High-ranking US Jesuit: Married priests would be healthy for the Church

[smos]

I am torn with what has been going on in my state with clergy sexual abuse scandals and cover ups that never seem to end. From the croziers to the benedictine monks, all the way up to our archbishop, the church in our area is wrought with scandal. We also have a shortage of good priests which has caused me to question why hanging onto the celibacy requirement seems to be so important to the Catholic church.

Nowhere in the bible that I can find does it require priests to be celibate. In leviticus, it talks about the requirements for priests, talking about who they can and can’t marry. If the bible is truth, why should we think that rules made by men are better than God’s? I think that married priests could bring a new perspective to the church as they would better understand their parishioners and the things that they struggle with in their walk of faith. I’ve recently attended several evangelical churches with married pastors and have left wondering why the sermons at my catholic masses can’t be as relevant and moving. Sermons where you could swear that the priest knows what’s on your heart, what’s going on in your life and that he wrote the sermon for you! Sermons that are truly a call to action, not just a regurgitation of the readings and or gospel that you just heard. Maybe allowing married priests would infuse some much needed life into the Catholic church.

 

[Gorgias]

I am torn with what has been going on in my state with clergy sexual abuse scandals and cover ups that never seem to end. … We also have a shortage of good priests which has caused me to question why hanging onto the celibacy requirement seems to be so important to the Catholic church.

Why would ditching the celibacy requirement solve the sexual abuse scandal problem? Do only single men commit sexual abuse? (Check out the statistics – the answer is ‘no’: the majority of sexual abuse is committed by married men, in the home.)

Would ditching the celibacy requirement mean that we would find ‘good priests’ where today we do not? If so, how do you reach that conclusion?

Nowhere in the bible that I can find does it require priests to be celibate.

“Some… have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 19:12).

In leviticus, it talks about the requirements for priests, talking about who they can and can’t marry. If the bible is truth, why should we think that rules made by men are better than God’s?

Two answers here: first, the Mosaic covenant of the Old Testament is different than the new covenant of Jesus; He explicitly makes it so. In other words, you can’t look at the OT and expect that its covenant rules apply today. (If you did, then you’d have to abide by the OT covenant’s prohibition against eating pork and shellfish; but, you’d agree that that’s allowable now, right?)

Second, it’s not ‘rules made by men,’ per se. After all, Jesus told Peter that whatever rules he made on earth, Jesus would hold to in heaven, didn’t he? (see Mt 16:19)

I think that married priests could bring a new perspective to the church as they would better understand their parishioners and the things that they struggle with in their walk of faith.

Again, a couple of reactions for you:

First, does your doctor need to have struggled with the same ailments you have, in order to treat you? Or, does having learned about them and then experienced them in his practice through the patients he encounters make the difference?

Second, is it your experience that marriage is what makes a person ‘better understand’ those around him? If you took a sample of men in your parish – single and married – would one group have the corner on insight and wisdom?

I’ve recently attended several evangelical churches with married pastors and have left wondering why the sermons at my catholic masses can’t be as relevant and moving. Sermons where you could swear that the priest knows what’s on your heart, what’s going on in your life and that he wrote the sermon for you! Sermons that are truly a call to action, not just a regurgitation of the readings and or gospel that you just heard.

There are priests who preach like that, you know.

Here’s the thing – and this is just a personal observation: Protestant ministers preach. It’s what they do. To a certain extent, it’s the main thing that they do. So, they better be good at it! And, to a certain extant, they’re hired and fired by their congregations directly. So… they better be good at preaching, or else they’re out of a job! (In other words, you’re not picking up on a character trait of married Protestant ministers – you’re picking up on a character trait of successful public speakers!)

Now… would having a married man as priest mean that they’d automatically be a better preacher? Of course not. Ask yourself this question: have you ever heard a married Catholic deacon preaching? Have their homilies always been better than priests’ homilies? If so, was it because they were married… or just because they’re a better preacher? (And, of course, if their homilies weren’t better… then your premise already shows its faults.)

Good preachers are good preachers because… they’re good preachers, not because they’re married or single.

Maybe allowing married priests would infuse some much needed life into the Catholic church.

The Catholic Church allows married deacons. Has that infused the “much needed life” into the Church that you’re looking for? If not, why would you think that married priests would do so?

 

[twf]

Married priests? Sure. There already are married Catholic priests. This doesn’t necessarily have to be an either / or situation. This doesn’t have to be a marriage vs celibacy debate. The Church will always value celibacy. There will always be those called to celibacy. This is a matter of faith. Even if the Church ordains a greater number of married men, celibacy will not be discarded. Celibacy is not intrinsic to the priesthood, but it is intrinsic to consecrated life. Even if we see an increase of married secular priests, we will always have celibate religious priests and monastics. It’s the same in the East…their monasteries flourish despite the fact that the secular priests are often married.

 

[jilly4ski]

I think it would be a bad idea to remove celibacy requirements now while male religious life/orders are so weak (as in terms of recruitment and numbers).

Since bishops can only be ordained from celibate priests, they would either have to be widowers, priests who decided not to marry before ordination, or those in religious life. This would narrow the number of potential bishops greatly. If we want strong bishops with diverse skills, talents, and spirituality then it would not be wise to limit the pool of potential bishops so greatly to eventually only include those who are drawn to religious life (especially since it seems not many are these days).

I have great respect for religious (and am drawn to Benedictine spirituality myself), but I believe we need a lot of diversity in spirituality for collective leadership of the Church. Not to mention not every man in religious life is ordained, some orders are even hesitant to ordain their members.

 

[exnihilo]

I think that married priests could bring a new perspective to the church as they would better understand their parishioners and the things that they struggle with in their walk of faith.

I have encountered several priests who were married. Their wives died and they became priests later in life. In some ways they might have an advantage from experience. But we have to be careful to not think that wisdom can only be gained from direct experience. This can lead to an expectation of being served by someone of your group, however you define that in context. And if can lead to a dismissal of difficult wisdom because the one offering it doesn’t have the exact experience you demand, which could be just a motivation to avoid a hard truth.

I’ve recently attended several evangelical churches with married pastors and have left wondering why the sermons at my catholic masses can’t be as relevant and moving. Sermons where you could swear that the priest knows what’s on your heart, what’s going on in your life and that he wrote the sermon for you! Sermons that are truly a call to action, not just a regurgitation of the readings and or gospel that you just heard. Maybe allowing married priests would infuse some much needed life into the Catholic church.

As pointed out for evangelical churches the main responsibility for a pastor is a good sermon. The evangelical has a lot of time over a week or more to prepare. The evangelical doesn’t have to give a homily every day let alone preside at a service very day. The evangelical also typically is not following a lectionary and so can choose what he wants to preach on.

This is not to say that Catholic homiletics can’t be better. But it isn’t surprising that evangelicals can be better at a thing when they make that thing their main focus.

 

[Inisfallen]

catholicbridge.com/catholic/why_priests_cant_marry.php#Fathers

Why Not Married Priests? The Case for Clerical Celibacy: catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/why-not-married-priests-the-case-for-clerical-celibacy.html

You make a good point. Protestant and Jewish and Muslim congregations have long been accustomed to paying their ministers or rabbis enough money to support a family. I’m not sure about Jewish congregations, but Protestant churches often provide a house and a salary to their ministers, who often (usually) have wives (or husbands) and children.

It can work, obviously. (since so many other faiths do it). But it would be a bit of a shock for Catholic parishes accustomed to paying their priests a pittance to all of a sudden have to pay them enough to support a family.

 

[steve_b]

You make a good point. Protestant and Jewish and Muslim congregations have long been accustomed to paying their ministers or rabbis enough money to support a family. I’m not sure about Jewish congregations, but Protestant churches often provide a house and a salary to their ministers, who often (usually) have wives (or husbands) and children.

It can work, obviously. (since so many other faiths do it). But it would be a bit of a shock for Catholic parishes accustomed to paying their priests a pittance to all of a sudden have to pay them enough to support a family.

While a celibate priesthood is a discipline, (and a necessary one I might add) and could be changed, if it did change, that change IMV, would create an unneccesary conflict in a man that doesn’t need to happen, between the man’s ministerial priesthood and that same man’s secular fatherhood. Realistically speaking, how can a married priest be a full time father to his family and at the same time be full time father to his parish that might have 2000+ families? Is it even realistic to consider such a position? Push comes to sholve, which family does he put first? That’s not an issue with an unmarried priest.

I think to change the discipline, would create far more problems than it would answer. Besides, it’s not like the Catholic Church is a newbie on this subject. The Church IMV looking back on 2000 years of her history, maintains a valuable discipline in requireing an unmarried priesthood in the Roman Rite, which is ~98% of the total number of Catholics in the world.

 

[Inisfallen]

While a celibate priesthood is a discipline, (and a necessary one I might add) and could be changed, if it did change, that change IMV, would create an unneccesary conflict in a man that doesn’t need to happen, between the man’s ministerial priesthood and that same man’s secular fatherhood. Realistically speaking, how can a married priest be a full time father to his family and at the same time be full time father to his parish that might have 2000+ families? Is it even realistic to consider such a position? Push comes to sholve, which family does he put first? That’s not an issue with an unmarried priest.

I don’t know. I will say that I know a couple of Protestant (United Church of Canada) ministers who are completely devoted to their congregations, and have families. They seem to have worked it out. And their congregations are very happy with their ministers.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

While a celibate priesthood is a discipline, (and a necessary one I might add) and could be changed, if it did change, that change IMV, would create an unneccesary conflict in a man that doesn’t need to happen, between the man’s ministerial priesthood and that same man’s secular fatherhood. Realistically speaking, how can a married priest be a full time father to his family and at the same time be full time father to his parish that might have 2000+ families? Is it even realistic to consider such a position? Push comes to sholve, which family does he put first? That’s not an issue with an unmarried priest.

I think to change the discipline, would create far more problems than it would answer. Besides, it’s not like the Catholic Church is a newbie on this subject. The Church IMV looking back on 2000 years of her history, maintains a valuable discipline in requireing an unmarried priesthood in the Roman Rite, which is ~98% of the total number of Catholics in the world.

Ordaining experienced married deacons with a proven track record, who have retired from their careers and whose children are grown, whose wives are used to the demands of ministry – such an approach would go a long way to answering such concerns. The thought would be that such men would be ideal pastoral associates - not in general pastors - who could provide much-needed relief to the many one-priest parishes in the areas of anointings, multiple Masses, providing the Eucharist in areas where parishes have been yoked but one site lacks a resident priest. They wouldn’t even necessarily need to be paid, since as a rule most deacons aren’t now, and are used to and happy to serve on that basis.

 

[Gorgias]

Ordaining experienced married deacons with a proven track record, who have retired from their careers and whose children are grown, whose wives are used to the demands of ministry – such an approach would go a long way to answering such concerns. The thought would be that such men would be ideal pastoral associates - not in general pastors - who could provide much-needed relief to the many one-priest parishes in the areas of anointings, multiple Masses, providing the Eucharist in areas where parishes have been yoked but one site lacks a resident priest. They wouldn’t even necessarily need to be paid, since as a rule most deacons aren’t now, and are used to and happy to serve on that basis.

OK… so, just for the sake of argument, let’s play devil’s advocate with your suggestion:

You’re suggesting that a man – who first discerned that his vocational call wasn’t to the priesthood, but rather, to marriage – who later discerned that he was also called to the permanent diaconate;

who, the Church agreed, had rightly discerned that his role was to the diaconate, not the priesthood;

whose wife likewise assented to a role for her husband that was not priestly, but rather, was one of service to the parish community;

… this man should be asked to discern that both his previous discernments were in error? That he was, in fact, called to the priesthood after all?

… this man, in his retirement years, should be asked to re-enter a period of formation in order be ordained to the priesthood?

… this man should be asked, although married and of sufficient age to be retired, to be called out at all hours of the day and night for anointings?

… this man should be asked to take on new responsibilities – of the same scope and tenor of priests – and do so gratis, although his brother priests receive stipends and salaries for performing the same role?

Hmm…

 

[Charles041]

When people talk about marriage they almost always ignore the children.

Who is going to raise and take care of these kids? The church? The wife?
You would have to strike down the priests vow of poverty, and allow him to work on the side.

That doesn’t constitute “better” priests

 

[smos]

I agree with others here that it doesn’t have to be an either or solution, but why exclude married men from serving as catholic priests? Again, no where in the bible does it say that priests can’t be married. God also commanded that we be fruitful and multiply, yet unmarried catholic priests aren’t doing that. The bible is truth, so allowing priests to be married wouldn’t contradict any old or new testament teachings. The celibacy requirement is church doctrine, not God’s. I live in the diocese of St. Paul, Minnesota. Anyone that is familiar with the magnitude of the scandals and cover ups that we’ve been dealing with here would understand why the status quo is being questioned.

 

[Colorad007]

I agree with others here that it doesn’t have to be an either or solution, but why exclude married men from serving as catholic priests? Again, no where in the bible does it say that priests can’t be married. God also commanded that we be fruitful and multiply, yet unmarried catholic priests aren’t doing that. The bible is truth, so allowing priests to be married wouldn’t contradict any old or new testament teachings. The celibacy requirement is church doctrine, not God’s. I live in the diocese of St. Paul, Minnesota. Anyone that is familiar with the magnitude of the scandals and cover ups that we’ve been dealing with here would understand why the status quo is being questioned.

So if it isn’t in the Bible, why bother? You do realize that the Catholic Church takes a pretty different approach, right?

 

[GEddie]

When people talk about marriage they almost always ignore the children.

Who is going to raise and take care of these kids? The church? The wife?
You would have to strike down the priests vow of poverty, and allow him to work on the side.

That doesn’t constitute “better” priests

Not all priests take a vow of poverty; those who do (members of religious orders) would in all likelihood continue to be celibate.

While this is not a primary argument, it is a factor in the “debate” (there isn’t one, the issue will be decided in the Vatican). Parishes are financially pinched now. Bringing in priestly families would only make matters worse.

Priests with families also would have less time and energy to devote to the Church; there is no evidence that undoing celibacy would generate the snowstorm of vocations that would be required to overcome that factor.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Alan55]

When people talk about marriage they almost always ignore the children.

Who is going to raise and take care of these kids? The church? The wife?
You would have to strike down the priests vow of poverty, and allow him to work on the side.

That doesn’t constitute “better” priests

We are talking about celibacy for diocesan priests. Priests in religious orders would take the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, while diocesan priests do not take a vow of poverty. If priests have children, their wives would take care of them, or, if she is working outside the home, they would arrange for child care.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

OK… so, just for the sake of argument, let’s play devil’s advocate with your suggestion:

You’re suggesting that a man – who first discerned that his vocational call wasn’t to the priesthood, but rather, to marriage – who later discerned that he was also called to the permanent diaconate;

who, the Church agreed, had rightly discerned that his role was to the diaconate, not the priesthood;

whose wife likewise assented to a role for her husband that was not priestly, but rather, was one of service to the parish community;

… this man should be asked to discern that both his previous discernments were in error? That he was, in fact, called to the priesthood after all?

… this man, in his retirement years, should be asked to re-enter a period of formation in order be ordained to the priesthood?

… this man should be asked, although married and of sufficient age to be retired, to be called out at all hours of the day and night for anointings?

… this man should be asked to take on new responsibilities – of the same scope and tenor of priests – and do so gratis, although his brother priests receive stipends and salaries for performing the same role?

Hmm…

It has nothing to do with “error.” It’s about an increased opportunity to serve in the wake of what COULD be a change in the Church’s approach. Or are you under the impression that when a man explores the diaconate, the discernment process involves the formation director quizzing the candidate as to whether he “really wanted to be a priest” and chose marriage “in error?” And as far as age, many of our deacons undertake 5 years of diaconate formation in their late 50’s with an eye to being of greater use to their parish after they cease their day job. It just seems to me that once the standard objections of spouse, children, job conflicts, and wages are neutralized by the idea of ordaining experienced deacons, the fundamental concerns still seems to come down to that men with wives aren’t fit to be priests. And if 65-year old doctors can respond to emergency calls in the night, I don’t see why 65-year old deacons couldn’t when some would voluntarily undertake such responsibilities. Surely priestless parishes and presbyteral burnout aren’t a long-term strategy.

 

[Gorgias]

It has nothing to do with “error.” It’s about an increased opportunity to serve

And yet, in two previous discernments about vocational direction, a permanent deacon would have reached the conclusion that “nope, I’m not called to the priesthood, I’m called to marriage” and “nope, I’m not called to the laity, I’m called to ordained life as a deacon.” How, then, would you characterize a third discernment that directly contradicts the outcomes of the previous two?

in the wake of what COULD be a change in the Church’s approach. Or are you under the impression that when a man explores the diaconate, the discernment process involves the formation director quizzing the candidate as to whether he “really wanted to be a priest” and chose marriage “in error?”

Perhaps we should ask some of our permanent deacons on the forum to answer that question: was there an element to their formation that asked, “do you feel that, earlier in life, you were called to the priesthood, but you chose marriage instead?” (More to the point, the discernment for the diaconate wouldn’t necessarily hinge on that question; but, your proposal of a discernment for the priesthood would.) And yes, to answer your question – there are deacons out there who perceive themselves as ‘mini-priests’ (especially those who were ordained soon after the permanent diaconate was re-established); it’s one of the challenges in the formation of deacons that the Church in America addresses.

And as far as age, many of our deacons undertake 5 years of diaconate formation in their late 50’s with an eye to being of greater use to their parish after they cease their day job.

That’s right: and, the expected workload – taking into the obligations of household and spouse – is appropriate to these considerations.

Moreover, you realize (don’t you?) that the program of formation for priests is a 6-to-8-year full-time program of study, discernment, and formation; the “five years of diaconate formation” – while nothing to sneeze at – is a part-time program. These retired men you’re recommending would have to go through more formation – or aren’t you considering that aspect of your ‘solution’?

It just seems to me that once the standard objections of spouse, children, job conflicts, and wages are neutralized

How is the question of wages “neutralized”? Are you really saying, “hey, you’re already retired, so it won’t be a problem for you to take on a full-time job for free”?!? That doesn’t strike you as crass, let alone insensitive?

by the idea of ordaining experienced deacons, the fundamental concerns still seems to come down to that men with wives aren’t fit to be priests.

Not ‘unfit’, but rather ‘already committed to a different vocation.’

And if 65-year old doctors can respond to emergency calls in the night

Do they, really? In this day and age? Hmm…

Surely priestless parishes and presbyteral burnout aren’t a long-term strategy.

You’re right, on that count – this isn’t a tenable long-term strategy. But, then again, proposing that a man take on a vocation that he has already rejected in favor of another… that isn’t a viable strategy, either. On the other hand, incenting single Catholic men to discern the priesthood – now that’s a strategy!

 

[Gorgias]

We are talking about celibacy for diocesan priests. Priests in religious orders would take the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, while diocesan priests do not take a vow of poverty.

No, they don’t. But, they also don’t get paid what a person with equivalent education and experience get paid. It’s not a question of the evangelical counsel of poverty; it’s a question of being able to afford to live on a priest’s salary (and, from the parish or diocesan standpoint, of having the funds to offer a compensation package that has the potential to provide adequately for the married priest’s wife and family).

If priests have children, their wives would take care of them, or, if she is working outside the home, they would arrange for child care.

Wait: so, the answer to the question of a just wage is “meh – make your wife go work! Put your kids in daycare!” :nope:

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

I’d like to here someone explain how to reconcile some in the Church’s desire for a living wage with the idea of a married Priest with a family.

I know many orthodox Catholics in the mid-atlantic and northeast with large families who have their own businesses, and own homes that cost updawrds of $800k. Their living wage would have to account for a mortgage that is above $3500/month, as well as solid, private Catholic education for their children.

How does this mesh with the Priesthood?

 

[steve_b]

Ordaining experienced married deacons with a proven track record, who have retired from their careers and whose children are grown, whose wives are used to the demands of ministry – such an approach would go a long way to answering such concerns. The thought would be that such men would be ideal pastoral associates - not in general pastors - who could provide much-needed relief to the many one-priest parishes in the areas of anointings, multiple Masses, providing the Eucharist in areas where parishes have been yoked but one site lacks a resident priest. They wouldn’t even necessarily need to be paid, since as a rule most deacons aren’t now, and are used to and happy to serve on that basis.

take a look at this

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/vocations/diaconate/faqs.cfm