Wed 20th Aug 2014 | Last updated: Wed 20th Aug 2014 at 15:26pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Let dispensed priests play active parish role, Vatican urges bishops

By on Thursday, 29 September 2011

Cardinal Ivan Dias: says dispensed priests should be able to play a greater role in parish life (Photo: PA)

Cardinal Ivan Dias: says dispensed priests should be able to play a greater role in parish life (Photo: PA)

The Vatican has appealed to diocesan bishops to encourage priests who have left ministry in order to get married to play a more active role in parish life.

In a copy of a letter seen by The Catholic Herald Cardinal Ivan Dias, the prefect for the Evangelisation of Peoples in Rome, placed more discretionary power in the hands of bishops for discerning a dispensed cleric’s involvement with parish life. The letter, dated February 2 2011, was sent to a priest, who had written to the congregation on behalf of an Australian missionary society that is seeking a relaxation of the prohibitions on dispensed clergy.

Cardinal Dias wrote of his confidence that the Vatican’s reforms would enable dispensed priests to lead a more active life in the Church as committed Catholics under their bishop’s guidance. The usual mode of laicisation and dispensation from the priestly vow of celibacy is through a “rescript of the Apostolic See”, meaning a response from the Pope or a sacred congregation granting a favour and the conditions upon which it is granted.

The rescript permitting the laicisation of a priest prohibits celebrating Mass, delivering homilies, administering the Eucharist, teaching or working in seminaries and places restrictions on teaching the faith in schools and universities. The cardinal’s letter means that the enforcement of half the prohibitions stipulated in the rescript will now come under the discretion of the local bishop.

Prohibitions that are no longer absolute include teaching theology in schools or universities, both Catholic and non-Catholic, contact with the parish where the priest used to serve and administering the Eucharist.

  • Tomas de Torquemada

    More horrors, courtesy of Vatican II, as virulent apostasy courses through the veins of the Bride of Christ.  Sister Lucy was quite right when she spoke of the “diabolical disorientation” in the Church.  Even Paul VI (a failed pope, it must be sorrowfully acknowledged) said, “The smoke of Satan has found its way into the Church through the fissures”.

    One must take solace in the knowledge that the traditionalist movement is thriving.  And, of course, we have Our Lord’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail, as well as the Blessed Mother’s pledge that in the end her Immaculate Heart will triumph.

    Nil desperandum.

  • Elizabeth Durack

    We want priests who were laicized (for whatever reason) to remain true to the practice of the Catholic faith and we greatly want them to persevere to the end in the state of grace. I am sympathetic to these measures which, if the local bishop thinks it would be okay, give them greater freedom to function in the Church in the lay state. I think it needs to be truly under the discretion of the bishop and on a case by case basis. If there is a likelihood of the faithful being scandalized or led astray then no permission should be given.

  • Anonymous

    This is just  more back door machinations towards eroding the discipline of a celibate priesthood under the guise of “compassion” and “charity” as defined by leftist prelates like His Eminence.  Garden variety leftism, the likes of which is destroying Europe and the west in general.  Will we ever learn?

    Mary Mother of God pray for us.

  • Leelovelockjemmott

    I actually agree with thee for the First time ever hahaha. To be honest, I was never for the ‘Ordinariate’. Why cannot Anglicans who wish to become Catholic just come and except the wholemeal the liturgical ways and means of the Holy Mother Church. The only thing going for ‘Anglican Patrimony’ are the churches used, some of the music and the fact that many of them use ‘Proper English’ (thou not ‘you’).

  • Joan

    What is this unforgiveness?  We must welcome them back, just as Jesus would. That’s what HE asks us to do.  If you allow yourself to be focusing on the evil, you have been distracted away from the Love – the Love that IS God. Let us all grow in the Faith of Christ. Let us share in constant support in CHRIST’s Love.  Laicized Priests that have left the Church to marry, were forced to leave because the rules of the institution do not allow for the Priest to marry.  These Priests left for Love.  God IS love, and God is a jealous God. 

  • Silvester Ezhumala

    The Bible does not prohibit marriage to any minister in the church. Then why all these regulations and restrictions? Non sense!

  • Silvester Ezhumala

    Orthodoxy to Bible or The antibiblical traditions of the church?

  • Anonymous

    Stick it where the sun don’t shine, you spiritual pervert.

  • Come on!

    This is EXTREMELY unclear: what kind of letter was written, with what level of authority (sounds personal), any canonical implications (in Church law), etc. etc etc. – This article highlights a one-to-one letter written in February with a “hope” of a new so-called “reform” and suddenly labels it as a “Vatican Directive”.

    Absurd and ridiculous activist journalism.  Move along, nothing to see here.

  • Anonymous

    These are all man made rules in the church, rules made by males in the church. Please remember that Jesus after his resurrection first appeared to women. Also, please look at the composition of most parishes in the U.S.today, more women then men, also the majority of people in ministry are women. What does that say? Some of the writers leaving comments here need to take a look at their mindsets and ask themselves this question. What would Jesus do?

  • Anonymous

    Did you take your medicine this morning?

  • Poimier

    “Bishops”.  I think not.

  • Anonymous

    EditorCT

    You should not confuse your brand of judgemental pharasaism with true Christian charity.

  • Andrew

    God Never Rejected you.I am sure you never rejected him either.Pray for those who find themselves in a similar position.

  • Andrew

    Excuse yourself.God give us the Catholic Church,the Pope is head of the Church along with his Bishop and his Priest.You are the one that is doing the “Rejection” here,a pity you cant see your own faults, you are too busy picking on other peoples to notice the log in your own eye…

  • jo

    This story seems off. This is not within the authority of the Congregation for the Evangelization of People (at least not over clergy in general…perhaps certain mission territories)

    This is rather like the Defense Secretary declaring new rules for welfare recipients, or the Prime Minister of the UK saying that Americans no longer have to pay income tax.

    I would demand said letter be produced. If not a public document, then it is irrelevant and worthless as it has no legal effect even if said Congregation had authority.

  • Judykallmeyer15

    This is great, as long as their teaching is faithful to the magisterium of the Church!!!

  • AgingPapist

    Priests laicized or NOT have a long history of not adhering entirely to the teachings of the Church. Just bring them back, start ordaining married permanent deacons, and invite women to enter the seminary for eventual advancement.  The Church needs all of these groups and it needs them right away.

  • AgingPapist

    The last thing we need Editor CT is for you to laud Archbishop Lefebvre, a dangerous heretic and a fascist. His followers need to be denounced and ejected into the outer darkness. Benedict seriously weakens the Church by giving them any recognition whatsoever.

  • Anonymous

    The Church was a great supporter of the welfare-state in Europe, and is constantly talking about issues of ‘social justice’ and equality. The Church condemns most violations of human-rights, and looks to help solve poverty in Africa and Asia. The Church always looks to stand by the weakest and the poorest.

    It does not align itself with Marx’s original definition of Socialism, but in many respects, in its social-doctrines it teaches the values of modern socialism.

  • Rev. Fr. Ronnie P. Floyd Floyd

    Again I note that this instruction is only relevant to those priests laicized in mission countries under the jurisdiction of the Propaganda Fide.  These priests in the third world by and large leave the priesthood because of a failure in chastity and not primarily because of a lack of faith or active dissent against the teachings of the Church.  In these land where the faith is still young or has not been widely proclaimed or received the prefect is saying that laicized priests may assist the local bishop–the propaganda has the authority to do this because it is the direct representative of the Holy Father in these countries with ultimate jurisdiction.

    AGAIN–laicized priests in Europe, the UK, and the US are still prohibited from public participation in the life of the Church because they are under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for Clergy.

  • Parasum

    There’s no implication that Cardinal Dias made the suggestion *in his capacity as* Prefect for the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples – the reference to his being “prefect for the Evangelisation of Peoples” looks more like a means of reminding people who he is, not an assertion that he has any jurisdiction over laicised members of the priesthood. If he has any part in the work of  the Congregation for the Clergy, the article says nothing of it. So the question of his competence looks like a red herring.

  • cincinnatus

    Strange that so much weight is being given now to an apparently unofficial letter from someone who no longer holds an official capacity.

  • Alex

    To read an actual rescript of dispensation from clerical celibacy, please visit: http://www.adventgroup.org.uk/faq-mainmenu-40/72-dispensation/120-dispensation

  • Alex

    Fr Timothy, a dispensed priest cannot distribute Holy Communion because he is an ‘ordinary’ minister and not an ‘extraordinary’ minister. Here is what the rescript clearly states:

    a priest who has been dispensed by this process itself loses the rights
    proper to the clerical state, and the honours and ecclesiastical
    offices; he is no longer bound by other duties connected with the
    clerical state
    he remains excluded from the exercise of the sacred ministry, with the exemption of those matters in Canons 976, 986§2,
    and therefore cannot give a homily. Moreover he cannot perform the
    extraordinary ministry of distributing holy communion nor can he
    undertake a leading office in the pastoral sphere.

  • Anonymous

    It’s not relevant how many women are in the pews compared to men. What is relevant is Church law, and the widespread use of extraordinary ministers is contrary to Redemptionis Sacramentum which outlines when they should be used. Better by far someone who has been ordained, even if “laicised” (which does not undo ordination, but merely suspends priestly functions) should give communion. As for the preponderance of females amongst extraordinary ministers – allowing women on the altar is entirely contrary to the tradition of the Church and it should not be encouraged.

  • Alex

    On that basis not many dispensed priests would involve themselves in a situation which disenfranchises women from the sanctuary.

  • Alex

    To clarify what the Canons actually state:
    Canon 976
    specifically allows a suspended priest to grant absolution to a person in
    danger of death and Canon 883, n. 3 does the same for Confirmation. Canon
    1335 goes even further in permitting those suspended from the exercise of the
    priestly ministry, as long as their suspension has not been juridically
    declared (an extremely rare procedure), to celebrate the sacraments,
    sacramentals and acts of governance whenever requested by a member of the
    faithful “for any just cause whatsoever.”

    Canon 986  §1.  All to whom the care of souls has been
    entrusted in virtue of some function are obliged to make provision so
    that the confessions of the faithful entrusted to them are heard when
    they reasonably seek to be heard and that they have the opportunity to
    approach individual confession on days and at times established for
    their convenience.
    When a priest is removed from active
    ministry he still remains a priest; and in cases when the faithful
    require ordained ministry, he can and must function as a priest (e.g.
    granting sacramental absolution to a person in danger of death) even if
    he is married, or even if he no longer is active in the Christian
    religion.  
    §2.  In urgent necessity, any
    confessor is obliged to hear the confessions of the Christian faithful,
    and in danger of death, any priest is so obliged.

  • Knight4servers

    Some of us left for the opposite reason….we did not have the stamina to face the onslaught of odd theologies and lifestyles with which we had to live.  Now that the Church has righted herself and time has passed, we would be happy to contribute if needed, and it does seem that we are needed.  Remember, it has not been so long since Roman Catholicism was under assault from within, never more so than in rectories.  There are a large number of priests who should never be reintegrated into any form of public ministry, but there are others who would proclaim the faith with fidelity and move lives to the Lord.  The New Evangelism needs staffing on many levels.

  • Knight4servers

    Some of us left for the opposite reason….we did not have the stamina to face the onslaught of odd theologies and lifestyles with which we had to live.  Now that the Church has righted herself and time has passed, we would be happy to contribute if needed, and it does seem that we are needed.  Remember, it has not been so long since Roman Catholicism was under assault from within, never more so than in rectories.  There are a large number of priests who should never be reintegrated into any form of public ministry, but there are others who would proclaim the faith with fidelity and move lives to the Lord.  The New Evangelism needs staffing on many levels.

  • Peterfaustina13

    ARE YOU CATHOLIC ???? YOU TRULY THINK THIS IS WHAT JESUS TRADTION IS ??
    PRAY FOR YOURSELF>>>>>

  • Highlander

    Not woman priests please!

  • Anonymous

    So – Let’s get this clear:

    According to Ms Teahan an unpublished letter from a Cardinal [irrespective of who he is] to a single priest [irrespective of whom he represents] has rewritten Canon Law proscriptions on laicised priests??!!

    So: No Papal declaration, no Vatican department declaration, no notification of ANY Bishop, no published document or media statement?

    Perhaps there has been?

    Maybe Ms Teahan just hasn’t reported them as she sees them as an irrelevance?

    So we are being told to believe that the rules have changed – even though the only people who were informed that they’d changed was a single priest and anyone who [somewhat unethically] read a private letter

    Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

    It’s quite possible that this is the case, but isn’t it more likely that the Vatican INTENDS to make such amendments in the future; given that virtually nobody actually knows anything about them?

    Or then again, maybe this is an official [and published] response to a quaeritur and Ms Teahan hasn’t bothered to check?

    Is there anyone else at the Herald who could tell us what is actually going on?

    p.s. Thank you to Alex for bothering to inform blog-readers of the details; something Ms Teahan seems to think isn’t important enough to include.

  • Anonymous

    We are not told in the Gospels that Jesus whipped any person or any animal, only that Jesus made a whip from some rope and drove out the sheep, oxen and money changers.

    How he used the whip (the Douay-Rheims Bible said a scourge of little cords) in driving them out we do not know, so it is purely a matter of conjecture on your part when you tell us that he whipped the money changers.

    In any case you might want to reflect a little on the wisdom of excusing a possible lack of charity in what we write by claiming to be following the example of Our Blessed Lord.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    From St John’s Gospel Chapter 2:14-15 (can’t work out how to bold, so will capitalize to highlight where necessary - quoting from Douey Rheims since you refer to that in your post above )

    “And he found in the temple them that sold oxen and sheep and doves and the changers of money sitting. And when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he drove them ALL out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen: and the money of the changers he poured out, and the tables he overthrew.”

    Since I’ve never EVER heard anybody or read any text that denied that Christ whipped the money changers (which some commentators consider an improvement on striking them dead) your denial really caught my attention.  Unless you are suggesting that the Evangelist mentioned the fact that Jesus made the “scourge of little cords” just to pass the time and that it is a fascinating coincidence that in the same sentence he reports Jesus driving out the money-changers, animals  – ALL – then it is difficul to understand your point.

    I was not using the text to excuse lack of charity but to clarify the nature of true charity. Seems it didn’t work.

      

  • Anonymous

    How can a dispensed priest teach cathechism if they donot live it.Ridiculous.

  • Rosanne Santos

    ·        
    Limiting
    the priesthood to celibates-only sends the message that celibacy is more
    important than Eucharist when there are not enough celibate priests to provide access
    to Eucharist in so much of the world.  

    ·        
    Over 50,000 churches and 100,000 missions have no
    priest (CARA) and yet “The salvation of souls is the highest law of the Church”
    (canon 1752).

     

    ·        
    Among all major
    religions, the “Catholic Church is unique in several areas: the dwindling
    supply of priests, the increasing number of lay people per priest, the
    declining number of priests per parish, [and] the increasing number of
    priestless parishes” (Davidson, America magazine  2003).  

  • Rosanne Santos

    ·        
    Pope John Paul II said that celibacy “does not belong
    to the essence of priesthood” (7/18/93 New York Times).

    ·        
    Priests, bishops, and popes
    married and fathered children for 1100 years after Christ.  Celibacy was not mandated in the universal
    Catholic church until 1139.  Peter, considered the first pope, and many
    apostles married and it’s unknown if they married before or after their call to
    ministry. 

    ·        
    Canon 290 says “sacred
    ordination never becomes invalid.”  

    ·        
    Medical research has associated celibacy and prostate
    cancer (Leitzmann 2004, Simak  1993,
    Giles 2003).

    ·        
    81% of Catholics said “It would be a good thing if
    priests who have left to marry were  returned
    to active ministry” (NCR 2005).  “The
    whole body of the faithful [sensus fidei] cannot err in matters of belief” (Catechism of the Catholic Church article
    91). 

    ·        
    “The Christian faithful have the right to receive
    assistance from the pastors out of the spiritual goods of the church,
    especially the Word of God and sacraments” ( canon 213).

    ·        
    Canon 1335: 
    “Prohibition [against married priests] is suspended whenever a member of
    the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a
    person is permitted to request this for any just cause.”

     

  • Rosanne Santos

    ·        
    Pope John Paul II said that celibacy “does not belong
    to the essence of priesthood” (7/18/93 New York Times).

    ·        
    Priests, bishops, and popes
    married and fathered children for 1100 years after Christ.  Celibacy was not mandated in the universal
    Catholic church until 1139.  Peter, considered the first pope, and many
    apostles married and it’s unknown if they married before or after their call to
    ministry. 

    ·        
    Canon 290 says “sacred
    ordination never becomes invalid.”  

    ·        
    Medical research has associated celibacy and prostate
    cancer (Leitzmann 2004, Simak  1993,
    Giles 2003).

    ·        
    81% of Catholics said “It would be a good thing if
    priests who have left to marry were  returned
    to active ministry” (NCR 2005).  “The
    whole body of the faithful [sensus fidei] cannot err in matters of belief” (Catechism of the Catholic Church article
    91). 

    ·        
    “The Christian faithful have the right to receive
    assistance from the pastors out of the spiritual goods of the church,
    especially the Word of God and sacraments” ( canon 213).

    ·        
    Canon 1335: 
    “Prohibition [against married priests] is suspended whenever a member of
    the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a
    person is permitted to request this for any just cause.”

     

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    Rosanne,

    I’m always suspicious of females who go to the extent you’ve gone to for the purpose of attacking the celibate priesthood. Anyway, to briefly respond to your post above,

    1) Pope John Paul II argued that there are clearl scriptural roots for celibacy, and pointed out that the itinerant lifestyle led by the first apostles, did not lend itself to wife and family.  We  used his homily as a focus for one of our blogs over at Catholic Truth, but for the life of me I can’t locate it now. It’s certainly  a more reliable source than a quote in the New York Times – you can’t trust the people over there, trust me.
    I did, however, locate another blog on the subject which you will find educational

    http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/2008/11/celibacy-not-a-changeable-church-discipline/

    2) You perpetrate the myth of 11th century celibacy.  Nonsense.  The first apostles were celibate and that includes any who were married.  There’s no mention of wives or children, but there is clear testimony that they gave up everything to follow Christ. “Everything ” – if words mean anything – means just that: everything, belongings and family, to  follow Christ.
    3) We know that once a priest is ordained he is always a priest. Those priest-chasing women would do well to remember that and to reflect on the judgment that awaits them for their part in the abandonment of the priestly ministry.  In danger of death, all priests may hear confession and give the Last Rites.  I just hope I’m never in that desperate situation where I rely on a failed priest for the Last Sacraments.

    4) Medical associaton between celibacy and prostate cancer?  How on EARTH do they reach that conclusion. Baloney.  It makes a change, right enough, from the usual baloney about the psychological damage of celibacy, baloney which is refuted here http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/2010/03/celibacy-not-psychologically-damaging/

    5) You misunderstand the sensus fidei and thus  misquote the Catechism. The  sensus fidei is NOT an opinion poll taken at any given point in history but it refers to those Catholics who adhere to the entirety of Catholic revelation – so today, for example, in the current crisis of Faith and authority wihtin the Church, those Catholics now  labelled “Traditionalists” are the ones who display the sensus fidei – the sense of the Faith. Not those with “liberal” views and beliefs who, by definition, have departed from the Catholic sense or sensus  fidei.  This is a very common mistake so I hope you will be more aware in future, that to test whether or not you display the sensus fidei, you need to affirm that what you believe is in tune with what Catholics down the centuries have always believed. Not what some category of alleged Catholics happen to believe today.

    6) The two canons you quote are no defence of unfaithful priests.  You have taken both out of context and misapplied them to the celibate priesthood.  

    It’s very sad indeed that some priests (by no means all) fail to understand the nature, purpose and beauty of their gift to God of celibacy.  We should pray for them, Rosanne, not help to take them to Hell.

  • Sweetjae

    Didn’t you read the last paragrapgh? It says, “Prohibitions that are no
    longer absolute include 1. teaching theology in schools or universities, both
    Catholic and non-Catholic, 2. contact with the parish where the priest used to
    serve and 3. administering the Eucharist.”

     

    Now for your  question the answer is: The Church is being faithful to her
    Bride and the gates of hell will not prevail. PERIOD!

     

    You and the SSPX are so hung-up with your false interpretation of Tradition
    and discern for yourself what Tradition says is not taught and found in the very
    Tradition you espoused. HOLY TRADITION’s only authoritative Interpreter is the
    Living Magisterium of the Church but since you apparently don’t know what
    comprises the Magisterium thus your presupposition and assertions are all wrong
    and twisted.

     

    Example look at your faulty interpretation of Tradition on receiving
    Eucharist on hands while kneeling that even if you looked and read the Bible on
    the Last Supper, Jesus and the Apostles   were mostly  sitting down and some
    were standing as they ate the Bread and drank the Wine besides the fact that the
    Church ratified these with FULL Magisterial Authority of the  Vatican2 which you
    and SSPX obstinately opposed thus making yourselves your own magisterium that
    only fools would believed.

    Arrogant to the Authority given by God like Koher who arrogantly against the authority of Moses.

  • Sweetjae

    You are putting on your shoulders the very Authority you despised. Who are you guys and SSPX anyways? The lst time I checked the Bible, Jesus gave the KEYS of the KINGDOM and the Authority to BIND AND LOOSE to Peter ALONE!

    Your interpretative  judgments are nothing to the faithful Catholics,  to us it’s just a mere fallible human opinion much like the interpretive principle of protestants. Without Apostolic Living Authority it’s just an opinion.So sorry I don’t see your name nor SSPX nor bishop Bernard Fellay.

  • Sweetjae

    The Authoritative Magisterium of SSPX has spoken, the case is closed.

  • Tomas de Torquemada

    I hope you realize that the SSPX is not sedevacantist; the Society recognizes the legitimacy of each and every one of the conciliar and post-conciliar popes, from John XXIII to our currently reigning Holy Father, Benedict XVI, to whom they are in obedience and for whom they pray regularly.

    What the SSPX seeks is the restoration of Holy Mother Church to the fullness of tradition, without compromise or dilution, thereby ensuring for her the vital role in the world and in salvation history Our Lord commanded.

    The Society is quite correct in recognizing that Vatican II was and continues to be a tragic and catastrophic break with tradition; the contention that the council represents continuity with tradition is either disingenuous or delusional.  Indeed, the evidence that Vatican II has resulted in nothing but woe and wreck and ruin for the Church and the Faith is overwhelming. 

    The good news is that the council was pastoral, not dogmatic — nothing it “teaches” binds the faithful, including the SSPX.  I assure you, however, that the Society is in complete obedience to either ordinary or extraordinary Magisterial teachings.  And why not?  Magisterial edicts are ensured by the Holy Ghost Himself to be free of error — they are, by definition, derived from and true to the Deposit of Faith, and completely in sync, if you will, with the traditional teachings of the Vicars of Christ.

    I’m a poor advocate for the SSPX, I know, but I hope you’ll be encouraged to further research an organization that is absolutely devoted and committed to the Bride of Christ.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetjae

    There is an encyclical warning against quoting antiquity in support of such practices as receiving the Blessed Sacrament on the palm instead of on the tongue. I would quote it but I have come to realise that in your case it would not have any effect.

    Regarding the remainder of your irrelevant rant, I fear your gramophone needle is stuck in its groove.

    Please either behave yourself and get on with your work or go and stand in the naughty corner.

  • Anonymous

    It is not a matter of denying that Jesus whipped the money changers. As anyone who reads the quotation will see, we simply do not know whether he whipped anybody from the text. If St John had been inspired to tell us that Jesus actually whipped some people then I am sure the words would be there in the text. It is simply false to declare we know that he did, and no one should ever go beyond the words of the gospel, jump to conclusions and declare his own conjecture as fact.

  • WSquared

    If a husband and a father cannot take care of two or three homes, then ordaining a married man is what you’re asking that man to do.  A priest is already a husband and father in his own right upon ordination, in that the Church is his Bride.  Also, Anglican priests who are ordained are also only accepted as candidates for ordination on a case-by-case basis.

  • WSquared

    You seem to forget the parts of the Bible that mention being eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven.  Furthermore, a man who answers the call to the priesthood is not “prohibited” from marrying;  he actually accepts an invitation to love in a more radical way.  Why on earth is so many people’s understanding of love restricted to marriage?  Now that is nonsense!

  • WSquared

    Joan, priests know upon ordination that they’re accepting an invitation to love in a way that’s very radical.  You’ve just pointed out that God is love, and God is a jealous God.  Well, then.  Doesn’t it then follow that if God has called a man to love in a particular way, as he does in the priesthood, that the priest will not feel the absence of love, but instead experience it in abundance through the grace that God will give him in this calling, given that God IS love?

  • WSquared

    Rubbish.  EditorCT pointed out where Rosanne misquoted the Catechism and has taken Church teaching out of context.  Engaging in discussion and correcting error where necessary is well within the spirit of charity.