I feel the Pope should let Priests get Married

[commenter]

While people tend to focus so heavily on the strain on the priesthood, we tend to forget the Married state is really doing much worse in recent decades. 50 years ago I would have said sure, a man might handle priesthood (difficult) and marriage (easier) at the same time. Today, how many Catholic families do you know where there has not been divorce, “living together”, substance abuse among a parent or child, severe mental illness, a child who, shall we say “comes out” , estrangement between parent and child, etc, etc? I know families still stressed by problems of children who are well into their 20s.

The Church needs to be protective of marriage and family life. It is now under far greater stress than priesthood.

If someone is a priest, the process of dating, looking for right partner, engagement, marriage planning, founding a marriage, having children, is so complicated now, it would put both their marriage and priesthood at risk. In my area, the Episcopal bishop has commented on the enormous number of divorces, and other strains, among clergy.

That said, it might be possible for a man in a very stable, well established marriage to be considered for ordination to priesthood, especially if they are already deacons, if they have no young children.

 

[commenter]

They cannot marry even with small children unless they are laicized.

They cannot be un-ordained but laicization dispenses them from the canonical responsibility to remain unmarried.

-Tim-

Would laicization mean permanent termination of diaconal responsibilities?

 

[babochka]

The immediate effect of a Catholic married clergy would be the end of daily mass, since a married priest must abstain from marital relations for at least a day. Unless a parish has more than one priest, celibate or married, it would be impossible to keep the cherished Western custom of daily mass.

Pax Christi

I’ve heard this before, and I understand that this standard exists in the ancient canons, but the number of children my priest has and the reality that he celebrates either Divine Liturgy or Mass (he’s bi-ritual) nearly every day, would indicate that it, like many other fasting requirements, has been relaxed in more modern times. I’ve never asked, of course. It doesn’t really seem to be an appropriate question to ask my priest or his wife.

 

[otjm]

Where does it say that a priest has to abstain for a day? I never heard of that.

-Tim-

Comes from (at least) Eastern rite and Orthodox practice. I am familiar with it, and if I recall correctly, it goes back to the early Church, well before the split.

In fact, a few years ago there was a very lively debate (and if I recall correctly, Peter Kreeft was one of the two debating) as to whether or not married deacons were required permanent continence.

And my recollection is that Rome finally said “Nope!”. It may be part of current Canon law, but it has been too long since I read the string of back and forth.

 

[phil19034]

Would laicization mean permanent termination of diaconal responsibilities?

For deacons, not necessarily. It would be up to the Bishop.

 

[otjm]

I know you are speaking of the issue of divorce, but deacons do not offer sacrifice at the altar as priests and bishops do. If you go back to the Church fathers, that’s frequently the justification for a continent priesthood. Similar to how the Levitical Priesthood refrained from sex before serving in the Temple (and only served in the Temple after long periods of not serving). And the Church Fathers also appealed to a continent ordained ministry as being apostolic in origin.

Understood, but I will take a run at it again: the poster I was responding to seemed to posit that we can’t have married priests, because of issues of divorce, annulments, and related issues.

My comment could be stated another way: straw man argument. The issue is not whether or not deacons say Mass - they don’t. The issue is whether we can have any ordained who are also married. And we have a pretty sizable batch of them, and they are not running amok.

Is someone somewhere going to end up divorced? Considering the fact that people married 25 years or more do so, not a whole lot surprises me. However, given the overall divorce rate, and the divorce rate among Catholics, the deacons are a bright shining light in our midst to the commitment both to do God’s work through marriage, and through the deaconate.

I have had one pastor die of AIDS; 2 removed from the priesthood because of sexual abuse issues. I will gladly take my risks of a married pastor who might possibly end up in a divorce.

 

[phil19034]

Understood, but I will take a run at it again: the poster I was responding to seemed to posit that we can’t have married priests, because of issues of divorce, annulments, and related issues.

My comment could be stated another way: straw man argument. The issue is not whether or not deacons say Mass - they don’t. The issue is whether we can have any ordained who are also married. And we have a pretty sizable batch of them, and they are not running amok.

Is someone somewhere going to end up divorced? Considering the fact that people married 25 years or more do so, not a whole lot surprises me. However, given the overall divorce rate, and the divorce rate among Catholics, the deacons are a bright shining light in our midst to the commitment both to do God’s work through marriage, and through the deaconate.

I have had one pastor die of AIDS; 2 removed from the priesthood because of sexual abuse issues. I will gladly take my risks of a married pastor who might possibly end up in a divorce.

During a parish meeting one night, we got side tracked with our Monsignor about married priests.

The Monsignor said that he believe that PART of the reason the Church introduced the Permanent Diaconate was to test the idea of married priests having jobs outside of the parish . He believes that test failed. He has three Deacons and he mentioned that it is very hard for all of them to balance home life with parish life.

There is more he would ideally like his Deacons to do for the parish, esp during weekday evenings, but they have to balance with their families.

Pastor also said that the Deacons are told that their first priority is their wives and families. So wife trumps pastor.

The Monsignor said that because of the Church’s stance on vocation and the importance of the vocation of marriage and parenthood, the parish would always come second for married priests. Then, he discussed his own schedule and was like “where is time for family” in my schedule?

He’s of the impression that the celibate priesthood must remain the norm.

That’s why my personal opinion is that I only feel it would be ok to allow SOME veteran Permanent Deacons to become ordained priests to hear confessions, say mass, etc on a volunteer basis, similarly like this do as Permanent Deacons.

God Bless

 

[Brendan_64]

The Catholic Church already does ordain married men as priests. I agree that the celibacy requirement is one of the things killing the priesthood. It certainly could be changed. It was not always a requirement.

So if celibacy is killing the priesthood then why is there such an issue in the Anglican church regarding vocations?

Celibacy is not killing the priesthood, nor is it a solution to lower numbers of vocations.

 

[phil19034]

So if celibacy is killing the priesthood then why is there such an issue in the Anglican church regarding vocations?

Celibacy is not killing the priesthood, nor is it a solution to lower numbers of vocations.

Very true… and they allow women to be priests & bishops yet they are still bleeding.

 

[otjm]

During a parish meeting one night, we got side tracked with our Monsignor about married priests.

The Monsignor said that he believe that PART of the reason the Church introduced the Permanent Diaconate was to test the idea of married priests having jobs outside of the parish . He believes that test failed. He has three Deacons and he mentioned that it is very hard for all of them to balance home life with parish life.

There is more he would ideally like his Deacons to do for the parish, esp during weekday evenings, but they have to balance with their families.

Pastor also said that the Deacons are told that their first priority is their wives and families. So wife trumps pastor.

The Monsignor said that because of the Church’s stance on vocation and the importance of the vocation of marriage and parenthood, the parish would always come second for married priests. Then, he discussed his own schedule and was like “where is time for family” in my schedule?

He’s of the impression that the celibate priesthood must remain the norm.

That’s why my personal opinion is that I only feel it would be ok to allow SOME veteran Permanent Deacons to become ordained priests to hear confessions, say mass, etc on a volunteer basis, similarly like this do as Permanent Deacons.

God Bless

I don’t think we are on different pages, although perhaps not on the same spot on the page.

The Monsignor, had he done an additional interview, might have found: Doctors, CPAs, trial attorneys, outside sales people, small business owners, and a whole host of other people who are not part of the 8 to 5 group all have the same issues.

And yes, I know that a vocation to the priesthood is not a “job”, so let’s put that side issue aside; all of the ones I mention have times - many all the time - where they put in a whole lot more than a 40 hour week. Evenings, weekends, nights, and any other times outside the normal 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. are all game.

And I don’t think that we will move from the norm; I think celibacy will be part of the Roman rite. But I see only strawmen arguments being made for all the reasons that “It just won’t work”. It is working now, with the convert ministers who have been ordained.

Someone related a talk given by an Episcopalian converts wife. She is right that there are a lot of demands; and the Church may need to find accommodations. But she isn’t saying anything that the spouses of the groups I note above don’t say.

I simply do not see any mad rush of married men to ordination, should that be offered; and one of the reasons is that their wives have to be completely on board. we have not had a mad rush in the deaconate. but we do continue to ordain them, and we do continue to accommodate them.

And we have ample numbers (okay, maybe not ample; but definitely more than a handful) of priests who are not parish pastors or assistants, but have other work they do in addition to liturgy and parish work. So it is not like we have nothing to look at in terms of what a married priest’s day/week/month might look like.

 

[otjm]

During a parish meeting one night, we got side tracked with our Monsignor about married priests.

The Monsignor said that he believe that PART of the reason the Church introduced the Permanent Diaconate was to test the idea of married priests having jobs outside of the parish . He believes that test failed. He has three Deacons and he mentioned that it is very hard for all of them to balance home life with parish life.

There is more he would ideally like his Deacons to do for the parish, esp during weekday evenings, but they have to balance with their families.

Pastor also said that the Deacons are told that their first priority is their wives and families. So wife trumps pastor.

The Monsignor said that because of the Church’s stance on vocation and the importance of the vocation of marriage and parenthood, the parish would always come second for married priests. Then, he discussed his own schedule and was like “where is time for family” in my schedule?

He’s of the impression that the celibate priesthood must remain the norm.

That’s why my personal opinion is that I only feel it would be ok to allow SOME veteran Permanent Deacons to become ordained priests to hear confessions, say mass, etc on a volunteer basis, similarly like this do as Permanent Deacons.

God Bless

I don’t think we are on different pages, although perhaps not on the same spot on the page.

The Monsignor, had he done an additional interview, might have found: Doctors, CPAs, trial attorneys, outside sales people, small business owners, and a whole host of other people who are not part of the 8 to 5 group all have the same issues.

And yes, I know that a vocation to the priesthood is not a “job”, so let’s put that side issue aside; all of the ones I mention have times - many all the time - where they put in a whole lot more than a 40 hour week. Evenings, weekends, nights, and any other times outside the normal 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. are all game.

And I don’t think that we will move from the norm; I think celibacy will be part of the Roman rite. But I see only straw men arguments being made for all the reasons that “It just won’t work”. It is working now, with the convert ministers who have been ordained.

Someone related a talk given by an Episcopalian converts wife. She is right that there are a lot of demands; and the Church may need to find accommodations. But she isn’t saying anything that the spouses of the groups I note above don’t say.

I simply do not see any mad rush of married men to ordination, should that be offered; and one of the reasons is that their wives have to be completely on board. we have not had a mad rush in the deaconate. but we do continue to ordain them, and we do continue to accommodate them.

And we have ample numbers (okay, maybe not ample; but definitely more than a handful) of priests who are not parish pastors or assistants, but have other work they do in addition to liturgy and parish work. So it is not like we have nothing to look at in terms of what a married priest’s day/week/month might look like.

Would it “solve” our vocation crisis? Of course not; but I don’t see it making the vocation crisis worse.

There are plenty of naysayers. There were plenty of naysayers about the married deaconate. Whether or not it was an “experiment” is beyond anything I have ever seen written (not that I haven’t thought the same). Has it “failed”?

That is a personal opinion, often shaped by preconceived notions. And if we patiently sit down and listen to all of what many say, that is what we have - a lot of preconceived notions, which lead to foregone conclusions.

And by the way - it is my understanding that deacons may be assigned to assist in a parish; but their primary responsibility is to the bishop - and some are not assigned to a parish, but may assist.

So, I don’t think we are all that far apart.

 

[Tommy999]

Hetrosexual of course…

What are your thoughts…

Although I am not Catholic, I respect and admire the sacrifices that priests make, especially remaining celibate, and I understand the advantages of having unmarried priests and women religious who can dedicate themselves full time to God’s work. I doubt the Catholic Church will change policy that anytime soon, and I personally think it would be strange if they did.

On a side note, years ago I heard a Baptist pastor hypothesize around the time of the big Catholic priest sex scandal in the USA something to the effect (me paraphrasing what he said):

*"God gave humans a sexual nature. If the Catholic Church allowed priests to marry, they wouldn’t have this problem because the priest would have a wife with whom he could share that aspect of his life in a God-approved way. Without a sexual outlet, there is no way to express that part of his being in a God-approved way so it spills over into this sort of behavior. which is harmful for everyone, especially the victims. *

The only problem with this thinking, in my opinion, is that occasionally there are stories of married pastors having an affair or abusing a child despite having a wife and kids of his own.

A small concern I have with priests not marrying and procreating is that they are usually intelligent and good people and – generally speaking – a society wants to keep the good genes in the gene pool to be passed on to future generations. However, I trust the Catholic Church knows what it is doing.

 

[tamedlion]

I am not sure exactly what you are saying. If you are responding to priests getting married, hsitory indicates that is not going to happen.

If you are saying that priesthood ontologically implies celibacy, it doesn’t.

What I’m saying is very simple, even though priesthood doesn’t implies celibacy, it has worked pretty well since it became a norm and individuals that today really want to become priest are very well aware of what priesthood implies and that’s one reason why they like this sacrament. Most people, if not all, that want priest to be marry don’t want to be one or they already are priests but don’t want the job anymore.

 

[Wesrock]

Has anyone addressed that the priesthood being continent is attested to as an apostolic tradition by the early Church canon’s and in writings as far back as the third century, at least?

This seems to be ignored, when it’s something that needs to be resolved first prior to these later discussions.

The argument seems to be circling around whether being married and a priest could work and ignoring the elephant in the room.

 

[babochka]

Has anyone addressed that the priesthood being continent is attested to as an apostolic tradition by the early Church canon’s and in writings as far back as the third century, at least?

This seems to be ignored, when it’s something that needs to be resolved first prior to these later discussions.

The argument seems to be circling around whether being married and a priest could work and ignoring the elephant in the room.

I thought the elephant in the room was the reality that the Catholic church has had a married priesthood for centuries, one that works.

 

[tamedlion]

Has anyone addressed that the priesthood being continent is attested to as an apostolic tradition by the early Church canon’s and in writings as far back as the third century, at least?

This seems to be ignored, when it’s something that needs to be resolved first prior to these later discussions.

The argument seems to be circling around whether being married and a priest could work and ignoring the elephant in the room.

That’s not a nice way to refer to the wife but you got it!

 

[JurisPrudens]

The Catholic Church already does ordain married men as priests. I agree that the celibacy requirement is one of the things killing the priesthood. It certainly could be changed. It was not always a requirement.

It was not killing the priesthood for 1000 years. I don’t think there is a just reason to consider it is “killing the the priesthood” now.

 

[Abu]

mdef303 #5
As foreign as the concept may seem today, the first pope, St. Peter, was married.
Catholic priests were allowed to be married until the 12th century.
Little Sheep #8
It was not always a requirement.

Living chastely, if married, was mandated from the beginning

Among the Apostles, only Saint Peter is known to have been married because his mother-in-law is mentioned in the Gospels, but no mention is made of his wife or children. Tradition tells us that he was a widower who was caring for his wife’s aged mother. Some of the others might have been married, but there is no indication of this and it is a clear that they left everything, including their families, to follow Christ.

St. Peter asked Our Lord, “What about us? We left all we had to follow you.” The Divine Master answered: “I tell you solemnly, there is no one who has left house, wife, brothers, parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not be given repayment many times over in this present time and, in the world to come, eternal life” (Lk 18:28-30, cf. Mt 19:27-30; Mk 10:20-21).

The Apostolic Norm was recognized by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, in Non latet (1858):
“Whoever ponders diligently the true tradition of celibacy and clerical continence will indeed find that, from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by behavior and custom, it was firmly established that not only bishops and priests, but [all] clergy in holy Orders were to preserve inviolate virginity or perpetual continence.”
**[Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, instr. ad Archiep. Fogarasien. et Alba-Iulien. Graeci ritus Non latet Amplitudinem Tuam (24 martii 1858), in Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide seu Decreta, Instructiones, Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus, in 2 vols., (Romae: S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1907) doc. n. 1158, I: 627-630, at 628].
canonlaw.info/a_deacons.h…ra_Congregatio

**“….the Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests, issued in 1994 by the Congregation for the Clergy. Section 59 affirms (that) the Church, from apostolic times, has wished to conserve the gift of perpetual continence of the clergy and choose the candidates for Holy Orders from among the celibate faithful (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 7:5, 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:2-12, 5:9; Tit. 1:6-8)”, and cites several of the early councils which mandated continence for married as well as unmarried clergy.”
**cuf.org/2003/05/priestly-…estly-celibacy

The disciplinary canons of the Council of Elvira in 305 are the Church’s earliest record regarding priestly celibacy. The council gave no explanation of its rulings, which were ancient and presumably well-known. Canon 33 forbade all married bishops, priests, and deacons from having sexual relations with their wives and begetting children. The council reminded the married clergy that they were bound by a vow of perpetual continence. Penalty for breaking that vow was deposition from the ministry. Commenting on this council, Pope Pius XI said that these canons, the “first written traces” of the “Law of Ecclesiastical Celibacy,” "presuppose a still earlier unwritten practice. " (*Ad Catholici Sacerdotii *, 43, 1935).

“Clerics were often chosen from among married older men. After ordination they were required to abstain from conjugal intercourse. In effect then, they were not married. Qui habent uxores, tamquam non habentes sint. “Let those who are married live as if they do not have wives”. Pope Leo the Great in 458 AD borrowed those words of Saint Paul in order to describe the celibacy of the clergy.” *. The Origin Of Priestly Celibacy, by Hugh Ballantyne, June 2003].

As explained by Fr. George William Rutler, in an article entitled *A Consistent theology of clerical celibacy *(Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Feb. 1989):
“Those clerics whose marriages were recognized by the Church, and they were many, were expected to abstain from conjugal union after ordination. The new archaeology shows that this was the case for all the Eastern Churches in the earliest centuries, and in a mitigated form later. In the Latin Church this was the clear rule throughout the first millennium, culminating in the laws of the Gregorian reform, especially as found in the First Lateran Council of 1123, and the Second Lateran Council of 1139…The discipline of the Second Lateran Council explicitly forbidding marriage after ordination was not an innovation in the observance of continence. Its prohibition of clerical marriage was only a regulation ensuring that the apostolic norm of abstinence would be better observed." [My emphasis].

Prior to 692 all the Eastern Churches followed the apostolic tradition requiring continence of both married and unmarried clergy. Their Council of Trullo in 692 radically changed this discipline.*

 

[commenter]

(from earlier poster)
The argument seems to be circling around whether being married and a priest could work and ignoring the elephant in the room.

That’s not a nice way to refer to the wife but you got it!

I think my elephant…er…lovely wife encourages me to spend time on CAF, so she does not have to listen to my arguments, rants, etc.

 

[babochka]

Among the Apostles, only Saint Peter is known to have been married because his mother-in-law is mentioned in the Gospels, but no mention is made of his wife or children. **Tradition tells us that he was a widower who was caring for his wife’s aged mother. **Some of the others might have been married, but there is no indication of this and it is a clear that they left everything, including their families, to follow Christ.

Tradition or speculation? The fact that the gospels are silent does not indicate anything and the church does not have a teaching about this.

On the other hand, we do find the following in he Roman Martyrology:

St. Petronilla, Virgin [and Martyr], daughter of the blessed apostle Peter, who refused to marry the nobleman Flaccus. Given three days for consideration, she spent them in fasting and prayer. On the third day, having received Christ sacramentally, she gave up her spirit.

More information about St. Petronilla can be found at rosarychurch.net/answers/qa112000a.html

Clement of Alexandria wrote in the second century that Peter’s wife died a martyr on the same day as her husband.

St. Jerome speculated that Peter was a widower at the time of the biblical account, but speculation hardly constitutes tradition.

While neither of these constitute official teaching, these accounts are certainly compelling evidence that early Christians did not have a problem with the concept of St. Peter having a wife and children.