PF as YA

Matthew Weber · 20 Apr 2009, 21:42 · from 2009-April.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: palaeologos at gmail.com (Matthew Weber)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:42:10 -0700
Subject: (urth) PF as YA
In-Reply-To: <405652.50541.qm at web50710.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <1f7617370904200859veb3e2d5gb7ee198e7f7ba89f at mail.gmail.com>
	<405652.50541.qm at web50710.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e815e3c90904201442l76aa96c4o941d0bb7811d231d at mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> --- On Mon, 4/20/09, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > The relevant question here -- and it's one which I
> > don't know the
> > answer to -- is,
> > "what if a widower becomes a priest and it turns out
> > his wife isn't dead after
> > all?" My guess is that this would become an exception,
> > because neither the
> > sacrament of matrimony nor that of holy orders can be
> > "undone."
>
> As I recall, there's such a thing as a conditional baptism.
> You're making me wonder whether there's a conditional
> ordination in cases where there's some doubt about whether
> the wife is really dead.  Of course, if there's much
> doubt, I imagine the widower couldn't be ordained, but
> what about the case of a shipwreck or plane crash where
> it's practically certain that no one survived, but no
> bodies were recovered?
>
> Getting back to /Pirate Freedom/, though, obviously
> Chris isn't going to tell anyone in the 21st-century
> Church about Novia.
>
> Who here wishes Wolfe had included Chris's letter to
> Bishop Scully resigning his post?
>
> Jerry Friedman
>
>
>
>
>
No, a conditional ordination would be when there's doubt that a person has
been ordained validly.  Sacraments *sub conditione *are administered when
there is some kind of doubt as to the validity of a previous bestowal (as
also with baptism or confirmation; the RCC will conditionally re-baptize or
confirm if an initiate is unsure whether he has been previously baptized or
confirmed, or if the person has been baptized with a non-Trinitarian
formula).  There's no provision for "taking back" any sacrament once it's
been conferred; even ordination, once it's been given, can never be taken
back.  A so-called "defrocked" priest hasn't been deprived of the
priesthood, just his ability to legally exercise it.  Likewise, a
declaration of a marriage's nullity doesn't cancel the sacrament--it says
that it never actually occurred.

There is no dogmatic or doctrinal prohibition against married priests in the
RCC.  It is purely a matter of discipline.  A married man *can* be a priest;
the Roman Catholic Church just doesn't ordain married men.  There are a
number of explanations why this is so; the most frequent ones are 1) being a
priest is a demanding job which requires the full attention of the person
who exercises it, leaving no room in his life for a family; and 2) paying
the additional amount required to support a wife and children would divert
money that the Church needs for other things.



-- 
Matt +

Inferiors revolt in order that they may be equal, and equals that they may
be superior.  Such is the state of mind which creates revolutions.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), Politics, bk. V, ch. 2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090420/233457b8/attachment.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net