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

[Reesey]

Because if they were honest and said they wanted to join an EC church because they felt called to the vocation of marriage and the priesthood, they would be rejected for membership. That’s not a valid reason to change rites.

Since I believe the vocation to the priesthood in the Latin Rite is a calling, and that with that calling God also gives the charism of celibacy, then it follows that those who claim they would become a priest “if only they could also be married” don’t really possess a true calling to the vocation of priest. It’s a matter of careful discernment. Thus, My question was largely rhetorical - have those who say this really gone through the process of discernment, or are they just complaining about the celibacy requirement because they don’t agree with it? It’s been my experience that those who use the celibacy requirement as an excuse for why they aren’t becoming priests wouldn’t bother to join an Eastern Rite (even if they could) because they don’t have a true calling. They just want to complain about the celibacy requirement because they don’t agree with it.

And if they really have gone through the discernment process, and discerned that they truly have a calling to BOTH vocations, would they take the necessary steps to join the an Eastern Rite where they could do God’s will? I certainly agree with you that one must have a valid reason for wishing to change rites, but that’s up to the Bishops of both rites to decide. One’s reasons must be positive - not negative. That is, if one wants to switch rites because the dislike something about the rite of their birth - E.g., don’t like the changes in the Liturgy, don’t like the celibacy rule, don’t like the priest, these are not valid reasons and their request would likely be denied. OTOH, if they want to switch because they have fallen in love with the spirituality of the Eastern traditions, they love the Divine Liturgy, these are positive reasons and may likely be permitted as valid reasons to join. Can anyone say that because a man has discerned a call to both vocations, that he has also not been given a great love for the Eastern Traditions in all its forms?

So I wouldn’t agree that this man would be rejected automatically, just because he is called to both vocations. It may very well be that he is also called to the Eastern Rite for all the right reasons, and not at all because he dislikes something about the Latin Rite.

In short, it’s God Who does the calling - and when He does, He gives those whom He calls everything they need to do His Will. If it’s a genuine call to the priesthood in the Latin Rite, then He also gives the Grace to live a celibate life. The question is one of true discernment, not one’s personal desires.

 

[Gorgias]

It may very well be that he is also called to the Eastern Rite

Membership in a particular Rite isn’t a “calling” in the way that vocations are. One’s membership in a Catholic Rite is a matter of birth (although one may attend any Catholic parish he chooses, regardless of Rite).

 

[casslean]

I agree!

We had two priests in our parish: one was the traditional, celibate, never-married - what we all imagine when we think “priest”.

The other was a late discerner to the vocation, and had joined the priesthood after a divorce (and I assume annullment) and had adult children and grandchildren living in the area.

Both were good priests, but many found the second chronically unreliable. We were accustomed to priests of the first sort, and when the second was left in sole charge of the parish, it became chafing to find out that weekday Mass or adoration or confession was cancelled because the priest was off on a family engagement. We are accustomed to our church being open for private worship, and were put off by finding the doors locked day after day.

We once again have priests who fall in to the first category, and you can feel the tension level in the parish has dissipated as people know that the priest will be there when and if they need him.

I don’t think it is a case of choosing between good and bad when it comes to married priests, but I do certainly see that an unmarried priesthood - while not necessarily being the easiest of paths to choose - has definite advantages for the vocation. And I would think that those who are called to that vocation are given the strength to bear the burdens that accompany it.

 

[jackofalltopics]

Maybe so, it is possible I have a supernatural calling to the priesthood, however I have no intention of pursuing the priesthood

 

[Reesey]

The calling I referred to is to a vocation - whether the vocation of marriage or the priesthood. And with that calling, He gives us the graces we need to live out that calling. If God gives a Latin Rite catholic a genuine call to the vocation of priest, then he also gives the charism of celibacy. Thus, I question whether those who claim they would become a priest in the Latin Rite except for the celibacy rule truly have a genuine calling to the priesthood. In my experience, it’s just an excuse. If God gives a genuine calling to the vocation of marriage, then He also gives the graces necessary to faithfully live out that calling. In the Latin Rite, a genuine calling to the priesthood would also be accompanied with the charism to live a celibate life.

Hypothetically speaking then, if God is truly calling a Latin Rite catholic to both vocations - marriage AND the priesthood, (which, I seriously wonder if that would ever be the case), then it would follow that He also gives the graces to LOVE the Eastern rite in all its forms and praxis. And that would be a valid reason for switching rites. IOW, the desire to switch rites would be for a POSITIVE reason - not a negative one ( like, “I don’t like the celibacy rule”). Thus, if that is truly the case, then one can not say that this man’s desire to switch rites would not be a valid reason, and would therefore be rejected. It’s a matter of true discernment AND the Bishops’ decision on the matter.

I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear.

 

[joeybaggz]

[quote="Duesenberg,
One thing that should be of interest to the Holy See is the huge number of permanent deacons in the US. That’s an entirely different vocation, I get that, but the large number deserves investigation. I suspect a fair number of men who have/had vocations to the priesthood ended-up “settling” for the permanent diaconate. That’s not a good thing.
[/quote]

I’ve been saying that for years. Especially the married deacons whose children are now on their own. Though I don’t think serving as pastors is a good idea. But at the disposal of the bishop to “fill in” where needed in the diocese would be a very good idea.

 

[Gorgias]

The calling I referred to is to a vocation

Reesey:

It may very well be that he is also called to the Eastern Rite

Kinda looks like you’re saying that the calling is to a particular Rite.

Hypothetically speaking then, if God is truly calling a Latin Rite catholic to both vocations - marriage AND the priesthood

In general, today, that cannot be the case (at least, in a normative way)

then it would follow that He also gives the graces to LOVE the Eastern rite in all its forms and praxis. And that would be a valid reason for switching rites.

No. At least, that’s not how the Church sees it.

One does not “switch rites” so that he might be able to pursue a particular vocation.

IOW, the desire to switch rites would be for a POSITIVE reason - not a negative one ( like, “I don’t like the celibacy rule”).

So… what’s the practical difference between “I don’t like the celibacy rule” and “I’m going to attempt to change Rite in order to avoid the celibacy rule”?

 

[Reesey]

Kinda looks like you’re saying that the calling is to a particular Rite.

I agree that “calling” wasn’t the best term to use in that sentence, though I think the full context of my post made it clear that the calling I was referring to was to the vocation. Priesthood or marriage. That being said, the priesthood does not exist in a vacuum. One serves as a priest in a particular Rite. In some cases, there are even “bi-ritual” priests who serve in both Eastern and Western rites. Thus, the calling to the priesthood in an Eastern Rite (or Latin Rite) would neccessitate one’s being a member of that Rite - or joining that Rite if they are not already a member. In that sense, the “calling” would include the Rite only in a secondary sense. In the primary sense, the calling is to the vocation of priest.

‘In general, today, that cannot be the case (at least, in a normative way)”

That’s why I said “hypothetically”. It’s why I also said I seriously wonder if that’s ever the case.

No. At least, that’s not how the Church sees it.

One does not “switch rites” so that he might be able to pursue a particular vocation.

In my understanding, the Church has no problem with Catholics switching rites (once) as long as it’s for positive reasons. I have been attending the Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Rite Church for over a decade, and have had many discussions with the priest there about joining that Rite. It’s not because I find anything lacking in the Latin Rite. It’s just that I have grown to love the Eastern Rite spirituality and traditions, and feel at home there. The Bishop has no problem with it. But for me, it’s a big step and I haven’t felt ready. I have not suggested that one should switch rites “to pursue a particular vocation”. In fact, I’ve said exactly the opposite. If I ever do switch rites, it would be because God has given me a great love for that Rite, and a desire to serve Him in whatever capacity in that Rite.

So… what’s the practical difference between “I don’t like the celibacy rule” and “I’m going to attempt to change Rite in order to avoid the celibacy rule”?

None that I can see. Which is why I have never even implied such a thing. There is, however, a huge difference between that, and loving the Eastern Rite spirituality and traditions, and desiring to serve God in that Rite, whatever vocation He calls one to, or with whatever gifts and talents one has been given.