My wife and I have been married 29 years the 9th of September.  In that time we have lived in 3 foreign countries and four different states.  At one time we moved 4 times in 4 years form the Belgium, to Arizona, the Philippines and then to Japan.  And on that move to Philippines is where our family grew by one and then later we added one while we were in Japan.  And I was in the military at the time and always had jobs that kept me from home and required me to work strange hours when I was home.  That puts a lot of stress on any married couple.  It took 110% effort form both of us to keep our family together.

So I really can't see how a priest being devoted to his vocation still find time to fit a married life into a priests busy schedule.  At my parish we are fortunate enough to have two (2) full time priests.  And they both have very full daily schedules.  So where would a wife and children fit in?

Sorry I just can't see a priest making a vocation and a married life work together.  Maintaining a marriage is a full time vocation as it is.

Tarheel

RE: "In the same way, a married Catholic who wishes to become a Priest must submit his intentions along with his wife's intention prior to ordination."

Regards,

Old Sigma (Cradle Catholic & generally inveterate amateur)

noelfitz you are wrong in so many ways and at the moment I haven't the energy so I'll leave to someone else.

 Incidentally who are you to assume you know better then those God has put in charge of the church? Exactly when where you granted the keys of the kingdom ? A catholic is required to attempt to submit to the ordianary teaching athority as well as that which is declared infallably.

humane viate is at least a part of the ordinary teaching and is arguably an infallable teaching.  Futher it did not state anything new , but only re-iterated what had been handed down from the apostles themselves.

 The bible explicitly condems the use of artifical birth control it ( it is considered part of WITCHCRAFT).

 Priestly celebacy is noble and wonderful and there is no proof the celebacy or not contributes to any kind of sexual abuse.

But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man's stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.

A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

This kind of question requires from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection on the principles of the moral teaching on marriage—a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation.

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (3)

In carrying out this mandate, the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses. These documents have been more copious in recent times. (4)

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

yeah, you're right Noel, none of the bold prophecy took the course that Paul VI saw, by the power of the Holy Spirit, that guided him in His promulgation.

It's probably time you read it, don't go by what others say.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Remember, the Sun is always shining!

 Fishman wrote:

Incidentally who are you to assume you know better then those God has put in charge of the church?  

I disagree with Popes in several cases.  I disagree with castrati and I support interest payments and democracy.  Pius IX condemned democracy (Syllabus of Errors).  I even disagree with St Thomas Aquinas.  I believe in the Immaculate Conception. (http://www.aquinas.avemaria.edu/Nova/PDF/Vol_4_3/Abstracts.pdf) I also disagree with Innocent IX who considered it was wrong that the profits of Roman brothels should go to the church and not to his family 

The Pope is infallible on matters or faith and morals to be held by all the faithful. 

There is irony in the fact that sometime ago I condemned (wrongly) CE for going Protestant, when the Mystical Presence was supported rather than the Real Presence.   

I am grateful for David’s long and thoughtful reply.  There is much food for reflection in it.  However most non-Catholics reject the idea of natural law.  

He quotes:

In carrying out this mandate, the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses. These documents have been more copious in recent times. (4) 

The Church has been anti-marriage, pro-virginity, for most of its history.  It is only recently that it is concerned with this topic. Perhaps the key document is Casti Connubii of Pius XI (1930) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

Even Jerome was wrong when he associated marriage with the fall. According to St Gregory of Nyssa (rejected by Thomas Aquinas) marriage follows from sexual differences, which are a consequence of sin.  Prior to Trent, which declared marriage a sacrament, the Church said little about matrimony.    

God bless,


NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
“Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me"

noelfitz you are cherry picking examples.

Augustene and Pual ( I'm less sure about aquanius) were insitant that while celebacy was a 'prefered' state for some purposes that such a statement should never be taken as deragotory of marriage.

When it comes to disagreement with churchmen of the past you are entering into something significantly different then disagreement with current church teaching.  Humane viate is current chruch teaching , it was issued some time ago, but has been restated as late as last year by the committe for the doctrine of the faith and re-iterated by the amercan concile of bishops.

So you are not disagreeing with some past pope in disagreing with it, you are diagreeing with the current one and the offical statements of the bishops of the chruch.

where as I also, do not always agree with everything said by the above entities , i make an effort to change what I believe to match what they teach whenever possible because I must acknowledge that as a whole they are wiser then I.

neol love and peace.

Noel- thank you for the link to the Paul VI encyclical. I truly believe that in him we had a man who trusted in God, believed in Jesus and was guided by the great Paraclete.

By the way, did you provide most of the arguments to the council? ;}

Remember, the Sun is always shining!

David

You ask

By the way, did you provide most of the arguments to the council?

No! They never asked me, but I was young at the time.  

One of the most important conclusions of the Council was the importance of lay involvement in the Church. 

Four Americans are alive who were amont the almost 500 periti at the council, Revs Keeler, Lassard, Cummins and Trisco.  Their recollections are very interesting http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0505792.htm

You might like to look at http://www.catholictradition.org/before-after.htm

The Church has always had dissidents and pre-Vatican II was no different.  Prominent clergy were counted among them, and the names of some were Hans Kung, Dominique Chenu, Edward Schillebeeckx, Henri d Lubac, Karl Rahner, and Yves Congar.  The conceit of dissidents has always been that they alone hold truth, they are more educated, more sophisticated in faith, and even more discerning of the revelations of the Holy Spirit than the Pope and the Magisterium.

As far as I know most of the above were periti at the Council.

God bless,


NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
“Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me"

Noel,

Your position - from post Tue, 09/11/2007 - 4:31pm:

1. I consider it wrong not to allow married priests in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.  It is not good that the man should be alone (NRSV, Gen 1:18).
2. The Pope and the Church allows married priests, if they were formerly Protestant ministers or belonged to a non-Roman rite of the Catholic Church.
3. I think orthodox Jews are wise to insist on married rabbis.
4. The Catholic Church does not have a clue about sex and this has led to the horrendous sexual abuse in the Church.  The result of Humanae Vitae has been the mass exodus from the church, due to a breakdown in the authority of the Church.
5. Catholic priestly celibacy is a matter of discipline not doctrine.
6. Clerical marriage is biblical

My position:

1. I consider it right to require celibacy of our Priests.  1 Cor 7:23-33 He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
2. Though the Protestant ministry is a real path, it is not a path one can plan on.  Not all former Protestant ministers can become Catholic priests.  It is just not as easy as converting to a Protesant denomination, becoming a minister, marrying and then converting back to Catholicism and getting your collar.  It is a case by case basis.  And this case by case decision is not made because the Catholic Church needs priests and will take anyone who holds a Doctorate in Theology and is willing to say that they believe in Transubstantiation.
3. Christ's Priesthood is much different than the Mosaic Priesthood of the Jews.  Christ has fulfilled the law and the prophets.  They are two different entities.  Our Priests live for God's Kingdom and point the way through Christ.
4. You may need to relax on this one.  The truth of Humanae Vitae has not been realized completely yet.  This is a whole nother discussion.
5. True.  And as I started off another recent thread it was Christ who instituted it.  Christ is the archetype of all Priests.  Christ is our saviour and calls each of us individually.
6. Clerical celibacy is biblical:

     A. 1 Cor 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself.  (Paul was celibate for the kingdom and was recommending it to everyone.)
     B. 1 Cor 7:32-33 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
     C. Mt 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Christ speaking in favor of celibacy for the kingdom!)
     E. Lk 6:40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
     F. Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
     G. When Christ sent out the 12 to proclaim the Gospel (Mt 10, Mk 6) he sent them out with nothing and specified that they should take nothing.  Sending his apostles with nothing meant without their wives.  Though Peter was married, Jesus did not send him out with his wife but with another Apostle.  This is not a good way to raise a family or provide for a wife. "Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece."

     H. Christ Himself was celibate.  He is the Word of God.

GK - God is good!