has two children.
How well would you accept a married priest in your parish. Most Holy Trinity is a very traditional, conservative parish and they loved their married priests. I loved having them too.
Yesterday I entered the world of on-line banking and bill paying. The banking representative who was Baptist asked me how Catholics are saved. I said we are saved by Jesus Christ who in time become incarnate of the Blessed Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit and eventually suffered and died for our salvation. We are saved by God choosing us to be a part of His Church through Baptism and then our response to that grace as we participate in the sacramental, moral and faith life of the Church.
I think it was too much information for him. I think he just wanted me to say that I had accepted Jesus Christ (which I have) but I told him it was more important for Jesus Christ to accept me, which He has!
And finally being nice on line and in comments, please read the following written by Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture. Please keep in mind that we should engage people in a friendly way even if they provoke us to be ugly, we should just state our case and if you don't want to engage the individual, just don't; don't be ugly:
Hilaire Belloc wisely wrote that the grace of God is in courtesy. Nobody likes being ignored, ridiculed, insulted or otherwise abused. Everybody appreciates being treated with respect and listened to as if his ideas matter. And while not everyone has good ideas, everyone’s ideas do matter. They give us clues to the personality, to the strengths and weaknesses of a particular character, and—perhaps most important—to the needs of a brother or sister in a family that ultimately belongs to God.When I reflect on my own interaction with critics over the past year, I recall those occasions when I was decidedly not conciliatory. And in surveying various discussion groups, including some consisting only of dedicated Catholics, I’ve overheard my share of vitriolic exchanges. We’ve come to expect a low level of social discourse in political discussion, led by political advertising and the verbal maneuvering of televised debates. But there is something wrong—something spiritually wrong—when the same problem afflicts religious discussions.
But the Christian’s call goes far beyond the mere appearance of courtesy. Our Lord requires of us a courtesy motivated by something deeper, namely charity. We all know this, yet again and again, as soon we find ourselves on opposite sides of an issue, we tend to plug our ears and hold our noses—when we should be opening our ears and biting our tongues.
Sometimes, of course, we find ourselves under deliberate and even malicious attack. At CatholicCulture.org, we receive numerous messages through our Contact form in which “unregistered visitors” simply open fire on the Faith, the Church and those who write for the site. Sometimes it is wisest to ignore such messages, especially if the nature of the correspondence and the available time suggest that we will not be in a position to make a positive impact. Similarly, there will be times when any Catholic will have little choice but to extricate himself as politely as possible from an unpleasant personal confrontation.
But often we are faced with disagreements caused by approaching similar questions from different directions or backgrounds, in which animosity, if any, is largely incidental. In such cases, both charity and good sense demand that we hold our fire long enough to understand the values and principles which have led to a contradictory statement. We need to determine, first, whether we’ve missed something significant in either our own thoughts or, as is quite likely, in our own brief comments on the subject at hand. Second, we must discover the strengths and weaknesses of this rival point of view so that we can address the comments reasonably, and even generously.
And third, precisely as a matter of charity, we are called to discern the motivation of our would-be opponent so that we can figure out whether there is something incomplete, weak or broken which cries out for help and healing. Who knows if Our Lord might choose to bestow a grace here through an unworthy servant—through you or me—if we can but hold ourselves open for the task.
This readiness to be used as a means of grace is admittedly difficult to maintain. We are proud, which translates into an excessive attachment to our own ideas, along with a corresponding contempt for contrary ideas and those who express them. And because we are proud, we are also very prickly, taking offense easily, and prone to unseemly distress when contradicted. We seem to be able to recognize the absurdity of such reactions only when we have no stake in the game.
Those of us with dogmatic personalities—and that includes many who take the Faith seriously in a hostile culture—have an additional spiritual hurdle, because we so often confuse our commitment to God’s principles with our own self-importance as God’s spokesmen. This can lead to a habit of self-righteous indignation, as if we must denounce others in defense of Christ, though to be sure He has already indicated His complete willingness to suffer disrespect in order to win hearts. This is usually a case of the servant not really following the Master.
Moreover, we have a tendency to assume that because we know we are right about some things—namely, the dogmas of the Faith—therefore we must be right about everything. But because we have the privilege of accepting the truths of Catholicism, it does not follow that our pastoral preferences are infallible, or our political insight, or our social theories, or our ability to separate truth from falsehood in other fields, or even our spiritual perception. Why then do we pronounce as Catholics on virtually everything under the sun with the same certainty which we ought to reserve for the most basic precepts of the catechism? How easily do all men and women assume the rightness of their own judgments! But in Catholics, who ought to know that they depend at all times on the most generous gifts of God, this belief in our own perfection is a particularly offensive fault.
Here’s a sobering thought: The next person to contradict us (or to contradict the Church) may actually be at an early stage of his own interior journey home. Now it just so happens that, for better or worse, in almost every discussion we ourselves represent home. A harsh word now may drive this person away. A good rule of thumb is that we need to know someone extremely well and have a pre-existing relationship with him if we are to be in any position to speak harshly, and then only as a last resort. We dare not break the bruised reed or quench the smoldering wick (Is 42:3; applied to Christ in Mt 12:20). But I know I have done it. Have you?
Therefore, as we begin a new year and consider our own resolutions, I’d like to recommend that we all strive to discuss the issues that animate CatholicCulture.org with greater charity. I don’t mean so much on the website itself, for we have precious little opportunity for discussion here, except for just a bit of it in Sound Off! or via email. I am referring instead to the deliberate and persistent cultivation of charity in our discussions with those who are not part of the CatholicCulture.org family.
Our purpose—the purpose of all those who take seriously the issues presented through CatholicCulture.org—is to enrich faith, strengthen the Church and form Catholic culture. These tasks are, inescapably, oriented toward others. None of this can be done without love and, in most cases, the first opportunity to show love is in how we talk with others.
Charity in discussion: This could easily be the most important thing we accomplish in 2012 and beyond.
Jeff Mirus
And Father Dawid at the Christmas Family Mass:
45 comments:
Comments:
Started On Line Banking? Way to go! You can also get rid of your bell-bottom trousers.
Married priests: I know of a few really good ones. I am a little concerned that their influx be viewed as further evidence of the need to drop celibacy requirements for priests, generally. Or like the California bishop with the kids, just an excuse to attack the Faith. But not that much concerned.
And attacks on the Faith: Pin and I have discussed this before. I think that many of the most virulent attackers are actually beginning their journey and WANT to find a fit in themselves for faith and more often than not, our Church. It is, IMLTHO, evidence of an internal struggle that boils out of them. Christopher Hitchens comes to mind. I think he wanted to believe and was struggling to find a path he could take. And a small dose of mental illness thrown in. Maybe even possession? Yikes.
rcg
I think married popes might be worth considering. After all, the tradition started with a few...
Enjoy your vacation!
Married priests: I wonder how many "former" Catholic priests with wives and children there are in the U.S. Perhaps extend an invitation for them to return to the Church and ministry now too.
Well, Ignotus, I'm there is some girl out there who would like to play "The Thornbirds" with you...LOL!
I agree with RCG that this will probably be seen as a chink in the armor of priestly celibacy. The modernists will capitalize on it and, like I said in a previous post about this Episcopalian thing,it will cause trouble. I know someone tried to encourage me that all those coming over were orthodox, and that is encouraging, but it is the baggage they bring with them that is the problem. Now, they even have Ignotus wanting a girlfriend...
Don't worry, Pin, one thing I can say about the future with total confidence - Ignotus will NEVER be Pope!
How could married priests afford a family? Don't they make to little?
A shorter answer for how we're saved could be by Grace which could have created a discussion if y'all had time.
I saw a show on TV that featured the Jesuit priest who founded "Homeboy Industries" as a vehicle to reduce gang violence. He's doing wonderful work in a horribly gang infested area of Los Angeles. He's been shot at several times, even while on the steps of the church after Sunday Mass.
I have to ask, how many married men- especially those with children- priests *voluntarily* would work in this sort of area?
Celibacy frees a man to get down and dirty in the trenches to do God's work in dangerous areas where a married man's obligations would not.
Qwikness, We were all saved at Calvary. We've spent 2000 years arguing the details...we call this "theology." LOL!
Fatherhood is a full time job, with 8 hours of over time daily, and 8 hours of being on call daily. You are a Priest, to a very small flock, to whom you are responsible for everything secular and spiritual. It's completely incompatible with the Ordained Priesthood. It's like having two flocks. Which one would take priority?
qwikness: he puts his ol' lady to work!! Otherwise, his house keeper and secretary do it.
We had a local priest who got held up while doing his work with the poor. Scared the poor guy witless. He even talked about it in his homily, once.
rcg
I am on the mailing list of a fellow Catholic who strongly opines that accepting married Anglican priests is a huge mistake and is a "slap in the face" of the faithful Catholic priests who have embraced celibacy. I'm not so sure I agree. I can't help but think of the parable about the workers who all started work at different times of the day, yet were paid the same wage.
I personally knew a former Episcopal priest who was married and had been a deacon for years before he was given a dispensation by JPII for ordination. He was orthodox to a fault and one of the better priests in the diocese. He went on to teach at the Franciscan University of Steubenville--he probably was getting TOO orthodox for the diocese!
Yet while I don't particularly have a problem with married men exiting other denominations to become priests, I think there has to be a limit and I favor a celibate priesthood. We really don't want to have the Protestant problem of parishes paying wages to support families and the "reverend's kids" being under the microscope. I also believe that a celibate priesthood reflects the "alter Christus" life of a priest who offers himself as a sacrifice and is really married to the Church. Most of the truly great priests I have known were outstanding because they were not tied down to anything except their commitment to God. If these men had been married, it would have been grossly unfair to the wife and children, because they would never have time for them. The married priest I mentioned above was not ordained until his children were grown.
I think the bigger problem is clearing up and cleaning out the misconceptions about celibacy that have been taught in many post-Vatican II seminaries. I have read about and interviewed seminarians who have testified that they were taught wildly divergent ideas about celibacy, including "all it meant was that we cannot marry--but we CAN have relationships", the idea that it means priests can indulge in homosexual relationships because only men and women marry, or the horror of seminaries that simply overlook the sexual activity of the students. The result of this has been devastating. Probably every one of us, even in the most rural parishes, knows of a priest who left the priesthood because of his involvement with a woman. Albert Cutie of Miami is a recent example. Even worse are the priests who persist in a double life. Eugene Marino, the late Archbishop of Atlanta, admitted after his resignation that he had been SECRETLY MARRIED to the woman who brought his vocation down. And just yesterday it was revealed that Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Zavala of Los Angeles had two teenage sons living in another state with a woman he had a longterm relationship with. AND THE ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES HAS ALREADY PUBLICLY COMMITTED TO PAYING FOR EACH BOYS' COLLEGE EDUCATION!
Now this is just two bishops. I shudder to think how many priests have kept their parishioners in the dark about the their own secret lives.
We all have human weaknesses and we have to support our priests. We don't support them by turning a blind eye, but we best support them with prayer, hospitality and friendship. The priesthood is a lonely, draining job and if our priests are burned out and isolated for too long, the temptations they face can become overwhelming.
Does this make their kids sons of bishops?
Robert Kumpel, Well, it does not say whether the workers in the vineyard were celibate or not...I don't think the parable applies in the case of married Priests. It is more about true belief.
I am telling you that the more married Priests are allowed, the more people are going to say "what the Hell, it doesn't matter anymore." This is deliberate liberal/progressive strategy and human nature among the rest. The Church,in the modern world,has always been somewhat naive in dealing with those who want to destroy her. It won't be long before somebody makes accomodations for somebody else, like a woman deacon or certain types of birth control. The wall will crumble slowly, but this stuff needs to be stopped.
If there were not such a concentrated and systematic war against the traditional Church and devout Catholics, we might be able to accomodate certain things like the Episcopal thing or maybe altar girls and more visible roles for women in the Mass. But, all of these things are used by the Enemy and seen as weaknesses. When you are under serious attack, you do not give quarter nor do you ask for it. This well-intended openness toward other denominations has become like negotiating with terrorists. It is a losing game. This may sound extreme, but it really is just common sense. I saw first hand from inside what happened to protestantism. It is coming to a Catholic Church near you. No one, from the Pope down, has the political courage to stop it. The actions needed would be considered by the rabble (which is pretty much everybody outside the Church)to be to extreme. "Why do the heathen rage..." Now, I will wait (sadly) to play Cassandra...
I'm with Pin again.
"No compromise with the main
purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong.” - Winston Churchill
The Church needs leaders like that. Better we should be martyred in the ashes of our Churches than sitting around making nicey nicey with the Devil.
Given that of the two married priests Monsignor McDonald mentioned in his post, I am the one still striving with the Church Militant, I offer these humble thoughts after almost 16 years a priest and almost 25 years a husband and parent.
1. Celibacy should be the norm in the Catholic priesthood for practical reasons.
2. However, there is no dogmatic reason for mandatory celibacy or for a married priesthood. The Melkite bishops have stated this in public already.
3. From the beginning there have been married deacons and priests in the Church.
4. Both marriage and celibacy in the priesthood are gifts from God, equally wonderful but different. They are different ways to serve the Church and neither are opposed to the priesthood. They are just different expressions of the same vocation to the priesthood.
5. They both include beautiful divine grace and require profound sacrifices. To say that one sacrifices more than another or that there are greater divided loyalties in one and not another is to continue to artificially divide the vocation of celibate priest and married priest. In reality it is one vocation.
6. Some comments posted failed to see that a good priest assigned to be a pastor of a large parish with heavy administrative duties may also have divided loyalties between say providing direction for his spiritual children and balancing the parish budget. This balancing act is just part of the "job description" re the priesthood. A married priest has certain responsibilities that a celibate does not have and a celibate has some that a married does not have.
7. The implication that allowing a married priesthood is leaving the door opened a bit for the entrance of heresy is like saying that consuming the Eucharist at Mass is leaving the door open for gluttony. It assumes that a married priesthood is naturally an evil but then it begs the question. Just because something can be used for evil doesn't mean that is IS evil.
8. My wife and I both support the celibate priesthood as the norm (she a cradle Catholic). I see however, that a married priest would be a great asset to the Church in ministries such as health care(me), schools, prisons, and the military. It allows the celibate priests to focus on parishes and other ministries.
Blessings, Fr. Miguel
Syllogism:
1) I am a very successful Husband
2) I earn almost 4 time the national average income
3) I can have four wives.
Yowzaw! Do they have to be in the same state?
Respectfully this is linked, IMO, to the same concerns of syncretism, homosexuality, etc. We confuse some level, perhaps ANY level, of tolerance for acceptance. I was explaining this to a coworker this morning, that latitude is given to those who use it well.
BTW, there are an awful lot of posts going on for a person who is supposed to be on vaction and said he would not be posting. Is it raining where you are, Frajm?
rcg
Awww to Fr. Dawid with the kids!
I purposely have not read any of the comments, I couldn't finish the excerpt from Mr. Mirus, it got to be too long...
I once had this conversation a couple of years ago with a Priest about allowing the Episcopal Priests married coming into the Catholic Church. He wanted to know what I thought, I said I am not sure if I could handle a married Priest in my Parish being Pastor, because to me the Priest is married to the Church she is his bride. I had been married at that time for 34 years. Two wives?? How do you separate the devotion to your Church wife from your earthly wife? Could the two become intertwined to become 'one' When you marry a person you become 'ONE' Doesn't a Priest become 'ONE' with the Church when he is ordained? Can a Priest combine the two 'Church wife' with 'earthly wife' ?? I feel the Priest is married to the Church and his family is the congregation. Would there ever be a time the wife you sleep with becomes first over your Church wife? What if, Priest would be put in a situation where he would have to choose between earthly wife and Church wife, he concedes to earthly wife and Church wife and family is left on the wayside? No, maybe this is selfish but I am not certain I would want to be put in a 'what if situation!' Could I ever accept this to maybe never happen? Earthly wife can make (earthly) Priest's life miserable. In other words, the earthly wife says but, but, but... then Priest gives into her and she wins over Church wife! If Priest doesn't have an earthly wife then this scenario would never occur, he only has devotion to his first love the Church and it would never have be a contest or compromise!
Men devote their lives to being a Catholic Priest to serve the Church and it's people, sacrificing a family life with an earthly partner and children, he is Father, husband to Church and parent to many!
Something to ponder!
This would mean Fr. Albert Cutie could technically come back into the Church! Someone who in good consceince ignored his vows all because of his 'love' for his earthly mistress who is now his wife. Something is wrong with this picture! Could the Catholic Church open him with open arms now?
Now I want to see what everyone else said!
WOW ! All interesting posts. pin sometimes you crack me up!
I'm sorry even though Fr. Miguel makes a good argument and lists 8 of them! I don't think I will ever be able to remove the idea from my head "A Priest is married to the Church" and if he is then how can he have two wives!!!! Patricia
Well, Patricia, I wasn't attempting to be funny...at least, not in my last post. However, the idea of Ignotus at a singles bar is somewhat amusing...
Fr. Miguel, I said nothing about the married priesthood opening the door to heresy. I view heresy as having to do with doctrinal beliefs, theological error, etc. Celibacy, I do not believe, is dogma (correct me if I am wrong).
But, none of your well-stated reasons address the fact that this will be used by the enemies of the Church to great advantage. Besides, you have a pretty obvious bias....
With respect, one would expect a Married Priest to say how grand and great it is, and the mere fact that it needs to be defended implies just how much of a distraction it would be.
I'm curious if the Church permitted it before Vatican II and all the great days of spring time and sun shine we enjoy.
To pin it was the comment about the kids I thought it was a play on words ?
sons of bishops ... It made me smile! was it not suppose to ? :-)
To clarify my last post, I didn't mean did the Church allow Married Priests before V2, what I meant was did the Church allow Prot Priests to get ordained into the Catholic Church and remained married.
Patricia, It was indeed a play on words. LOL!
Templar, Not all prots...probably just Whiskeypalians because of their liturgical practice. Actually, Anglican theology is way more off-base than, say, Lutheran or Calvinist. Plus, Lutherans have the same liturgical background. In fact, a high Lutheran Mass (if you can find one) looks like ours.
While we are on the Anglicans, why in the Hell is the Catholic Church holding hands with a church that was founded on adultery, murdered Catholic Priests and kicked the rest out of England,stole the Church's land and buildings and all their assets, and banned Catholicism for...what...200 years?
I mean, all the Lutherans did was gripe about indulgences (rightly so)and fuss about some theological issues, and the Calvinists have as tightly structured doctrine as the Church and one that is much more negotiable because it is so well-defined. Hell, nobody knows what the Episcopalians believe including their theologians, who vacillate between some Neo-Platonist philosophy and the tree-hugging, dope smoking Unitarian Universalists down by Castro Street....Sheesh!
And I might add, have an legally based anti-Catholic hold on the government of England.
But rather than bash English, as much fun as that is, I think this is a natural evolution and opportunity for the Church to reassert itself in Truth for the UK and the affected groups, worldwide. This is incredibly powerful and what I call in my business, a leverage point. Think how maligned the Church has been in the English speaking world. Apologetics have to start with correcting fundamentally wrong preconceptions that are put in place to confuse people. Much of this is actually official from governments. If the ministers and bishops that have been a part of this misinformation campaign realise their errors and correct them. Then the governments will have a less legitimate basis for their persecutions. Additionally, it would form a clear line where populist and cynical political objectives can no longer seek moral justification. For by the act of the Pommies finally rejecting that hogwash and seeking forgiveness from God rather than justification for their preferences they place God first. And that, but the way is the biggest single reason I prefer ad Orientem.
rcg
Regarding Married priests...
I gotta side with the Church on this one.
Holy Mother Church has found an appropriate way to handle the situation.
So what if it is used against us?
The Church doesn't do or not do things based on how it will be used against us. Jesus certianly didn't do that.
Regrding Fr. Dawid...one thing he repeated to the children several times was that when you let Jesus into your heart, then you will see the miracle happen.
It was refreshing to hear a Cathoic priest come out and point blank say that.
Was he speaking to only the children gathered at his feet??
~SqueekerLamb
Squeeker, I should have your attitude about this, but I don't. The Church is under seige from within and without, and I believe she is worth defending. That means being wary of her enemies and the methods they employ, as well as searching ourselves to be sure we do not do things to make their triumph easier.
One of my former theology professors, whom I still visit, suggested that perhaps we are called to allow the Church to cease to exist because we refuse to resist. Perhaps we should just become that "tiny remnant" out in the desert somewhere, trusting that God will vindicate us and the Church. I just do not agree with that. We are commanded to resist evil, to "hate evil and love the good." The NT has too many strong exhortations to defend the Faith and combat evil for me to accept that passive, defeatist stance. The Church has always, up to now anyway, vigorously fought against her attackers and preachers of false doctrine. She would not have done so if she had not believed it was God's will for her to do so. What has changed?
So, again, I am suspicious of all this ecumenical good will and where it might lead. However, I wish I could trust myself to feel as you do.
I concur with SL and Pin on this. Pin is the sort of person who takes things head on. This is a good trait for an icon, but dangerous as a strategy because it allows the enemy to maneuver you into a position where he is strongest.
SL has faith that the Church would not put us in harms way. The complementary (Yin and Yang, i.e.) nature of this is that we defer direct confrontation intelligently until we are in the position to use restrained strength. The downside is that we have often taken positions as a Church based on poor a understanding of Charity, or Liberality. That is is Pin's caution. Once burned, twice shy.
rcg
RCG, a concise and fair assessment..except for the David Carradine language...LOL!
RealCatholicTV has a great video today on this very subject, the two differing strategies or approaches to things. Since it's football playoff season a football analogy is used. God Bless Michael Voris for his continued efforts in Proclaiming The One True Faith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKKn4DgoPRM&list=UUsUgCCaaOfESPA4REUfZ33g&index=1&feature=plcp
Though I agree that the celibate Priest should be the norm, I must chime in here & say that married priest, Fr Daniel Munn, was one of the most amazing, dedicated, loving & larger than life priests I EVER had the honor of knowing.
His love for his flock far exceeded MANY celibate Priests I have known, as did his work ethic & daily schedule. Fr Munn ALWAYS had time for his people & his wife Jan was given a grace that allowed him to minister fully. There was never a time when I felt that Fr Munn had 'other' pressing obligations at home & hearth when I was in his presence.
I know this does not speak for all situations, but I had the privilege of having this married Priest as my confessor & Spiritual Director & my life as a Catholic is richer for it.
Fr Munn - I miss you still... - pgal
I know, pgal, but the personality of the Priest is not the issue. I have no doubt at all that there are married Priests who are devout, passionate, and excellent pastors. In my years as a Presbyterian minister, I knew many Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Methodist preachers who were every bit as devout and dedicated as Catholioc Priests. Let's bring them in, too, then.
I can't wait 'til you get back. I need my Southern Order Fix.
I echo that last post from "pgal" Anonymous! We knew and were directed by Fr. Munn for 30+ years before his death. He ALWAYS had time, especially when he discerned he was most needed (awesome confessor!) IN ADDITION to supporting his family with full-time hospital pastoral employment.
Fr. Miguel, now in Atlanta, likewise has never hesitated to offer his time. He did/does evening teachings, counseling, confessions-on-demand (awesome confessor!), etc. IN ADDITION to supporting his family with full-time hospital pastoral employment.
Our family has found no priest to replace these two gifted men. Many unmarried priests we have known/now know simply "have no time" period...no explanations and no regrets. In fact, recently a priest told my husband that unless he was tithing at that church, the priest had no time for him. Go figure...
In that last post I should have said that we have found no ROMAN Catholic priest to replace Fr. Munn and Fr. Miguel. There is, however, an incredible Eastern Catholic priest in the area...!
Jenny, Protestant pastors have been doing the same thing for years. Supporting large families, giving extra time to Church, showing great compassion and patience, making personal sacrifices, and keeping up their theological and homiletical studies. By these criteria, I know a number of Baptist and Presbyterian ministers who, with a little liturgical training, would make excellent Priests. You can be sure the modernizers in the Church will point this out...Now, once this wall is down, there are a large number of ordained female Protestant ministers who are dedicated, devout, and passionate about their ministry for the Lord. Halleluja! I mean, we have wives in the rectory now, they are active in the Church running various programs and supporting their husband Priests, they are very devout...why, shucks, what is so bad about an ordained woman, after all? Oh, and look, I know Bruce is gay, but he has been an ordained Lutheran minister for years, he knows the liturgy, he is devout, diligent, and he just loves the young people...and, look, don't you think the Church is just a bit overboard on this birth control thing. I mean, look, John was an Episcopalian minister before he became a Catholic Priest and the 'palians never fussed about abortion...
I am telling you, it is coming....keep blurring those lines...go ahead.
Pin, you keep making assumptions like this "domino theory" of yours and you are well on the way to declaring yourself more in charge than the Holy Father. He is, after all, the one in charge...
Jenny, I have no illusions about having any control over anything. You seem to want to say that it is presumptuous of me to be critical of this phenomenon. I am merely pointing out the likely difficulties that will follow on the well-intended ecumenical overtures. After all, it was a Pope who presided over Vat II and all of its well-intended decisions.
I stand with the Church on this one, too. Both celibate and married priests are accepted and acceptable.
What many question is the requirement that the majority Latin Rite priests be celibate. As in the case of Fr. Munn, and many other married Latin Rite priests, it is plain that marriage and priestly ministry are not mutually exclusive. Nor does their presence lead to the ordination of women. If it did, we'd have been ordaining the Fairer Sex since the time of Peter.
If women were the Fairer Sex I would have a greater say in where our family spends our money.
There is a 'slippery slope' that can be seen when you compare the almost libertine abuses in liturgy since V-II and the 1900 years of deliberate and thoughtful changes prior to that. The Church has dealt with these by allowing for very visible and important positions for celibate, married, female, male, etc. Another analogy is thin ice: you can cross it once, if you hurry. If you stay there you'll die.
rcg
Peter's Mother Ignotus, etc., It isn't about a cause and effect relationship between married priests and ordaining women (struggle not to insert "dummy" here). It is about the overall blurring of lines that allows for liberties of various kinds to be taken. The increased presence of women in active roles (check with prot churches about preacher's wives)will lead to a softening of the overall perception of women in the church. Many of the abuses that evolved from Vat II were not simple cause and effect phenomena; they were the result of a deconstructionist mindset created by the loosening of forms and the weakening of boundaries. You know this...quit playing dumb.
Pin - You speak of the "increased presence of women in active roles" in the Church as if it were a bad thing. I think it is not.
This was a boundary that was rightly broken, as women and men share equal dignity as Baptized Christians.
I don't share your "slippery slope" perspective since, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, the Church had had married priests since the beginning. So, if there is a "slippery slope," Jesus himself nudged us in that direction be choosing a married man as the first pope.
Ignotus, It is a bad thing given the context in which it is occuring and the manner in which it will be used by people like you and other Vat II myrmidons.
Men and women may share equal dignity as baptized Christians, but they have different roles and specific limitations.
Jesus did not choose Peter because he was married. That is merely incidental. At some point, the Church decided that married Priests was a bad thing.
If you want a girlfriend, go join the Baptist church. Think of the attention and praise you would get as a former Catholic Priest who saw the light. You could have all kinds of little Ignoti running around the house squalling and growing up to be as obnoxious as you. Hey...quickies before church...groping on the back stairs...a rockin' rectory. LOL!
Post a Comment