Brazil may soon have married priests, says Leonardo Boff

[Wesrock]

Okay, so we have a priest, who obviously will not be using contraception, may have 5 or 6 kids, maybe even 8, will be expected to support that family based from Church donations, will probably have to get another full time job (So forget about on call for the Church when they are also on call for work), and yet will be expected to also be a priest which is basically a full time job, cut between the time devoted to his family and the Churches mission and work, let alone guide and counsel others when he already has 8 kids and a tone of other responsibilities he has to look after first.

What could possibly go wrong.

Many Eastern Catholic and Orthodox priests are married, and western priests have been allowed to practice even while married on an exceptional basis, so I think you are arguing along the wrong tract. I am all in favor of preserving our ancient tradition in the west of a sexually continent priesthood, but it’s not a theological necessity, and making the wrong arguments won’t help.

My question is why so many Brazilian priests left the priesthood for marriage.

 

[Pulvis]

I’m not denying that there is a shortage in the US that has impacted the faithful. I am just saying there is no comparison. RELATIVE to Brazil, the US has a fortune of priests that would make Latin American faithful green with envy. Here’s an example (two dioceses taken at random)…
Diocese of Cleveland in the US has 1626 Catholics per one priest.
Diocese of Campo Limpo in Brazil has 14,527 Catholics per one priest.
**No comparison. ** Its like someone who makes a North American minimum wage telling a starving family in, say, Chad “I know you’re poor, but hey I struggle to make ends meet too!”

I understand what you are saying, and I agree that it is much worse for the Brazilian Church, But I still must ask, with a predominately Catholic population what shut down/ stopped young men from entering the Priesthood? What did the bishops do or not do to encourage vocations? I know the secularization in the US has hurt vocations, along with several other causes, but I would like to know what happened in Brazil.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

So they enter it with the intention of acquiring wealth (mammon)? :ehh:

That doesn’t follow. It’s possible to not take a vow of poverty, but not to become obsessed or preoccupied with amassing as much wealth as possible.

It’s possible to for a person live comfortably on a decent, but not extravagant, salary.

 

[SummitJim]

On the matter of wealth, I knew a priest who owned and airplane. Actually half, shared with his brother. On Sunday afternoons he would fly 100 miles to a small town that had no priest and say Mass then fly home. Less than an hour each way. He got to fly, people in rural area had communion. The diocese paid for the aviation gas. Win-win.

 

[zz912]

Instead of looking to make such a momentous change, with absolutely no guarantee of an increase in vocations if it’s made, wouldn’t it make more sense to look to places where vocations are flourishing? And then wouldn’t it make sense to then emulate what they have done?

Look to dioceses that have flourishing vocations, and then follow their example. Don’t look to tear down all vestiges of the faith culture, just on the GUESS that it MIGHT improve things…

 

[twf]

I understand what you are saying, and I agree that it is much worse for the Brazilian Church, But I still must ask, with a predominately Catholic population what shut down/ stopped young men from entering the Priesthood? What did the bishops do or not do to encourage vocations? I know the secularization in the US has hurt vocations, along with several other causes, but I would like to know what happened in Brazil.

I’m not sure to be honest. I could only speculate. Secularism would be an issue there as well. Massive encroaching by all sorts of Protestant / Evangelical / Pentecostal groups. Watering down the liturgy and catechesis as happened in many places in the 70s and 80s?

 

[In_Hoc_Signo312]

Instead of looking to make such a momentous change, with absolutely no guarantee of an increase in vocations if it’s made, wouldn’t it make more sense to look to places where vocations are flourishing? And then wouldn’t it make sense to then emulate what they have done?

Look to dioceses that have flourishing vocations, and then follow their example. Don’t look to tear down all vestiges of the faith culture, just on the GUESS that it MIGHT improve things…

The only problem with that is that something that works in one country won’t necessarily work in other countries. I would imagine that Brazil is quite different from the US in a lot of areas. Because of this, it’s hard to simply say that what works in the US would also work in Brazil.

 

[GEddie]

The only problem with that is that something that works in one country won’t necessarily work in other countries. I would imagine that Brazil is quite different from the US in a lot of areas. Because of this, it’s hard to simply say that what works in the US would also work in Brazil.

While that is true, it would be equally a mistake to impose a policy change that would impact the Church universal because of conditions unique to Brazil.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I understand what you are saying, and I agree that it is much worse for the Brazilian Church, But I still must ask, with a predominately Catholic population what shut down/ stopped young men from entering the Priesthood? What did the bishops do or not do to encourage vocations? I know the secularization in the US has hurt vocations, along with several other causes, but I would like to know what happened in Brazil.

I have seen the exact same thing happen in other parts of the world, while being involved with formation.

In simplest formulation, I would articulate it as the vast array of opportunities that are available to young people today, as opposed to 50 or 60 years ago or more.

The other thing that has a tremendous impact is the lack of homogeneity in lifestyles, which puts especially young people on paths very different from those of us who are of other generations.

 

[zz912]

The only problem with that is that something that works in one country won’t necessarily work in other countries. I would imagine that Brazil is quite different from the US in a lot of areas. Because of this, it’s hard to simply say that what works in the US would also work in Brazil.

I didn’t say they had to look to the US. The Church is spreading in Africa and other parts of the world. Find out what those dioceses are doing and emulate them. That seems a far more wise thing to do than to just discard ten centuries of tradition on a hunch that it MIGHT improve vocations.

 

[twf]

I have seen the exact same thing happen in other parts of the world, while being involved with formation.

In simplest formulation, I would articulate it as the vast array of opportunities that are available to young people today, as opposed to 50 or 60 years ago or more.

The other thing that has a tremendous impact is the lack of homogeneity in lifestyles, which puts especially young people on paths very different from those of us who are of other generations.

Some parents also struggle with the prospect of a child electing to live a celibate lifestyle. Familial / social pressures to date and eventually marry can probably play a role.

 

[twf]

I didn’t say they had to look to the US. The Church is spreading in Africa and other parts of the world. Find out what those dioceses are doing and emulate them. That seems a far more wise thing to do than to just discard ten centuries of tradition on a hunch that it MIGHT improve vocations.

Yet it was OK to discard ten centuries of tradition of married priests in the Middle Ages? Celibacy won’t go anywhere. We will always have religious, and religious life will always be the higher vocation. Yet the Ordinariates and Eastern Churches seem to be doing just fine with married priests. Of course any changes have to be made very carefully. My own archdiocese only introduced the permanent diaconate 5 or 6 years ago. The faithful in our corner of the world are only now getting used to the idea of married clergy of any sort.

 

[GEddie]

Some parents also struggle with the prospect of a child electing to live a celibate lifestyle. Familial / social pressures to date and eventually marry can probably play a role.

Family sizes are getting smaller all over the world, as well. The very real Latin drive to “propagate the family name” when there are no longer numerous brothers, no doubt militates against a young man choosing celibacy.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Yet it was OK to discard ten centuries of tradition of married priests in the Middle Ages? Celibacy won’t go anywhere. We will always have religious, and religious life will always be the higher vocation. Yet the Ordinariates and Eastern Churches seem to be doing just fine with married priests. Of course any changes have to be made very carefully. My own archdiocese only introduced the permanent diaconate 5 or 6 years ago. The faithful in our corner of the world are only now getting used to the idea of married clergy of any sort.

Depending upon who you ask, the tradition was originally a life of continence among clergy, and only slowly morphed into priestly families and then familial clergy.

But indeed, any change to the Church needs to be made very slowly.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Yeoman]

This is not the way to get more priests, having married priests is not only wrong theologically, but also practically speaking. You cannot take a vow

I haven’t read all the way through this, but without venturing an opinion (I generally feel that the Roman Rite should retain its current rules on this) why would it be wrong theologically?

The Eastern Rite has married priests. And the first pope, St. Peter, was married.

 

[Yeoman]

Some parents also struggle with the prospect of a child electing to live a celibate lifestyle. Familial / social pressures to date and eventually marry can probably play a role.

I really wonder to what extent that remains true, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.

We’re now 50 years into the “Sexual Revolution” and the concept of childless couples or even unmarried never marrying adults is now extremely common. I frankly think that that “carrying on the family name” line of reasoning is quite dead.

 

[Yeoman]

Hello, there is no theological reasons why priests cannot marry, and secular priests do not take vows of poverty.

Don’t forget that there are 23 Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome and many of them, if not all, allow married priests. Also there are many married Roman Catholic priests who are converts from Anglicanism or other protestant denomination.

In fact not generally allowing married priests seems peculiar to the RCC.

I see my comment was covered.

Indeed, while I’m very conservative in my social and religious views, this is one area that I do wonder about. The Roman Rite once had married priests. The Eastern Rite has married priests. This brings up something fairly obvious, that being that given as they are Catholics and we are Catholics, both the Eastern and the Roman Rites have control sets made up of each other. If we add the Orthodox we have a large control set for the East.

Given that, we can look at the respective Rites and ask these questions, and we should:

1. Which Rite has greater recruitment of seminarians (and does this play a role)?
2. Have both Rites had identical problems in recent years in the area of sexual misconduct of priests?
3. What is the perception of the parishioners of both rites regarding the effectiveness and relatedness of their priests?

These questions really ought to be asked.

 

[Yeoman]

Exactly. As Father says married priests currently function in the Church. I have had the privilege of confessing to a married Ordinariate priest more than once, and as a married man confessing issues pertaining to marriage it was a blessing.

I can really see where that would be quite true.

 

[GEddie]

I really wonder to what extent that remains true, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.

We’re now 50 years into the “Sexual Revolution” and the concept of childless couples or even unmarried never marrying adults is now extremely common. I frankly think that that “carrying on the family name” line of reasoning is quite dead.

In the Atlantic nations for the most part, you would be right, but in the Latinosphere, obsession with the family name remains alive and well.

After all, males (to whom alone such applies) can enjoy “sexual revolutionary” behavior for two or three decades and still propagate their family name, but this would not be true if they embraced celibacy.

ICXC NIKA

 

[josh987654321]

And the first pope, St. Peter, was married.

Not when he was an apostle of the Lord and later the first Pope, wholeheartedly in service of Christ and His Church.

Did Peter Have a Wife? Catholic Answers

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh