Fr Brian D’Arcy: ‘Why I’d have been a better priest if I’d married’

[doormouse73]

ok then,maybe the wrong wording…

how about exposure. now replace what i said bung, with exposure…to stop all the nit picking…

 

[pepipop]

the bbc is devious in many ways ,you should know this comming from ireland.

i meant it a way were he was not knowing what he was doing…

its propaganda for the bbc… at any cost of editing or putting people as puppets to get at the catholic church…

we don’t need to be naive,but on the other hand we don’t need to talk conspiracy either.

we are just talking about this ex priest…remember its …EX priest…

i find it hard to be charitable some times to people hell bent on bringing down the church…

though i do pray to not be judgmental…

but isnt that what we are all doing on here being judgmental??? with our opinions…

He’s not an ex-priest he still is one and has his own parish. I watched the last half of the documentary, and felt slightly sorry for him near the end. Another priest who entered the priesthood with him, left after 10 years and married and it showed him visiting with him, his wife and home. He seems to be someone that’s very lonely, as I am sure many priests may be, they are human first. Needless to say, I do not agree with his ‘witterings’ against the church teachings and disciplines but he seems to be an extravert, by nature, and enjoys the company of other people. He did come across as a bit ‘poor old me’ though, and went on about not having a ‘home’ of his own or a companion to share his life with - he’s now 68yr old, so it seems a bit late in the day to start worrying about it. But after watching it, I’d say his personality type has a lot to do with the manner in which he gets on. He thinks his radio shows and writing weekly columns in tacky newspapers - that one other priest called ‘candy floss’ spirituality - helps ‘his audience’ i.e. those who have no religious leanings, and/or have never been to church or been away for years - however you cannot change catholic teachings to suit the masses.

 

[kmo_9000]

This reasoning is flawed. We owe 100% of ourselves to God by the means of our respective callings. Man is to give fully to his wife and family, giving all to God. Woman is to give fully to her husband and family, giving all to God. Those called to religious orders give fully of their time, giving all to God. Priests give fully to their parishioners as a shepherd of the flock, giving all to God.

If you were a priest, whose first responsibility is to your parish, what would you do if an emergency anointing of the sick call came in, but your wife was in labor at the same time? You can’t say no to the parishioner. That is your first obligation. You can’t just abandon your wife who needs you, that is your first obligation. You can’t have two first obligations.

Yes, I agree completely. In addition, if you read the lives of the saints you will find that many saints who lived in religious communities were often told by their superiors to limit prayer to a specific time. The rules were put in place for very practical reasons. You can’t pray the rosary 24/7, there are other practical things that we have a responsibility to do.

There’s a lot to take into consideration, but the other thing to think about is that this priest is also in favor of contraception and woman priests. If he were to get his way and be able to get married, it follows that he would be a proponent and user of contraception. Thus he would not be open to a large family, a responsibility contraception would obviously help him avoid.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

How can someone give 100% of himself to God and His Church, and 100% of himself to his wife? You can’t, and you certainly shouldn’t split it 50/50.

Please clarify your statement. As it stands now, you are making an implication about married priests within the Roman and Orthodox Churches which violates forum rules.

 

[Erich]

If married priests were the solution, why does the Orthodox Church also have a shortage problem?

Priestly celibacy (not chastity you will note) is a canon law which could be repealed tomorrow. … We could simply have secular priests who have the option to marry and religious who choose chastity.

And if it were repealed tomorrow, not a single current priest would be affected.

Married men can become priests (as in the Orthodox Churches). Priests do not – and will not – have the option to marry.

 

[The_Scott]

Please clarify your statement. As it stands now, you are making an implication about married priests within the Roman and Orthodox Churches which violates forum rules.

Please see my follow up post.

 

[Maxirad]

Believing that Roman Catholic priests should have the right to marry is not heretical, but it is certainly heterodox.

 

[kmo_9000]

Believing that Roman Catholic priests should have the right to marry is not heretical, but it is certainly heterodox.

I have never seen a case where the issue of married priests was brought up without other issues such as women’s ordination or contraception being closely linked. Fr Brian D’Arcy is literally a perfect example of this.

From the BBC article on this:

“In the past, Fr D’Arcy has spoken out against mandatory celibacy for priests, church teaching on contraception and has been a vocal critic of the handling of clerical sexual abuse.”

The third issue connected to this is the fact that Fr D’Arcy and the secular media are making the implication that priestly celibacy has played a roll in the sex abuse cases. This is obviously not the truth, perverts and pedophiles are responsible for the sex abuse scandal. Being married doesn’t cure these things.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Why is it such a problem I wonder. We could simply have secular priests who have the option to marry and religious who choose [celibacy].

Jimmy… you and I have apparently had the same thoughts on this even though we don’t know each other and have not conversed with one another.

 

[TimeEntrance]

And if it were repealed tomorrow, not a single current priest would be affected.

Married men can become priests (as in the Orthodox Churches). Priests do not – and will not – have the option to marry.

I think that’s what he meant.

 

[Samaritan_Well]

I thought that people who give themselves to the vocation of a religious life are special because they are giving up the joy of a married vocation. I mean the joy one gets in having children, then grandchildren. It is a sacrifice to give up the gift of sex and children (within the married life) I think no matter what our call is to do in this life, we are all called to give 100% to God. Religious, married, or single.

I think Fr Brian D’Arcy has the same affliction all of us do. Things always seem to be better where we are not. It is human nature to question the roles we have chosen; the choices we have made. He might of done his questioning in a more private manner though.

 

[Jimmygill88]

And if it were repealed tomorrow, not a single current priest would be affected.

Married men can become priests (as in the Orthodox Churches). Priests do not – and will not – have the option to marry.

You are speculating that if the church rule was changed that it would be applied in the way you suggest. We have no way if knowing

 

[JReducation]

This is precisely an excellent example of why this subject cannot be intelligently discussed on an Internet forum. Most of the posters are missing key pieces here. Let’s take a look.

First: celibacy is mandatory only for secular priests in the Latin Church, not in the entire Catholic church.

Second, even if Father Brian were an Eastern Catholic or an Orthodox he would still be intelligible for marriage, because clerics (deacons, priests and bishops) do not get married in the East either. They ordain married men. If you’re single when you’re ordained a deacon, you must remain celibate until death.

Third, Father Brian has a vow of chastity, not a vow of celibacy. There is a big difference. The vow of chastity, has nothing to do with being a priest. It is a vow made by all who wish to be consecrated religious. Father Brian was a Passionist before he was ever a cleric. In fact, you cannot be ordained a cleric in any religious congregation unless you first finish your formation in the religious life, which culminates in perpetual profession of obedience, poverty and chastity. Only after you are fully consecrated religious will the Church consider your candidacy for the priesthood. Even then, the Church can turn you down for the priesthood, but you’re bound as a religious until death.

Fourth, religious who are ordained do not make a promise of celibacy. We already make a vow of chastity by which we not only give up marriage (celibacy), but we also give up our natural families to become a member of a new family, that being the religious community. A secular cleric gives up marriage, but does not give up his parents, siblings and other natural family.

Since Father Brian was already a Passionist when he was ordained a priest, the issue of celibacy is a non-question. If he was not called to the consecrated life, he could have left and joined a diocese as a secular priest. The fact that he remains a Passionist, means that he has a vocation to the religious life, even if he does not have a vocation to the priesthood. It seems as either Father or the person writing the story or the posters on this thread can’t tell the difference between a vocation to the priesthood with celibacy and a vocation to the consecrated life with celibate chastity. They are not the same. However, God can call one man to both, which seems to be Father’s situation.

Even if the Latin Church started to ordain married men tomorrow, any man who is called to be a consecrated Catholic, will never be married, because he must embrace his religious community as his only family.

Finally, yes a man can serve God as a good and faithful priest and a good and faithful husband. Thousands of Catholic priests do it everyday. But the Holy Spirit has deemed that this is not the norm for the Latin Church. All other 22 Catholic Churches that make up the Catholic communion have very holy priests who are husbands, fathers and grandfathers. They also have very holy men who are consecrated religious (priests and brothers) who are celibate, because their community is their family.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[kmo_9000]

This is precisely an excellent example of why this subject cannot be intelligently discussed on an Internet forum. Most of the posters are missing key pieces here. Let’s take a look.

First: celibacy is mandatory only for secular priests in the Latin Church, not in the entire Catholic church.

Second, even if Father Brian were an Eastern Catholic or an Orthodox he would still be intelligible for marriage, because clerics (deacons, priests and bishops) do not get married in the East either. They ordain married men. If you’re single when you’re ordained a deacon, you must remain celibate until death.

Third, Father Brian has a vow of chastity, not a vow of celibacy. There is a big difference. The vow of chastity, has nothing to do with being a priest. It is a vow made by all who wish to be consecrated religious. Father Brian was a Passionist before he was ever a cleric. In fact, you cannot be ordained a cleric in any religious congregation unless you first finish your formation in the religious life, which culminates in perpetual profession of obedience, poverty and chastity. Only after you are fully consecrated religious will the Church consider your candidacy for the priesthood. Even then, the Church can turn you down for the priesthood, but you’re bound as a religious until death.

Fourth, religious who are ordained do not make a promise of celibacy. We already make a vow of chastity by which we not only give up marriage (celibacy), but we also give up our natural families to become a member of a new family, that being the religious community. A secular cleric gives up marriage, but does not give up his parents, siblings and other natural family.

Since Father Brian was already a Passionist when he was ordained a priest, the issue of celibacy is a non-question. If he was not called to the consecrated life, he could have left and joined a diocese as a secular priest. The fact that he remains a Passionist, means that he has a vocation to the religious life, even if he does not have a vocation to the priesthood. It seems as either Father or the person writing the story or the posters on this thread can’t tell the difference between a vocation to the priesthood with celibacy and a vocation to the consecrated life with celibate chastity. They are not the same. However, God can call one man to both, which seems to be Father’s situation.

Even if the Latin Church started to ordain married men tomorrow, any man who is called to be a consecrated Catholic, will never be married, because he must embrace his religious community as his only family.

**Finally, yes a man can serve God as a good and faithful priest and a good and faithful husband. Thousands of Catholic priests do it everyday. But the Holy Spirit has deemed that this is not the norm for the Latin Church. ** All other 22 Catholic Churches that make up the Catholic communion have very holy priests who are husbands, fathers and grandfathers. They also have very holy men who are consecrated religious (priests and brothers) who are celibate, because their community is their family.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

You know, most of what you have brought up has already been mentioned in this thread already. We know other rites can ordain already married priests, and no one is saying married priests would make bad priests.

Also, Corrinthians 7 would disagree with that last statement. It’s more than the holy spirit, the practice of celibacy is very much based in the Bible. When you decide to ordain a married man you must realize that Paul literally says that a married man will have his interests divided, that a married man would be worried about the affairs of the world, and he who does not marry does better.

No, Paul doesn’t say that married priests are sinners or in error but it is quite clear his sentiments on the subject. He does quite clearly imply that unmarried priests can do a better job, it is plainly there in scripture.

But then again, Father Brian is also outspoken on matters of contraception and women priests as well. Both of these matters are very much related to priesthood and marriage. It would be ignorant only to focus on the issue of priestly celibacy/marriage here, clearly he has a wider agenda here.

 

[JReducation]

You know, most of what you have brought up has already been mentioned in this thread already. We know other rites can ordain already married priests, and no one is saying married priests would make bad priests.

Also, Corrinthians 7 would disagree with that last statement. It’s more than the holy spirit, the practice of celibacy is very much based in the Bible. When you decide to ordain a married man you must realize that Paul literally says that a married man will have his interests divided, that a married man would be worried about the affairs of the world, and he who does not marry does better.

No, Paul doesn’t say that married priests are sinners or in error but it is quite clear his sentiments on the subject. He does quite clearly imply that unmarried priests can do a better job, it is plainly there in scripture.

But then again, Father Brian is also outspoken on matters of contraception and women priests as well. Both of these matters are very much related to priesthood and marriage. It would be ignorant only to focus on the issue of priestly celibacy/marriage here, clearly he has a wider agenda here.

I agree that other issues are involved here. I don’t know Father, so I don’t know how much these are his and how much spinning the printed media does.

On the Pauline statement, I do know the mind of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not take Paul as literally as you’re taking him. The Church, not us, is the only authoritative interpreter of Sacred Scripture. The Fathers of the Church never interpreted Paul’s statement this literally to mean that the married person has a divided heart or divided interests, because a Sacramental Marriage is part of God’s plan for humanity. Therefore, a married cleric who is faithful to both sacraments, Holy Orders and Matrimony is not divided.

The division of which Paul speaks has to do with other things. This division can also happen to the celibate man. Marriage and celibacy require discipline. This is what Paul is speaking about. There is an internal discipline that the two demand. If a person lacks that discipline, then he is not called to marriage or celibacy. Many people have the discipline for both. For this reason the Church Fathers and their successors, to this day accept that a married man can be a good and holy cleric.

The question of celibacy for religious is a non question. There is promise of celibacy in religious life. It’s bigger than that. It’s a covenant between God, the individual and the religious community. Without that covenant, religious life is impossible. The bond to a brotherhood is essential to the consecrated life. Whenever one speaks about a Passionist or other religious and raises the question of mandatory celibacy, the answer is simple.

The question DOES NOT apply to consecrated religious. Religious life is built on community. Religious life has always been for celibate men and women the East and the West, Catholic and Orthodox.

If we were to raise the question of celibacy in religious life, then we would have to ask why do religious brothers, religious sisters, nuns, monks, friars, hermits and anchorites have to be celibate before making vows? Why can’t one be any of the above without being celibate? The answer is simple. It is the Holy Spirit that has raised these forms of life with celibacy as an essential element.

In the Latin Church, this is the case that has been made by the Holy Fathers themselves. If one wants to have a clearer understanding of St. Paul’s statement on this matter, it would be a good idea to read Bl. John Paul’s writing on the matter.
**
“While in no way interfering with the discipline of the Oriental churches, the synod, in the conviction that perfect chastity in priestly celibacy is a charism, reminds priests that celibacy is a priceless gift of God for the Church and has a prophetic value for the world today. This synod strongly reaffirms what the Latin Church and some Oriental rites require that is, that the priesthood be conferred only on those men who have received from God the gift of the vocation to celibate chastity (without prejudice to the tradition of some Oriental churches and particular cases of married clergy who convert to Catholicism, which are admitted as exceptions in Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on priestly celibacy, no. 42). The synod does not wish to leave any doubts in the mind of anyone regarding the Church’s firm will to maintain the law that demands perpetual and freely chosen celibacy for present and future candidates for priestly ordination in the Latin rite. The synod would like to see celibacy presented and explained in the fullness of its biblical, theological and spiritual richness, as a precious gift given by God to his Church and as a sign of the kingdom which is not of this world - a sign of God’s love for this world and of the undivided love of the priest for God and for God’s people, with the result that celibacy is seen as a positive enrichment of the priesthood.”

Pastore Dado Vobis**

Celibacy is a gift that is not given to everyone. However, one must be careful not to cast any doubt or question on the ability or the grace of those men who are called to Matrimony and Holy Orders to be good and holy clerics, husbands, and fathers. If God makes the call, God will also give the grace to respond without a divided heart. This is the interpretation that the Eastern Churches give to Paul’s writing as it applies to Holy Orders and Matrimony.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[kmo_9000]

I did not say that a man will have his interested divided simply for being married, I said a married man would have his interests divided talking care of both a family and a parish. I can’t see any logical reason for a Catholic married man to want to take care of a large family full of kids while at the same time worry about the goings on of a large parish.

And just because the Orthodox have married priests does not mean what they are doing is the best way to go about it. Using them as an example does not mean Roman Catholic priests should be allowed to do the same.

If you want to tell me that my interpretation on that scripture is wrong then provide the proper citations to the relevant parts of the Catechism.

 

[Lucky7]

Priesthood shortage? Vocation shortage?

These numbers tell a different story:
ncregister.com/daily-news/cara-study-finds-abundance-of-potential-priests-and-sisters/

That study claims to have found several hundred thousand people who have discerned the priesthood or other types of Holy Orders. And, the conclusion is basically that the Church hasn’t been doing near enough to help foster these people’s discernment.

IE: The Church doesn’t need to worry about numbers, or the quantity of people interested in discerning. The numbers of people are already there. The Church doesn’t need to get people interested in vocations, there is already significant interest… the Church needs to worry about how to give these people quality help to discern. Discernment groups, spiritual directors, etc. … perhaps even some homilies on it.

I know at least 10 people here in college who have discerned, or are still discerning the priesthood, or religious life, and to my knowledge none of them have a spiritual director, or had a spiritual director. So, I can see what this article’s saying on a firsthand basis.

Here’s another novel idea: make sure that those who wish to enter the priesthood are faithful to Church teachings.

 

[Faithdancer]

By your reasoning no one should marry since we*** all*** owe 100% of ourselves to God.

We owe 100% of our available life work and energy to God. If someone is married, has children, etc., that 100% may represent a lesser amount than the 100% of available life work and energy that a celibate person might be able to give.

Of course, one also gives to God through marriage and family, being a great husband or wife, father or mother. St. Josemaria Escriva writes at length about this santification in the life of the Christian family.

 

[Zuhara]

I think it’s important to have both single and married priests. In the Eastern Catholic Church (in full communion with the Pope), there are married priests. Married priests have a different way of connecting with people than single priests do. (Priests and lay people need to be connected because we are all part of the Body of Christ.) Now, I am married, and the marriage results a new person, right? The connection between our marriage-person and a priest’s marriage-person is different from that with a single priest.

That said, no I don’t think all priests should be married. When there are spiritual discussions I must have which involve my husband, and I need the guidance of a priest, I can talk more freely with a single priest – talking to a married priest would be inappropriate for me.

Both are needed, and we have both. God takes care of us!

Take care,
Zuhura