Married...with collars
I didn't think I'd get to this topic as soon as this. But having taken my latest theology class, and having done some very deep thinking regarding God, the persons of the Trinity, Christ and his redemptive action on our behalf, and the purpose of the Church in the work of Christ, I have been prompted to continue my pondering on WHY women are denied ordination in the Roman Catholic Church.
What really perplexes me is the dilemma of who receives the sacrament of Holy Orders and, paradoxically, who we call "religious." So, according to my understanding, monks, brothers, and (obviously) nuns are not ordained; that is, they do not receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Yes, they do take vows-- as do all married persons. Therefore, our vocations could be viewed on a similar "level." Going on from this point, deacons DO receive the sacrament of Holy Orders, and these MEN are frequently married. Are they being called to a greater level of service in the Church than the non-ordained religious? Or married people?
As good Catholics, we promote the "religious life". I have the perception that this is somehow a more "noble" calling than our ordinary lives. But we're not celebrating these with a special sacrament. So, in this respect, are their vocations "less" than the married state, which IS celebrated with a sacrament? And, really, what's up with married deacons? TWO sacraments of vocation for them?
Somehow, all of this does not seem to make logical sense. Not that all Church "policy" does. Still, some consistency in what we say and what we do would be nice.
What really perplexes me is the dilemma of who receives the sacrament of Holy Orders and, paradoxically, who we call "religious." So, according to my understanding, monks, brothers, and (obviously) nuns are not ordained; that is, they do not receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Yes, they do take vows-- as do all married persons. Therefore, our vocations could be viewed on a similar "level." Going on from this point, deacons DO receive the sacrament of Holy Orders, and these MEN are frequently married. Are they being called to a greater level of service in the Church than the non-ordained religious? Or married people?
As good Catholics, we promote the "religious life". I have the perception that this is somehow a more "noble" calling than our ordinary lives. But we're not celebrating these with a special sacrament. So, in this respect, are their vocations "less" than the married state, which IS celebrated with a sacrament? And, really, what's up with married deacons? TWO sacraments of vocation for them?
Somehow, all of this does not seem to make logical sense. Not that all Church "policy" does. Still, some consistency in what we say and what we do would be nice.
posted by CAL at
10:57 PM
13 Comments:
i can understand why you are asking why to this, i have before, and still do from time to time.
my understanding on the issue is that nuns, brothers, and monks are all lay people who decided to take particular vows. you know, the three big callings, priestly, married, and lay (am i spelling lay right?). anyway, the way that i have always understood it is that all three of these callings are on the same level, and whether or not you receive one does not put you any higher up than anyone else in the eyes of God. In the eyes of society on the other hand.... I think that there is a great misconception about priest, nun, brother, monk, or deacon, that is when someone is one of these people assume that a person is somehow "more holy" than someone else. this is not to discredit these positions and say that they are not holy, all this is saying is that some of people who i would identify as holy do not fall into under any of those titles.
This problem of perception is an odd one though, how do you make people see that attaching a title to a name like father or brother or sister/mother does not make someone holy automatically? i guess that this is my response to the part about a “higher” calling. plus.... when i think about it i guess i see the whole group of people nuns, brothers, and monks as receiving special graces that while not of a specific sacrament per say are still amazing. i say this because... well think about it... to go your entire life under a vow of celibacy and stick it out, now you may just say, “a typical male response” but really, sexuality, especially in today’s culture is an amazingly strong thing, to go your whole life keeping that in check, male or female you are not doing that one without some kind of Grace. so i guess my feelings on this come out as “they got the short end of the stick”. i mean, just because they are not ordained or celebrated as a sacrament does not mean they are any less Holy, or righteous in the eyes of the Lord. i feel that i am rambling......
finally, deacons..... that’s a good question, i have never really put much thought into it. the way i have always learned about sacraments is that they are a gift from God, kinda like Grace (which is bestowed through the sacraments).
i learned this year in my theology class that the two big sacraments for Catholics are Baptism, and the Eucharist; that is not to say that the others are not important. but, what i am trying to get at is this.... if i go my whole life with out ever receiving the anointing of the sick does that make me any less than someone who has? now i know this was not your question, and I know you are talking about sacraments of vocation, but i guess i am identifying marriage, holy orders, and say... the anointing of the sick under the same thing, sacraments. So I guess i just see it as more of a good thing that can be lived without. I mean, you don’t need to be married to go to heaven, you don’t need to be ordained, and you do not need to be anointed while on your death bed either, you can do without, so.... what’s the big deal if a deacon receives both? in what i understand to be a deacons job there would be nothing to prevent him from receiving both.
that’s what i was thinking, this may, or may not be a response to your questions, so don’t strike me down for what i have said, these are just my thoughts based on what i know and understand right now in my life.
By
Eric Michael Peterson, at 10:07 PM
Ah Eric... a vow of celibacy or a vow of monogomy. Which is harder?
By
CAL, at 10:37 PM
Well that all depends on who you're being monogomous with. Duh...
By
Matthew B. Novak, at 10:55 PM
well, i guess that all depends on if you are with someone you really love in the first place. i think that is why so many people get divorced, they do not really fully understand what love is and they rush into marriage and then they are like "this is it, this is all i have to look forward to for the rest of my life!" so then you get sky rocketing divorce rates, or people who are going to "stick it out" with each other who really hate each other and are probably going to be cheating on each other.
im still going to bank on the side of celibacy as the harder one.
By
Eric Michael Peterson, at 5:27 AM
So the only real reason that you can't marry if you are a priest is so that you can focus on whatever it is a priest does. I get distracted by girls, whether it be friends or more than friends, all the time and it is hard to focus on school and what not. If I couldn't do that school would be so easy. I mean look at deacons. They can marry BUT they can't do all the same stuff priests can. So that is the only real logic I can think of that priest can't marry.
By
Kendrick Novak, at 8:36 AM
if i remember correctly priests haven't been allowed to marry for something like 700 years. that number may be very wrong, but i thought that it hasn't been as long as most people think. i think they stopped allowing priests to marry because of land issues. they would marry a preist to the daughter of noble folks because they would then gain control of an area, back when priests were governmental leaders not just religious leaders. again, this may all be very very wrong, i haven't slept more than 4 hours a night in the last 6 days so please be forgiving...
By
Alan, at 12:13 PM
yeah, i think what you are saying is right alan, i thought it was something like 500 years though, right around the time of the reformation. anyway, i think that the reason was also due to priests and bishops, when they were more than just religious leaders appointing family members to important roles. at least i think i remember hearing that.
By
Eric Michael Peterson, at 11:12 PM
Nepotism, that's what that's called. We learned 3 isms that had to do with the church, but that's the only one I remember. And yeah, both of those reasons are right. They stopped allowing priests to marry due to non-religious issues.
By
empeterson, at 9:05 AM
I think the three church "isms" are Nepotism, Exorcism, and Great Schism.
By
Matthew B. Novak, at 2:16 PM
Canon Law ~ ever heard of it! It's really kool to read pick up the book and start reading - wow what u can find in it.!
Today my 5th grade church class had their party for the year and one of them again ask why I want to be a priest, and in the same ? they ask why can't priest get married. So, I respond like I always do. "I will do God's will and His will only", part 2 of this is Marriage well if u think about this why was Jesus single ummm... PURE ! You must remain 'pure' to live with Christ. If you are not pure then how by means do u teach the Catholic faith and while u are living with your family and lying to them.!!
Since I have choose to accept God's call to the Formation of the Catholic Priesthood when I was only 3 years old. I have been to this day - been single and free of all lust or (despires*) to have a true date (girlfriend) I have a few girl-friends that I hang out with and even some guys friends. The world in today's life think of catholic priest or ppl that would like to enter the priesthood has either "gay, bi-sexual, or even homo's - out to get their kids". Man - hate to broke the news but God sent His only Son to be man and born into this world of sin. Then I believe we the few can achive a priestly life style of happeniess with Him.
Now has catholic preist married that answer is yes from the Ordex* catholic churches and transfer into the Roman Catholic Church then yes u can remain faithful to your call and your family. We have 2 family Catholic Priest that live in Scottdale, AZ and I have had the prilvage to have lunch with them on 2 diffrent days and WOW. Greatest ppl I have know has friends.
So, to end this I will have to say if you have dated or go from girl to girl or boy to boy basic on your gender of course. Then maybe you need to start going to Holy Hour and ask Jesus able a vocation into the life of Christ.
I remain in you,
Servent of Christ,
M.J. Leyden :)
"Style in Fashion; Live by Flesh"
By
Unknown, at 12:20 AM
"part 2 of this is Marriage well if u think about this why was Jesus single ummm... PURE ! You must remain 'pure' to live with Christ. If you are not pure then how by means do u teach the Catholic faith and while u are living with your family and lying to them.!!"
ok, i have a few small problems with that mj, one.... ever here of augustine? an amazing church father, and guess what, the man was married, in fact most of his life was spent living with different women in illegitimate relationships, so how does he fit into your assessment of teaching the Catholic Faith? also, look around, all though history, some of the wisest teachers of Church doctrine and faith have had spouses? i do not agree with your assessment that you can not be "pure" and be married, all be it that you are not as "pure" as say a someone who has never engaged in such acts, but to say that doing so makes you less adept to Christ and his Church i think is an ignorant claim. my second problem is this, how, and to whom, are you lying to when you teach about the Church and are married?
By
Eric Michael Peterson, at 10:24 PM
I just want to suggest to you all that sex within a sacramental marriage is PURIFYING, and nothing less than holy. To be able to join God in a creative act... WOW! So, yeah, I'm not with you on that one MJ.
I'm not convinced that priests shouldn't be allowed to marry. Just as (as you can probably tell) I'm not totally sure about not allowing women to be priests. I think there should be some theological discussions around these issues.
By
CAL, at 10:33 PM
Ok - I need to say sorry and finish up a post I did like @ 2 am in the morning .... after reading my post and the post after it I have forgot to write/discuss about the of the most puries* sacraments that is
Matrimony - by which a man and woman are able to fulfill the will of God and create with his help children of the world....
I'm sorry I forgot this.
Matrimony is ok -
By
Unknown, at 8:02 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home