Submitting To Church Teachings

[Guest]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1860390' date='May 7 2009, 12:33 AM']Sorry to hijack again but I just had to bring up this article regarding what you're talking about.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea2.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea2.asp[/url][/quote]

Thanks for this. I found this insightfull :

The Associated Press reported that 250 priests had been dismissed or had resigned by the time the bishops met last June, though it is not clear that all of the dismissals and resignations were due to abuse. Even if all 250 priests were abusers, it would still amount to about one-half of one percent (0.53 percent) of the 47,000 priests currently serving in America, a proportion far smaller than in most media accounts. Since some of the allegations involved priests who are now dead, the proportion of offenders within today's priesthood is significantly smaller than one-half of one percent. Nevertheless, the numbers are profoundly disturbing.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1860186' date='May 6 2009, 11:32 PM']Actually no, they are not forced. If a man is called to Holy Matrimony, and the Priesthood, he can get married first, then join one of the rites of the Church that allows a married man to become a priest. The same flawed logic accuses the Church of forcing women to be second class by not allowing them to be priestess.[/quote]

I've got a feeling the Eastern Rites don't want to be treated as a place for Roman Catholics to escape the disciplines instituted by our own Latin Rite.

A man who thinks God is calling him in two distinct directions needs to learn the virtue of sacrifice.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1860243' date='May 7 2009, 12:07 AM']I would question the motives of a married man that felt called to be a priest, but would not become a deacon.[/quote]

Permanent deacons are not eligible for ordination to the priesthood. Permanent means permanent Of course, a dispensation is possible, but the diaconate is a different ministry from the priesthood.

Not to mention the heavy responsibilities that weigh on married deacons. Most men need to focus on raising their families and maybe after the children are grown they can pursue the diaconate.

[Guest]

[quote name='AdAltareDei' post='1860611' date='May 7 2009, 09:39 AM']Contrast this to my heterosexual cousin who likes Britney Spears and The Pussycat Dolls.[b] Now THATS disordered.[/b][/quote]


Whoa hey now those are my homegirls. I love the pcd's song "I hate this part"
Chill with that bro.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1860642' date='May 7 2009, 10:21 AM']Well, that's Jansenism... the reason your friend can't enter seminary isn't because he's not nice enough, it's because he's a Jansenist heretic. there might be some Jansenist tendencies among many traditionalists, but such hard-core Jansenism is very very rare in traditionalism.

now, lighter types of Jansenist trends exist among the thought processes of many traditionalists, but that usually just arises out of a bit of scrupulosity applied to a larger paradigm, since the scrupulous are often attracted to the traditional movement. but those Jansenist trends tend to give way to an acknowledgment that truly repentant attitudes are always to be received by the Church with mercy and forgiveness.[/quote]

Exactly.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1860642' date='May 7 2009, 09:21 AM']Well, that's Jansenism... the reason your friend can't enter seminary isn't because he's not nice enough, it's because he's a Jansenist heretic. there might be some Jansenist tendencies among many traditionalists, but such hard-core Jansenism is very very rare in traditionalism.

now, lighter types of Jansenist trends exist among the thought processes of many traditionalists, but that usually just arises out of a bit of scrupulosity applied to a larger paradigm, since the scrupulous are often attracted to the traditional movement. but those Jansenist trends tend to give way to an acknowledgment that truly repentant attitudes are always to be received by the Church with mercy and forgiveness.[/quote]

He's not a friend of mine. He actually creeps me out a bit. He is also quite irritated that I, a woman, am able to attend the seminary that he isn't. He could enroll and pay the tuition just like I do as a lay student, but he wants to be a seminarian. You have to keep a 3.20 average to remain as a lay student, and only 1.70 as a seminarian. Plus, seminarians don't pay tuition or room and board, their dioceses cover that. Every time he sees me, he grills me with questions on theology trying to trip me up. It's quite entertaining.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1860637' date='May 7 2009, 09:11 AM']Permanent deacons are not eligible for ordination to the priesthood. Permanent means permanent Of course, a dispensation is possible, but the diaconate is a different ministry from the priesthood.

Not to mention the heavy responsibilities that weigh on married deacons. Most men need to focus on raising their families and maybe after the children are grown they can pursue the diaconate.[/quote]
That's beside the point.

I was responding to the idea that allowing married priests would dramatically increase the number of priests.

I recognize that deacons and priests are different. The fact is that married men can be ordained. If married men felt called to serve in the priesthood but refused to serve as a deacon, I would question his motives. Maybe I would be wrong to do so... but that's a different conversation.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1861362' date='May 7 2009, 09:47 PM']You have to keep a 3.20 average to remain as a lay student, and only 1.70 as a seminarian[/quote]
i find this so disturbing

[Ash Wednesday]

I have always had a hard time getting my head around so much suffering, evil and horrific world events all coming about because some woman took the fruit off of a tree and told her man it was good to eat. That act in itself just seems so simplistic compared to all the events of mankind that followed it. To me Adam and Eve's acts smack of sheer stupidity rather than blatant rebellion. Basically you have things like mass-murder and torture because a couple of airheads got jobbed by a serpent.....and ate some forbidden fruit?

I mean, I wasn't there, I don't know what was going on in their heads. Maybe I should go back and read Genesis again. It's entirely possible that because it was written in a different time, Adam and Eve lack the same complexity in the story that I appreciate seeing in figures like Peter. To me it's jumping the gun to doubt something simply because you can't understand it, to be Catholic means to embrace a lot of mysteries (and not just the ones of the rosary...) But I've just always had a hard time totally getting my head around it, save for the concept that perhaps original sin is like a small germ that came to fruition and spread like an awful disease and epidemic. Or a small wayward cigarette butt culminating in a raging forest fire that destroys thousands of acres and people's homes. But it seems like the things that took place in history as a result of the fall in the garden seem more gruesome than the original act itself.

It's not something that affects my faith, I mean it's not like I can get my head around the concept of infinity and eternity, either. That's pretty hard to do when you're confined by time and space as you know it!

Edited May 8, 2009 by Ash Wednesday

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858424' date='May 6 2009, 03:03 AM']also that paralegic men, paralyized from the waist down are not allowed to get married in the catholic church, when Mary never had sex according to the church and was lawfully married to her husband.[/quote]


Hey is this true i did not know that, does not paul state he was married and had a son but after conversion had no more sexual relations with his wife and that he understood that not all could be like this but never said some can't ?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

PAX,
Hey sorry couldn't readall the posts hopefully will soon, am kinda un-well. But with female deaconite is not the wife of a marry deacon part of that deaconite?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1861676' date='May 8 2009, 07:53 AM']I have always had a hard time getting my head around so much suffering, evil and horrific world events all coming about because some woman took the fruit off of a tree and told her man it was good to eat. That act in itself just seems so simplistic compared to all the events of mankind that followed it. To me Adam and Eve's acts smack of sheer stupidity rather than blatant rebellion. Basically you have things like mass-murder and torture because a couple of airheads got jobbed by a serpent.....and ate some forbidden fruit?

I mean, I wasn't there, I don't know what was going on in their heads. Maybe I should go back and read Genesis again. It's entirely possible that because it was written in a different time, Adam and Eve lack the same complexity in the story that I appreciate seeing in figures like Peter. To me it's jumping the gun to doubt something simply because you can't understand it, to be Catholic means to embrace a lot of mysteries (and not just the ones of the rosary...) But I've just always had a hard time totally getting my head around it, save for the concept that perhaps original sin is like a small germ that came to fruition and spread like an awful disease and epidemic. Or a small wayward cigarette butt culminating in a raging forest fire that destroys thousands of acres and people's homes. But it seems like the things that took place in history as a result of the fall in the garden seem more gruesome than the original act itself.

It's not something that affects my faith, I mean it's not like I can get my head around the concept of infinity and eternity, either. That's pretty hard to do when you're confined by time and space as you know it![/quote]

It was simple wasn't it? Don't 'eat' from this 'tree' and you can have anything. Man could not even obey one law.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye' post='1863897' date='May 10 2009, 10:24 PM']Hey is this true i did not know that, does not paul state he was married and had a son but after conversion had no more sexual relations with his wife and that he understood that not all could be like this but never said some can't ?[/quote]

Many people automatically believe that men who are paralyzed can't have sex. Not true at all. In fact, because of a strange twist of spinal nerve physiology, a quadriplegic can often be completely functional, where a paraplegic has much more difficulty because of catheters rather than impotence. If a marriage can't be consummated, then the priest isn't supposed to marry them. Most priests, don't ask because they don't want to be put in a bad situation. When one does, it often leads to bad press and lots of hard feelings. When I was brought in to negotiate in such a case, we worked out an arrangement where the marriage was consummated in the doctor's office. That's also how the ended up conceiving their children. It was completely natural, but they needed the doctor's help with the catheter, and setting up some equipment they needed.

A completely impotent man, can not marry in the church.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1863965' date='May 10 2009, 11:08 PM']Many people automatically believe that men who are paralyzed can't have sex. Not true at all. In fact, because of a strange twist of spinal nerve physiology, a quadriplegic can often be completely functional, where a paraplegic has much more difficulty because of catheters rather than impotence. If a marriage can't be consummated, then the priest isn't supposed to marry them. Most priests, don't ask because they don't want to be put in a bad situation. When one does, it often leads to bad press and lots of hard feelings. When I was brought in to negotiate in such a case, we worked out an arrangement where the marriage was consummated in the doctor's office. That's also how the ended up conceiving their children. It was completely natural, but they needed the doctor's help with the catheter, and setting up some equipment they needed.

A completely impotent man, can not marry in the church.[/quote]
I was told that the "can't be consummated" rule also applies to HIV positive people. Does anyone know if that is actually true?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1863979' date='May 10 2009, 11:20 PM']I was told that the "can't be consummated" rule also applies to HIV positive people. Does anyone know if that is actually true?[/quote]

I haven't heard of any specific rule about that. There's a difference between "can't be consummated" and "shouldn't be." I guess if I was in that situation, I would wait until he had a low viral load, and trust in God to protect me in order to consummate. I'm not sure my spouse would be willing to subject me to it though. On the other hand, technically if you aren't having sex, then I suppose the wedding wouldn't be necessary.

These areas are pretty sticky in the real world. As an example, my husband is very high profile in having schizophrenia, and it is also well known that some of the meds can cause impotence. Our priest didn't ask. He should have, so my husband volunteered that it wasn't a problem. I think most priests just jump over it.