Celibacy: east vs. west

[Layman]

It’s very pertinent. It’s the proof of the universality of the doctrine that celibacy is a higher state, and disproof that mandated celibacy is doctrinal, and disproof that mandated celibacy is dogmatic.

You are saying: Priests can be married in other rites. Converts can be married and then becomes priests in the R.C. church.

The argument, however, seems to be:
**
Because priests in Eastern Catholic churches do it, Roman Catholics should do it.**
Because the experience of being married might be useful in being a priest.
Because married men might like to be Roman Catholic priests.

I don’t think these are sufficient reason to entertain change to the celibacy rule.

 

[Seamus_L]

In a very practical sense, I just don’t see a married priesthood working out too well. People can cite traditions and what other religious bodies do all they want, but in the end, a married priest with a family is still going to have numerous occasions where he’ll have to choose between his parishoners and his family. He’s going to end up disappointing one or the other, and he could end up as a failure as either a priest, a father or a husband.
I've heard people say things like, I'd feel much more comfortable discussing a certain problem with a man who has a wife and children and can understand me more easily, but as for me, I'll always prefer to bring my problem to the man who has forsaken everything to serve Christ.

 

[white_sheep]

I think the East came down on the wrong side of tradition on this one.

 

[malphono]

In a very practical sense, I just don’t see a married priesthood working out too well. People can cite traditions and what other religious bodies do all they want, but in the end, a married priest with a family is still going to have numerous occasions where he’ll have to choose between his parishoners and his family. He’s going to end up disappointing one or the other, and he could end up as a failure as either a priest, a father or a husband.

I’ve heard people say things like, I’d feel much more comfortable discussing a certain problem with a man who has a wife and children and can understand me more easily, but as for me, I’ll always prefer to bring my problem to the man who has forsaken everything to serve Christ.

I think you can rest easy: there doesn’t seem to be any reason to expect a change in the current discipline of the Roman Church anytime soon.

 

[notredame_999]

I think the East came down on the wrong side of tradition on this one.

How? Only St. Peter and St. Paul ventured west into Rome. The rest of the apostles went to the east. It wasn’t just Constantinople that allowed a married clergy, but so did Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Maybe its the other way around. Maybe its the west that contradicted tradition.

 

[notredame_999]

In a very practical sense, I just don’t see a married priesthood working out too well. People can cite traditions and what other religious bodies do all they want, but in the end, a married priest with a family is still going to have numerous occasions where he’ll have to choose between his parishoners and his family. He’s going to end up disappointing one or the other, and he could end up as a failure as either a priest, a father or a husband.

                               I've heard people say things like, I'd feel much more comfortable discussing a certain problem with a man who has a wife and children and can understand me more easily, but as for me, I'll always prefer to bring my problem to the man who has forsaken everything to serve Christ.

The time management issue has already been disproved by the eastern rites and orthodox. Can you give me a hypothetical situation that could make a priest a “failure” as both a priest, father or husband?"

 

[Seamus_L]

I don’t think it’s necessarily been disproved simply because they continue the practice.
Hypothetically speaking, the priest could end up as a failure as a father or husband, in the same way the man who is financhially a good provider, yet is at his job 16 or more hours a day often times does. As many parents have told me, being a parent is a full time job, and as some priests have told me, being a priest is like having 2 fulltime jobs.

 

[notredame_999]

I don’t think it’s necessarily been disproved simply because they continue the practice.

                                  Hypothetically speaking, the priest could end up as a failure as a father or husband, in the same way the man who is financhially a good provider, yet is at his job 16 or more hours a day often times does. As many parents have told me, being a parent is a full time job, and as some priests have told me, being a priest is like having 2 fulltime jobs.

So your telling me a father who works two minimum wage jobs (16 hrs a day) and never sees his kids is a failure?

This whole notion that a father must spend “quality time” with this children is a relatively modern ideal. What do you think of all the Italian men in the early part of the 20th Century who left Italy for years to make money in the United States and give it to their families, being away for years? I say this because this was the case with the father of St. Padre Pio.

 

[otjm]

In a very practical sense, I just don’t see a married priesthood working out too well. People can cite traditions and what other religious bodies do all they want, but in the end, a married priest with a family is still going to have numerous occasions where he’ll have to choose between his parishoners and his family. He’s going to end up disappointing one or the other, and he could end up as a failure as either a priest, a father or a husband.

                               I've heard people say things like, I'd feel much more comfortable discussing a certain problem with a man who has a wife and children and can understand me more easily, but as for me, I'll always prefer to bring my problem to the man who has forsaken everything to serve Christ.

I have known enough diocesan priests to know that they have not forsaken everything for Christ; what they have forsaken is marriage. Tad bit different, and the language “forsaken everything” is a bit over the top.

And yes, I have heard the old saw about how the priest won’t have enough time for family and parish. It is just that - a constantly repeated mantra of little or no substance.

I am well aware that there is an intrinsic difference between priesthood and a career, so don’t bother coming back in that vein. the point is, if one wishes to make a comparison of time usage, one simply has to look at any individual who has both a family and something longer than an 8 to 5 job. Take a CPA, attorney, doctor, engineer, business owner - all of them have demands between family and the people they serve. In spite of the intrinsic difference between priesthood and careers, the issue of time usage is the same - they all have the family vs. more than a forty hour work week. Stating that a priest would not have enough time to help his parish - have you tried to reach a priest recently? One of the celibate ones? Some of them are more available than others; and that is the case across the board, for anyone who has a more than 40 hour work week.

Furthermore, a lot of what they do is not intrinsic to the sacramental priesthood. It is called administration… not a sacramental issue. And that can be dealt with.

 

[archangel04]

I have known enough diocesan priests to know that they have not forsaken everything for Christ; what they have forsaken is marriage. Tad bit different, and the language “forsaken everything” is a bit over the top.

And yes, I have heard the old saw about how the priest won’t have enough time for family and parish. It is just that - a constantly repeated mantra of little or no substance.

I am well aware that there is an intrinsic difference between priesthood and a career, so don’t bother coming back in that vein. the point is, if one wishes to make a comparison of time usage, one simply has to look at any individual who has both a family and something longer than an 8 to 5 job. Take a CPA, attorney, doctor, engineer, business owner - all of them have demands between family and the people they serve. In spite of the intrinsic difference between priesthood and careers, the issue of time usage is the same - they all have the family vs. more than a forty hour work week. Stating that a priest would not have enough time to help his parish - have you tried to reach a priest recently? One of the celibate ones? Some of them are more available than others; and that is the case across the board, for anyone who has a more than 40 hour work week.

Furthermore, a lot of what they do is not intrinsic to the sacramental priesthood. It is called administration… not a sacramental issue. And that can be dealt with.

I agree with your post.The argument used that a married priest will not have time for his family lacks a lot of backing. You can’t even see a priest unless you set up an appointment, and the only other time you can see him is at mass. There schedules are full! And at Brother JR pointed out they have time schedules and are not requeired to work 24/7.

 

[Aramis]

You are saying: Priests can be married in other rites. Converts can be married and then becomes priests in the R.C. church.

The argument, however, seems to be:
**
Because priests in Eastern Catholic churches do it, Roman Catholics should do it.**
Because the experience of being married might be useful in being a priest.
Because married men might like to be Roman Catholic priests.

I don’t think these are sufficient reason to entertain change to the celibacy rule.

I’m not saying that at all; you’re projecting. I’m saying that it’s proof that the church can change it if they wish for the Roman rite, and that it’s provably not an invalid ordination if the priest happens to have been married already, whether or not his wife still lives.

I’ve seen Latins claim that celibate only is dogma; many of the posters act as if they think it doctrine, and that the church accepts married men in the clergy for the East is in fact proof that it is neither.

Further, in reinstituting the admission of married men to the deaconate in the Roman church, the pope explicitly cited the Eastern Churches as proof of its value.

 

[JReducation]

A few remarks:

• I live in the UK. I was born in Ireland. Here ‘vicar’ most commonly refers to an Anglican vicar. Most people would hear the title in comedy programs or, when I was young: ‘Sexy Vicar In Love Tryst With Married Postmistress’ and the like, in ‘The News Of The World’ newspaper. I’m aware the title has meaning in the Catholic Church e.g. ‘The Vicar Of Christ’.
• I’m glad we’ll be getting more priests. Worldwide, in the thousands, you say? That could be interesting. Could you link to an online document where these numbers are listed or predicted?

I’m not giving the Anglicans a black eye. They’re doing that themselves. What I’m glad is that we might have relief from ecumaniacal initiatives which don’t go anywhere and promote the idea of equivalence between Protestanism and Catholicism.

Now I better understand where you’re coming from. For men like Br. David and me, Vicar is a very common term used for one of two people. He or she is the second in command in a religious house, usually an order. I don’t know if religious congregations have vicars. I know that religious orders do.

The second use of that term is the associate in a parish. If he is a layman, a brother or a deacon, he is a Pastoral Associate or simply referred to by his proper title. If he is a priest he can be either an Associate Pastor or the Parrochial Vicar. They are not the same rank. It depends on how the bishop words the appointment. Usually a Parrochial Vicar is like the Vicar of a religious order. In the event that the boss in unable to deal with something, the Vicar does and has the same authority as the boss (pastor or superior), whereas an Associate does not have the same authority. In most dioceses around the world there is also a Vicar General or there are several Vicars: Vicar General, Vicar for Religious, Vicar for the Clergy and so forth. These people have juridical power that the bishop shares with them. All of these offices are suspended when there is a death of the bishop, unless the Vatican authorizes them to coninue until a new bishop is appointed. You probably have that in your diocese too and may not have noticed. Usually there is a Vicar General and a Chancellor, at the very least.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Seamus_L]

And celibacy could again be made a requirement for Eastern Rite priests, as it was by Pius X in America in 1907, and the ordinations would still be valid.

 

[white_sheep]

How? Only St. Peter and St. Paul ventured west into Rome. The rest of the apostles went to the east. It wasn’t just Constantinople that allowed a married clergy, but so did Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Maybe its the other way around. Maybe its the west that contradicted tradition.

So what?

 

[JReducation]

What I don’t understand is how come the Church can ban a priest from marrying before ordination, but allow that same priest to drive a porsche convertible and vacation in a 5 star hotel in the Bahamas after ordination? (assuming its inherited) That seems like a weird value system to me.

If our Latin Church adopted clerical celibacy out of admiration for the monastic state, why did they just adopt one vow (celibacy) and not another (poverty)?

The Church adopted celibacy, not the vow of chastity. They overlap, but are two different things.

Unless a priest enters either a religious order or a religious congregation, he remains a secular man. Therefore, his property is his own to do with as he wishes. He is paid a salary for his work. He pays taxes, FICA, and pays for his own bills, just like any other secular man. If he works for a parish, there are living expenses paid for by the parish. If he works at a university or some such situation, his rent or mortgage are his to pay, unless living expenses are one of the benefits. When he retires, he is on his own. No one takes care of him or provides for him. He must provide for himself.

Isn’t St. John Mary Vianney the model for diocesan prist? I was watching an EWTN program on him and it sure looked like he subjected himself to poverty even if it wasn’t required.

St. John Vianney was a professed member of the Secular Franciscan Order. At that time, the SFO mandated the observance of poverty to the same degree as the friars, with the exception of those who had children, elderly parents or spouses in need. What you saw was John Vianney living out his Franciscan vocation.

Finally, if celibacy was mainly adopted because the Latin Church viewed marital intercourse as making a man unfit to handle the eucharist, how come the Church changed its position in allowing eucharistic ministers who can be both married and sexually active?

This was an opinion, not Church teaching.

It just seems like the SSPX is at least consistent in artiuclating the rationale for clerical celibacy in the Latin Church.

They articulate the same reasons that the rest of the Latin Church articulates. The SSPX has no authority to articulate a different position. They are a clerical society, not a Sacred Congregation in the Roman Curia.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Layman]

I’m not saying that at all; you’re projecting.

I’m not projecting.

I’m saying that, because Eastern Catholics have married clergy is no reason for the Roman Catholic Church to do as they do. It’s basic logic. You have to come up with better reasons than that.

 

[otjm]

I’m not projecting.

I’m saying that, because Eastern Catholics have married clergy is no reason for the Roman Catholic Church to do as they do. It’s basic logic. You have to come up with better reasons than that.

Actually, no, it is not basic logic, nor is it higher logic.

The Roman rite already has married clergy; both in the deaconate and in the priesthood. The question is not whether or not the Roman rite should have married priests - they already do. The question is whether or not they should allow married men who are not convert pastors be ordained.

And considering that married priesthood is established both in the Eastern and the Westen rites from of old, it is hardly an aberration. It (celibacy only, in the Roman rite) is a discipline, and one that has obviously been relaxed. Relaxing i is not “doing away with” celibacy; it is a question of whether or not more married men will be ordained. Ordaining married men to the Catholic Church has never “done away with” celibacy, and if the rule were relaxed further, would not do so today or in the future. Married men have served the Church well throughout her history, and if the rule were relaxed, they would do so today and into the future. In fact, they are doing so today.

 

[Layman]

Actually, no, it is not basic logic, nor is it higher logic.

Sure it is.

The proposition was:

• Eastern Catholics have married clergy as the norm.
• Therefore, Roman Catholics should do likewise.

That is bad reasoning.

Your proposition is:

a) The Roman Catholic Church has some married clergy (who are converts).
b) Therefore, the rule on married Roman Catholic men, being forbidden the priesthood, could be relaxed, without harm to the Church.

I say b) is untrue, because:

1. It’s bad reasoning. It does not necessarily follow, because:
2. Roman Catholic priests are icons, adverts for holiness, simply by dint of their vow of celibacy. Celibacy is a higher estate in the Church.
3. It would be seen as simply another compromise with modernity; bad propaganda for the Church. There is a Mrs. Father Flaherty now? Cue lots of funny, near-the-knuckle jokes. We don’t need any more compromises with the world at the moment
4. The added admin problems of having priests with families.
5. Have things changed so that the reasons for the current prohibition are void?

e.g. catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp
arthurstreet.com/celibacy1993.html#Anchor-Th-1269

 

[otjm]

Sure it is.

The proposition was:

• Eastern Catholics have married clergy as the norm.
• Therefore, Roman Catholics should do likewise.

That is bad reasoning.

Your proposition is:

a) The Roman Catholic Church has some married clergy (who are converts).
b) Therefore, the rule on married Roman Catholic men, being forbidden the priesthood, could be relaxed, without harm to the Church.

I say b) is untrue, because:

1. It’s bad reasoning. It does not necessarily follow, because:
2. Roman Catholic priests are icons, adverts for holiness, simply by dint of their vow of celibacy. Celibacy is a higher estate in the Church.
3. It would be seen as simply another compromise with modernity; bad propaganda for the Church. There is a Mrs. Father Flaherty now? Cue lots of funny, near-the-knuckle jokes. We don’t need any more compromises with the world at the moment
4. The added admin problems of having priests with families.
5. Have things changed so that the reasons for the current prohibition are void?

e.g. catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp
arthurstreet.com/celibacy1993.html#Anchor-Th-1269

Nope. You missed it all.

Your logic is wrong: it is not that the East has married priests, so the West should also.

It is this: The West already has married priests, so it should not limit those to convert ministers, but should also allow married Catholic men to be ordained.

Your first proposition is wrong. It is not a matter of logic, it is a matter of facts.

As to your issue #2, it is simply your position. Your postion presumes that all Roman rite priests are thus iconic figure; but you are factually wrong - there are priests, married in the Roman rite who are functioning just as celibate priests do - saying Mass, hearing confessions, doing baptisms, weddings, and anointing of the sick - and they are just as valid and doing so just as validly; and they are just as holy and well accepted where they do this. Icon or no, they serve the Church and their congregations well. Were one to walk into the church for Mass or confession, one would have no idea whether they were “iconic” or not. In short, unless one were aware of the status of the priest, one would have no clue as to the “iconicness” of him. And given the witness of their lives as Godly men, one would find that service to the Church through priesthood is not dependent on your “iconicness” but rather commitment to to living out the Gospel, whether married or celibate.

Anyone who is celibate by choice, whether professed, promised, or simply freely chosen as a lay person can be an icon of holiness. And anyone who is ordained, whether celibate of married, can be an icon of holiness. Priests being celibate are no more nor less an icon of holiness as celibates than a brother or a nun. And married people can also be icons of holiness, as witnessed by recent sainthood.

#3: given the Church already ordains married convert ministers, your point is not made. The Church has determined that it is in the best interest of the Roman rite to have married priests; proposing it as a bow to modernity is just silly.

#4: essentially irrelevant. It has been a non-problem.

#5: that seems to be the question.

 

[JReducation]

Just two quick notes here.

Secular priests in the Roman Church do not make a vow of celibacy. In fact, they make no vows at all. They make two promises and it’s not when they are ordained to the priesthood, but when they are ordained to the diaconate. First promise: to obey the local bishop, which is limited to pastoral matters. Second promise: to remain celibate, which is not the same as the vow of chastity made by religious.

My second note, the fact that we admit married men who are converts to the priesthood and Catholic married men to the diaconate does not by necessity mean that there is a good reason to admit Catholic married men to the Order of Presbyter.

When the Church reverted to ordaining married men to the diaconate, there was a good reason. She wanted to bring back the permanent diaconate. It was part of a program of recovery before we lost the Order of Deacon, which is absolutely necessary to the sacramental and liturgical life of the Church. The Order of Presbyter is not in danger of extinction. There are several reasons why you have less priests in your parishes.

There are less vocations, this is true. But also, the diocesan priests are being stretched our further, because religious orders are doing two things: 1) pulling out of parishes to return to ministries appropriate for religious and 2) ordaining less men to increase the number of brothers which was almost dessimated. This does not hold true for clerical orders. They were never brotherhoods. But many religious orders are brotherhoods and they had a surplus of ordained men, almost dessimating the concept of a brotherhood of consecrated men whose lives are other than priestly ministry.

The pulling out and the reduction in ordinations has reduced the number of priests available to fill parish posts. Unfortunately, it has taken place at a time when the number of vocations to the diocesan seminaries is lower than in the past.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF