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

  • Thread starter Thread starter thejeopardyfan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hwriggles4 said:
Here are a few observations:
  1. As far as being transferred, years ago I recall an article in Crisis magazine by a former Episcopal priest (Fr. Ryland, who was one of the first married clergy in the United States to be accepted under the Pastoral Provision circa 1980) who brought up this point: Can you see the reaction of your wife if you were being transferred to a bad neighborhood? I can hear now how many chanceries would be getting complaints from priests wives that their husbands were being transferred to an area of a city where a reputation of crime, gang involvement, stabbings, and shootings are present. A permanent deacon in this situation probably would work at a parish as needed, but would not live in that area, particularly if he is married.
  2. Married priests do have struggles. I’ve heard that Protestant ministers have a hard time balancing work and family life, and some wives of Protestant ministers wish their husbands could spend more time with family. Years ago, I read that many of the Orthodox priests were married to women who had a father who was part of the clergy - so growing up, they experienced the demands that their mothers had on their family life, which prepared these daughters to be married to an Orthodox priest.
I hope this post helps clear up some misconceptions.
Click to expand...
Do these factors not affect all married couples? Dangerous neighborhoods, work/home life balance? Again, I am actually neutral on this - leaning towards yes. But I find it odd that we are so pro-family as a Church and have such a horror of priests being married. If a man wants to serve God and marry I think he should be able to do that in the Catholic Church. I actually agree it would be a nightmare in reality, but if some want to make it work, why not? Why do we panic at these everyday difficulties of married life only when the subject of married priesthood comes up? The parishes are full of families who deal with these issues all of the time.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Do these factors not affect all married couples? Dangerous neighborhoods, work/home life balance?
Click to expand...
They do – but, I think that the point being raised is that a transfer (in secular jobs) to a dangerous neighborhood doesn’t necessarily require that the worker lives in the dangerous neighborhood; but, with the priesthood, it does require that the priest lives there. In other words, the transfer would necessarily require that the family moves to a bad neighborhood (with bad schools? with drugs and crime?), thus placing his wife and children in immediate and direct physical danger. That’s an awful steep request to make of a man, his wife, and their family.
I actually agree it would be a nightmare in reality, but if some want to make it work, why not?
Click to expand...
Because we’re all “our brothers’ keepers”? Because, as we’ve seen from the examples of our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters, any situation that is negative for the minister and his family is magnified in the community, and thus affects hundreds if not thousands of believers – and the blame is placed squarely at the feet of the Church itself!
Why do we panic at these everyday difficulties of married life only when the subject of married priesthood comes up? The parishes are full of families who deal with these issues all of the time.
Click to expand...
Parishes are full of families that deal with these things; but priests are public people – their lives are lived out in public. Having a married priest would necessarily mean that his wife and family are in the same fishbowl. His wife might have some (name removed by moderator)ut into the decision to become a priest, so there’d be the notion that she wasn’t forced into it, but it’s still something that would lead to whispers and rumors (“what kind of man would put his wife through that?!? how horrible for her!”). We see it all the time with politicians and other famous people, let alone doctors and other professionals – their “poor, long-suffering” spouses are spoken about in sad tones. Is that what we want to engender in our priests and their families? And what about their children? They won’t have been consulted about the choice. (Have you ever asked kids in a military family what it’s like to be moved around constantly? Not fun. Are we really saying that we want that dynamic for our priests and their families?)

And, of course, all we have to do is look at our culture, and recognize the blowback that occurs when something bad happens to a famous family. We know how destabilizing it is when we see it in people of secular authority – do we want to open up our parishes to the same dynamic?
 
Gorgias and FollowChrist34:

You made some good points here about secular jobs, moving, and gossip.

Growing up in a military family myself (my dad retired when I was a high school freshmen, and in his mid 40’s, he was young enough to get another job - my youngest brother was in third grade, and doesn’t have much recollection of my dad in uniform) it takes a special person to be a military wife. No offense ladies, but if a wife is “clingy” or relies on her husband all the time to make decisions (or refuses to mix with other military wives), she would have a hard time being a military wife. I remember many military wives relying on each other for help, and building up a trust and carmamaderie with one another. There were times my mother was forced to take care of the homefront when my dad was around, so if that meant spending money to call an A/C repairman, she just went and did it. My mother became much more independent too, and my dad acknowledged that and changed with her (i.e. secret to a long marriage - being open to personality changes).

About gossip - I try to stay out of parish gossip, but unfortunately, I have experienced it in church-sponsored groups (I know several people who left certain groups - particularly singles’ groups) due to gossip. It’s like living in a small town - when someone gets in trouble, it’s just a matter of time that everyone knows about it.

For what it’s worth, there was a former Episcopal priest in one Texas diocese who entered under the Pastoral Provision, and was a successful priest (and well liked) for several years. Unfortunately, he ended up leaving the priesthood (he is now a counselor) when his wife filed for divorce. I know this is an isolated incident (no, I am not making this up), but he may have left the priesthood in order to avoid gossip and scandal - I don’t know.
 
I wan to add this: How come it’s usually the Jesuits behind these changes?
 
Gorgias said:
They do – but, I think that the point being raised is that a transfer (in secular jobs) to a dangerous neighborhood doesn’t necessarily require that the worker lives in the dangerous neighborhood; but, with the priesthood, it does require that the priest lives there. In other words, the transfer would necessarily require that the family moves to a bad neighborhood (with bad schools? with drugs and crime?), thus placing his wife and children in immediate and direct physical danger. That’s an awful steep request to make of a man, his wife, and their family.

Because we’re all “our brothers’ keepers”? Because, as we’ve seen from the examples of our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters, any situation that is negative for the minister and his family is magnified in the community, and thus affects hundreds if not thousands of believers – and the blame is placed squarely at the feet of the Church itself!

Parishes are full of families that deal with these things; but priests are public people – their lives are lived out in public. Having a married priest would necessarily mean that his wife and family are in the same fishbowl. His wife might have some (name removed by moderator)ut into the decision to become a priest, so there’d be the notion that she wasn’t forced into it, but it’s still something that would lead to whispers and rumors (“what kind of man would put his wife through that?!? how horrible for her!”). We see it all the time with politicians and other famous people, let alone doctors and other professionals – their “poor, long-suffering” spouses are spoken about in sad tones. Is that what we want to engender in our priests and their families? And what about their children? They won’t have been consulted about the choice. (Have you ever asked kids in a military family what it’s like to be moved around constantly? Not fun. Are we really saying that we want that dynamic for our priests and their families?)

And, of course, all we have to do is look at our culture, and recognize the blowback that occurs when something bad happens to a famous family. We know how destabilizing it is when we see it in people of secular authority – do we want to open up our parishes to the same dynamic?
Click to expand...
You raise some good points but I still think it could be done - based on the fact that many couples face this - the stress of a public life, financial constraints, living in undesirable neighborhoods, gossip, scandal. Life is life. Celibate priests can get themselves in plenty of trouble too, no? I respect the desire to protect celibacy and believe it is of great value for the priesthood - Jesus and Paul were celibate - enough said. The Bible is actually very supportive of the celibate life for clergy and laity for that matter (let’s not get sidetracked on that question - Paul’s attitude to marriage and chastity). I just think there should be an opportunity for a priest who wants to marry. They are not stupid or superficial people; I am sure many could find the grace, wits, commitment and perseverance to handle a demanding job and marriage/children - at least as well as anyone else. I have no illusions of how hard it would be; but again, that doesn’t mean some couldn’t succeed at it; some fail.
 
thejeopardyfan said:
I don’t agree with everyone quoted in this article, but it is food for thought and I am interested in the opinions of forum members: cruxnow.com/church/2015/11/24/some-african-catholics-call-on-pope-to-let-priests-marry/?s_campaign=crux:rss?s_campaign=crux:email:ja
Click to expand...
Eh, since when has marriage stopped people from committing adultery. 🤷 (Hence the definition of adultery). I think people view married priest as a cure all for sexual sins of priests (though not for sexual sins of laity?), but that is a too simplistic view I think. Marriage doesn’t stop adultery, it doesn’t stop pedophiles, and it doesn’t stop abusers.

While I think there could be some benefits to some married priests, I think the negative effects outweigh those benefits at this time. The Latin church is too big to properly vet and look after a large amount of married priests, like the Eastern Churches do. I don’t think monasticism is strong enough in the Latin church to make up for the need of single priests and bishops. Allowing married men to be priest sounds like it would increase vocations, but I wonder. It would take longer to get each man through seminary, you would have to make sure that a man who wanted to be married was before ordination and his wife would have to consent and go through formation herself. Who would take care of the priest’s wife or any children while he was studying in seminary? And if he ultimately decided not to become a priest? The strain on parishes if the priest goes through a divorce, adultery, or other scandal would be difficult. Not to mention the wife in such cases, would she be ostracized and scorned, driven from the church because she had divorced a priest? How many parishes are big enough and wealthy enough to support a priest and his family, his possibly very large family and could a married priest handle such a large parish? How easy would it be for the bishop to move that priest and his whole family to a new parish assignment and how often could he do so?

There are so many potential pitfalls most of which have not been answered by married priest proponents with only speculative benefits (Increased vocations and cure of sexual sins). The most obvious is that all the priests that are already ordained might feel as if the rug was pulled out from under their feet, for ordination is a bar to marriage. They will be bound to celibacy while those entering the seminary would be free to marry before ordination. How many would leave the priesthood because of that?
 
jilly4ski said:
The most obvious is that all the priests that are already ordained might feel as if the rug was pulled out from under their feet, for ordination is a bar to marriage. They will be bound to celibacy while those entering the seminary would be free to marry before ordination. How many would leave the priesthood because of that?
Click to expand...
Why do you assume those already ordained couldn’t marry?
 
thejeopardyfan said:
Why do you assume those already ordained couldn’t marry?
Click to expand...
Because ordination is a canonical impediment to marriage. Can. 1087

As of now, marriage is a simple impediment to ordination (meaning that the impediment can cease). So if a man is widowed, or his marriage is declared null, no impediment exists, as opposed to ordination where the impediment always exists.

Both these can be dispensed by the pope, but dispensations to marry after orders only occurs after a priest has been returned to the lay state.

In the past (and occasionally now in the Latin church and regularly in the eastern church) married men have received ordination. But priests have never been able to marry.
 
steve_b said:
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.
Click to expand...
As an Eastern Orthodox bishop I see a lot of misconception in RCs as to “how the married priesthood would work in practice”. We have had married priests with children since always, never changed our discipline in that, we used to have married bishops for several hundred years until monastic movement was strong enough to provide a steady pool of well-prepared archimandrites for episcopacy. We used to have almost 95% clergy that was martied, nowadays we are at some 80% worldwide. Many priests are 10th or 12th generation of priest. They all have quite large families, rich family life. It has always worked quite well, and I kindly ask you to trust me, as in Orthodoxy we believe that it is our bishops with whom the living tradition is deposited through their apostolic sucession. 95% of all our parish priests are martied and have ever been. And it works all right. Why? The problem is in yoir own post. We do not have a ratio of one priest per 2,000 families. Our settings are different. Our most common case is ”2-3 parish clergy per one church under which fall some 100 families". You should try this system. Works perfectly. And more priests means they can help each other out. Then again, you would need more vocations. Then again, you might see more vocations if you allowed, paralelly with celibate priests, married priests as well.

May the Most Holy Theotokos protect you!

+Gavrilo
 
Bishop_Gavrilo said:
As an Eastern Orthodox bishop I see a lot of misconception in RCs as to “how the married priesthood would work in practice”. We have had married priests with children since always, never changed our discipline in that, we used to have married bishops for several hundred years until monastic movement was strong enough to provide a steady pool of well-prepared archimandrites for episcopacy. We used to have almost 95% clergy that was martied, nowadays we are at some 80% worldwide. Many priests are 10th or 12th generation of priest. They all have quite large families, rich family life. It has always worked quite well, and I kindly ask you to trust me, as in Orthodoxy we believe that it is our bishops with whom the living tradition is deposited through their apostolic sucession. 95% of all our parish priests are martied and have ever been. And it works all right. Why? The problem is in yoir own post. We do not have a ratio of one priest per 2,000 families. Our settings are different. Our most common case is ”2-3 parish clergy per one church under which fall some 100 families". You should try this system. Works perfectly. And more priests means they can help each other out. Then again, you would need more vocations. Then again, you might see more vocations if you allowed, paralelly with celibate priests, married priests as well.

May the Most Holy Theotokos protect you!

+Gavrilo
Click to expand...
You have a point, but if nothing else, abolishing celibacy during a sexual revolution would be wrongheaded.

Most of the drive to ending celibacy is not coming from those who equate celibacy with sexual scandal (they aren’t connected) or who think ending it will lead to a snowstorm of vocations (it won’t; priesthood is a self-sacrificial life, and celibacy is only one part of that).
It is coming instead from those who just feel **uncomfortable ** with anybody giving up “sexual happiness.” That is not a reason a priori to change anything.

ICXC NIKA
 
I’m inclined to disagree with the idea of married Catholic priests and believe it was a mistake to ever allow married priests. That’s just my humble opinion.
 
Thomas_White said:
I’m inclined to disagree with the idea of married Catholic priests and believe it was a mistake to ever allow married priests. That’s just my humble opinion.
Click to expand...
I partially agree with you, and that is just my NAAH0, but no one is asking for our opinion.

ICXC NIKA
 
As an Eastern bishop I think there might be a certain misunderstanding about the “celibate vs. married priests”. Let me clarify:

As far as I know, Eastern Catholic churches sui iuris have the original practice and tradition of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches from which they came to the Unia. That in effect means that as far as the issue of married deacons and priests is concerned, the Eastern Catholic churches and EO and OO churches do not differ.

Now, we never said that celibate priests are bad, or wrong. Or that celibate priests are not a very special gift to the Church. But, as our beloved Apostle Paul writes, celibacy is not for everyone, and RCC priesthood more than any other group of men in this world, are a living proof of that. No negativity intended, simply stating facts. It is a gift to live it out. And many simply are not up to that. Again, a simple fact proven beyond any doubt, especially in the 20th century.

If we can all accept the premise for this discussion that EO, OO and ECC sui iuris (21 or 22 of them, or something like that) have ABSOLUTELY no problem with celibate deacons and priests and consider them a gift from God to the Church, then that is a good beginning.

Now, to build on that premise: it was always the teaching of the East that as per 1 Tim 3 married men can become deacons and priests. The settings in the East have been different. Most common setting is “Anywhere between 2-5 married parish priests per one little church serving 100-200 families”. This setting allows the priests helping each other and regular concelebrations. That in the East means they take turns in parts of the Divine Liturgy, because our liturgy is a lot longer than the reduced Novus Ordo of the RCC (often between two and three hours. Recently I concelebrated a divine liturgy during which several ordinations took place and it took three and half hours). This setting then in itself rules out 90% objections the RCC has against married priests. Let me also confirm that until 5th century the East had even married bishops. We had some married bishops during the period of persecution of the church by the Communists in the 20th century, mostly a catacomb matter, where there were no monks from which to draw into episcopate, but that is another matter.

Our faithful have always loved, honoured and respected their married priests. That is a simple historic fact. You can see the live tradition of the East anywhere you go, it has held uuntil this day. A married priest walking down the street in Greece, his wife and children with him, and people passing by, one by ne, kneel and kiss the back of his right hand. These priests are, of coursse, full priests, so they serve all Holy Mysteries (sacraments, in Catholic nomenclature) except ordination into Holy Orders (only a bishop has that power). The currentstatistics say our priesthood is 80-85% married men worldwide. The celibate priesthood are mostly monks in monastýrs. Monastic priests serving in parish churches are also extremely rare and must be by the order of the local bishop and usually with agreement of the monk´s Igumen (Orthodox Abbot).

Interestingly, we have never had the “inheritance” problem or “property and assets going to the sons of a priest after his death” problem. For the love of our Lord we cannot fathom how it is that West did have that problem…

Not sure how many of you even have the will to speak about such “unCatholic” things with an Orthodox bishop, but if anyone is, I will gladly share.

Blessings of St. Katarina Alexandrijska,
+Gavrilo, Bishop of Czechia
Exarchate of Vlahia
Greek Orthodox Church
Metropolitan Synod of Avlona
 
GEddie said:
You have a point, but if nothing else, abolishing celibacy during a sexual revolution would be wrongheaded.

Most of the drive to ending celibacy is not coming from those who equate celibacy with sexual scandal (they aren’t connected) or who think ending it will lead to a snowstorm of vocations (it won’t; priesthood is a self-sacrificial life, and celibacy is only one part of that).
It is coming instead from those who just feel **uncomfortable ** with anybody giving up “sexual happiness.” That is not a reason a priori to change anything.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
I would argue that during the continuing “sexual revolution” (which is actually 50 years old at this point) would be a perfect time to re-visit clerical celibacy IN CERTAIN SPECIFIC CONTEXTS – in that such actions would publicly reinforce the Church’s teaching as to the sacredness of marital sexuality and that such is not inconsistent with dedication to the Church and the service to the People of God. One “specific context” would be the ordination to the priesthood of selected married deacons with proven records and experience. There is a lot more to this issue than the spectre of the wholesale marriages of current secular priests.
 
The Church has spoken about this issue for a long time.

"In this light one can more easily understand and appreciate the reasons behind the centuries-old choice which the Western Church has made and maintained—despite all the difficulties and objections raised down the centuries—of conferring the Order of Presbyter only on men who have given proof that they have been called by God to the gift of chastity in absolute and perpetual celibacy.

The Synod Fathers clearly and forcefully expressed their thought on this matter in an important proposal which deserves to be quoted here in full: “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”.[78]"

PASTORES DABO VOBIS (I Will Give You Shepherds)
Pope John Paul II
Apostolic Exhortation On the Formation of Priests in the Circumstances of the Present Day promulgated on March 25, 1992.

Source: ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2SHEP.HTM

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The Church has spoken about this issue for a long time.
Click to expand...
Honestly, **the RCC **has spoken about the issue for a long time. That is all. Fortunately, in respect of clerical discipline, RCC is just one of 20-some sui juris churches comprising the Catholic Church.

Also, the Western bishops tried to press obligatory celibacy on Eastern priests and deacons several times in the first millenium. Always, they were over-voted and/or corrected by the sum of Eastern bishops, and rightly so.

I am not very happy about a certain measure of what I personally perceive as disingenuity of those that take this stance you describe. To me, it seems you may have closed your eyes and ears to the truth about what “a gift” is. "a gift" is to be offered, and the giver must patiently wait and hope that the intended recipient will accept it freely, or it is no gift. These are the words of Pope Francis (not a direct quotation, but basically he said as much) “A gift” should not be pressed on anyone. Lord Jesus did not press celibacy on his Apostles. He might have said one sentence, and this would be so forever. He chose not to. He simply did not care. Apostles did not press celibacy on their disciples either, there is overwhelming evidence of that. And Apostles were the living Church. Bishops of Rome did not press celibacy on their clergy for many, many generations. Many were married priests themselves.

To conclude: may both East and West keep celibate clergy, they are a special gift. But let us not make it into anything more than that. I say, for the 20-some Eastern sui juris Catholic churches and for all Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches married priests are a gift from the Head of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, from Jesus Christ. As it always was, as it always will be.

What do I, an Orthodox bishop, care about the Catholic Church? I have to. We all have to care about all our brothers and sister, if we are to be obedient to our Master´s words. Plus, not an insignificant number of our clergy and faithful, over the centuries, have entered the door of Unia. They are still our brothers, just like Roman Catholics.

One more note from Orthodoxy: there is a difference in a celibate priestly life when lived alone and when lived in a monastery. If RCC kept celibate priests and had them in monasteries, where the brothers can supporteach other every waking hour of every day, and also keep watch over each other, that would work a lot better than when the celibate priests have to live alone and in the world, being subject to so much temptation and seduction and virtually no one to be there for them in time of need. In the setting I see the difference that matters.

In Christ,
+Gavrilo
 
Respectfully, my stance is not the issue. That is why I quoted Pope John Paul II without adding anything to his words.

Sincerely,

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top