Guys, if you could be married and a priest would you?

[Cthompson]

When he brings with him a wife and kids who are not performing priestly duties themselves, people are more likely to compare with their own family situation.

This is a great point.

This did happen in my Lutheran Church. It’s difficult to invite just the pastor over for dinner or just the pastor to a family party and not feel the need to invite his wife and children, too.

Also, a lot of times the priest’s own family and parishioners will provide him with what he needs (i.e. gift cards, clothes, and other simple things). What do you do if it’s a family along with the priest? People may be questioning why the wife doesn’t work, etc. etc.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Guys, if you could be married (with a family), would you take a 50-60 hr/wk job, with an additional 20 hrs/wk on call, that required you to work every Saturday

That’s not a typical pastor’s life around here. Not even close.

Not sure where “around here” is for you. Here in western PA, that’s pretty much the definition of “parish priest” – not even “pastor”! In fact, since pastors tend to have more meetings at night, parochial vicars tend to get put on the spot for after-hours emergency calls!

One thing that never gets talked about is a distinction between a pastor and a “permanent parochial vicar.” We effectively have those at my parish in the form of retired priests. They celebrate Masses, hear confessions, and do everything else a permanent deacon can.

Well… one hopes a priest can do “everything a permanent deacon can”!

In any case, does this strike you as particularly fair? I mean… retired priests are retired. Putting them back on the Mass schedule effectively says, “I know you’re retired… but not retired retired!”

(If they volunteer to celebrate a Mass or hear confessions here and there is one thing… asking them to work in retirement doesn’t seem fair.

I’m not sure if it would be a good idea to have married pastors. But married “permanent parochial vicars”? I could definitely see that.

When you get a chance, perhaps you might ask a parochial vicar in your neighborhood what his work week looks like. I’m thinking you’ll be surprised…

 

[Gorgias]

IMO, there should be 2 Deacons for every 1 Priest - or at least one Deacon for each Priest - so if that’s the case, we need hundreds of thousands more Deacons.

Just out of curiosity… what duties, exactly, do you foresee 800,000 deacons performing?

 

[Vonsalza]

I am just asking because I would in a heart beat. I also want to be able to share my life with someone.

I disagree with priests being celibate. Most of the Apostles were married including our first Pope.

I’d absolutely consider it… when I was younger

Married men and men with children should probably continued to be barred from the Episcopate (office of Bishop and so on). But for the priesthood, I’d support it.

 

[Gorgias]

I would even stretch it to allow the priest to have a secular job and operate as a sacramental minister/parochial vicar similar to the way that the Episcopals operate.

This notion of a “worker-priest” was tried in the mid-20th-century… and it failed pretty spectacularly.

 

[Spyridon]

Serving and evangelizing the 1,300,000,000 Catholics in the world.

When you consider there are 1,300,000,000 Catholics, its not hard to imagine how they could be served quite easily by a mere 800,000 Deacons.

And Deacons shouldn’t be viewed as a career field that need to be paid. They should be servants of the Church.

 

[AdamP88]

Not sure. I’m married, no kids yet. I do think married priests should possibly be instituted in areas where there are very few priests. Though I don’t think it should be the norm. And there are a lot of issues with it. I agree with the celibacy rule in general. And religious orders will always be celibate. If they were to have some married priests I would say they should be chosen from men who are active in their parish for a number of years and married for over 10 years with no small kids. Marriage is your primary vocation if you’re a married man. Wife and kids will always come first in that situation. While I think it’s feasable in some situations, there would be many problems and reasons to recruit dedicated celibate priests too.

What if your wife is giving birth and a parishoner needs the last rites and you are the only priest available?

Or you have to bring your child to the accident and emergency dept. because they just fell off a tree and you have to officiate at a wedding?

While I agree with it in principle I still think there are a lot of problems and as a married man I definitely wouldn’t sign up right now as I know I couldn’t possibly give myself completely to that role.

 

[Spyridon]

Those are pretty easy cut and dry cases.

Obviously giving last rites to a dying person is more important than seeing your child be born if hes safe in a hospital.

Likewise, its pretty obvious that if your child gets injured and needs to go the ER, the wedding can be postponed.

 

[AdamP88]

Obviously giving last rites to a dying person is more important than seeing your child be born if hes safe in a hospital.

My point here is that as a father you ought to be with your wife at this time. There really should be no conflict here.

Likewise, its pretty obvious that if your child gets injured and needs to go the ER, the wedding can be postponed.

Well…yes if you want to ruin the wedding day for that couple.

 

[anikins]

I know of two married priests and both of their children attend catholic schools for free.

 

[Gorgias]

Serving and evangelizing the 1,300,000,000 Catholics in the world.

Fair enough. Yet, the need is felt most strongly in terms of priestly ministry that goes unfulfilled.

 

[Spyridon]

You’re being selfish.

What’s more important, the dying mans eternal soul or your getting to see your child born? I don’t even have to think about this, it is so blatantly obvious the mans eternal soul takes precedence that even asking the question makes me question whether you undersrand what the Priesthood and Diaconate are about. It is about selfless giving and sacrifice - its not about you.

And again, what’s more important? A young couple with many years in their future being inconvenienced, or your childs life? If you have to think about this, again I’d have to question your understanding about the preservation and preciousness of life.

 

[anikins]

Ideally if the church allowed for priests to be married there would be such an influx of men entering the priesthood that there would always be priests available to “cover for each other” in cases of family emergencies.

 

[Spyridon]

No argument from me there.

IMO, we have 1,300,000,000 Catholics on this planet.

That means, to me, we SHOULD have about 10,000 Bishops opposed to the about 5,000 we currently have.

We SHOULD have about 4,000,000 Priests opposed to the 400,000 or so we currently have.

We SHOULD have about 3,000,000 Deacons as opposed to the 50,000 we have.

Can you imagine how powerful the Church would be if we actually had these numbers? Instead of only 100,000,000 of our 1,300,000,000 members being practicing Catholics, maybe wed have 500,000,000 instead.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

You’re being selfish.

What’s more important, the dying mans eternal soul or your getting to see your child born? I don’t even have to think about this, it is so blatantly obvious the mans eternal soul takes precedence that even asking the question makes me question whether you undersrand what the Priesthood and Diaconate are about. It is about selfless giving and sacrifice - its not about you.

And again, what’s more important? A young couple with many years in their future being inconvenienced, or your childs life? If you have to think about this, again I’d have to question your understanding about the preservation and preciousness of life.

And I think this is where you are missing the real conflict.

Being with your wife while she gives birth is not simply “seeing your child born”. Birth is physically difficult and while women do manage on their own (military wives, etc) it is incredibly dismissive to think that it’s simply an act of callousness for a man to leave his wife in labor.

And weddings are incredibly planned events. My parents traveled hundreds of miles for mine. If the priest had to “postpone” then my parents would not have been able to attend. Granted, I was lucky enough to have 2 priests (both friends of DH and I) but missing a wedding is more than just an inconvenience.

Oh, and not just young people get married.

 

[Spyridon]

In the circumstances listed it is cut and dry.

If you would choose yourself and rather see yoir child born and let a dying man go without last rites, I would say you are not properly disposed and shouldn’t be a Priest to begin with.

If you think calling off a wedding is less acceptable than letting a child die, I would say you shouldn’t be a Priest to begin with.

Sacrifice. Service. Selflessness.

If you don’t embody those virtues, the Priesthood isn’t for you.

 

[Xystus]

I was being dragged and pushed into the (hideous) permanent diaconate formation in my diocese

That seems like a rather strong statement. What on earth makes it “hideous”?

 

[AdamP88]

You’re being selfish.

Well, I personally am not being selfish. I am simply saying that such a conflict should not occur. Obviously you’d have to minister to the dying man. But I think any normal person would be sorry that they are missing the birth of their child.

even asking the question makes me question whether you undersrand what the Priesthood and Diaconate are about. It is about selfless giving and sacrifice - its not about you.

I do know what it’s about. However even a married Deacon must put his family first. And generally men aren’t admitted to Deaconate until they are married over 10 years and over 35 years of age. Also deacons are not allowed to administer the last rites.

I am aware that it is about selfless giving and sacrifice, but so is marriage. And in marriage you vow to put your wife before every other comittment in this life.

And again, what’s more important? A young couple with many years in their future being inconvenienced, or your childs life? If you have to think about this, again I’d have to question your understanding about the preservation and preciousness of life.

You can’t be serious?
Again my point is you are divided as a priest in this scenario.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

In the circumstances listed it is cut and dry.

If you would choose yourself and rather see yoir child born and let a dying man go without last rites, I would say you are not properly disposed and shouldn’t be a Priest to begin with.

If you think calling off a wedding is less acceptable than letting a child die, I would say you shouldn’t be a Priest to begin with.

Sacrifice. Service. Selflessness.

If you don’t embody those virtues, the Priesthood isn’t for you.

Or perhaps those are exact reasons why it is not morally permissible to have a married priest in most cases.

Because you’re not just asking yourself to practice these things, you’re asking your wife and children, too.

And really, once a child is in the hands of a doctor, they no more need help from the “priest” than a woman who’s having a baby does. That’s your judgment call.

 

[Joe_5859]

Ideally if the church allowed for priests to be married there would be such an influx of men entering the priesthood that there would always be priests available to “cover for each other” in cases of family emergencies.

“Ideally”, sure. But is there any evidence for the notion that there would be a huge influx of men to the seminaries simply because priestly celibacy became optional? Do Eastern rites that do allow for married men to become priests have a huge number of priests per capita?

I think it’s easy for people to think that married clergy would be an easy fix for the shortage of vocations. But I do not think it would necessarily play out that way. It’s a lot more complicated than that.