I feel the Pope should let Priests get Married

[Wesrock]

Were they sexually active with their spouses?

Absolutely.

I have often wondered how much of this was driven by some of St. Paul’s comments on marriage - as disparaging as they seem to be, considering that marriage was elevated to a sacrament.

They were not supposed to be sexually active, going back to the canons of Elvira, Nicea, Carthage, etc… Tertullien commented on the existing practice in the 200s, as did Origen, and many church fathers since then through the first millenium. There were canons and times when priests who were sexually active with their wives were advised they would be removed from practicing. Stories of priests causing scandal for being too close with their wives and needing to prove they were continent.

Sex is not bad, or evil. It’s very good. But it IS worldly.

 

[otjm]

That could indeed by done, but would it address the falling number of vocations?

I did not and do not propose it as a “fix” to vocations. Every ordination counts as one more priest. And world wide, vocations appear to be rising (and in particular, in Africa); and the last time I looked at CARA, it looked like there was a positive increase. Would it cause a decrease in vocations?

Would this lead to increased numbers attending Mass?

Would it cause a decrease? I have no records of decreased attendance at parishes in which one of the minister converts say Mass. Do you?

Look at the Anglican church, has it worked for them? It would seem not.

Sure, let’s look at the Anglican/Episcopal church. Anyone with an ounce of honesty will admit they are a church with a multitude of problems - it is not for no reason that some congregations have “crossed the Tiber”. Trying to say that having a married clergy is what is causing their problems is hilarious. Society has become more and more secularized over the last 60 years, and every mainline church has had a falling off of attendance. I have yet to see one study which indicates this is due to having a married clergy. I don’t know where you come up with the idea that someone is proposing that having a married clergy should cause an increase in attendance. That is really a new one. I certainly would invite you to indicate the source of your evidence - or is it just a smokescreen you are throwing out there?

And how many married men do you know who have a burning desire to become a priest?

I have known several. As in. more than two. But then, I had the privilege of attending seminary with them, and you appear to not have had that experience. None of them would bring it up in a conversation other than with someone they knew quite well.

And I do not presume there are thousands, nay, even tens of thousands “waiting in the wings”. But logic would seem to indicate that if, over the last 2,000 years married men have desired to be ordained, and in fact continually over the centuries have been ordained, in the Catholic Church, that if the Roman rite were to permit it, there would be Catholic married men who would seek ordination. But that requires overcoming the emotional bias that some have to the issue, and that has always caused difficulties with logic.

The number of vocations isn’t falling because men cannot get married and become priests.

Straw man argument. I never said anything about falling vocations.

A much bigger issue is how many parents actively encourage their sons to consider becoming priests? Or would parents much rather their sons became lawyers, bankers, doctors etc?

Well, since you want to wander down that direction, there are a lot of parents who want grandchildren. There are a lot of parents who know priests with SSA and have concerns for their sons. And yes, I have actually heard conversations on that point.

 

[Abu]

Notice how otjm evades the renewed affirmation of St John Paul II in Pastores Dabo Vobis for the celibate priesthood.

**Priestly Celibacy Is Here to Stay – The History of Priestly Celibacy
Fr. Ray Ryland Ph.D.
From the May/Jun 2003 Issue of *Lay Witness *Magazine
Breaking with Tradition **

‘Those who advocate optional clerical celibacy often appeal to the Eastern Orthodox practice as a valid apostolic precedent. (But how could there be two contradictory “apostolic” traditions?) Prior to 692 all the Eastern Churches followed the apostolic tradition requiring continence of both married and unmarried clergy. The Council of Trullo in 692 radically changed this discipline.

‘In Canon 13, Trullo explicitly (and polemically) rejected the discipline of Rome—that is, the universal discipline observed to that time. The Council decreed that henceforth married men ordained to the diaconate and the priesthood should be allowed to remain in conjugal union with their wives after ordination. This privilege was not extended to married men ordained to the episcopate. The Council ruled that these others would still have to live in perpetual continence after ordination, but gave no reason for this ruling.

‘This was a significant break with apostolic tradition. The Council tried to justify its actions by appealing to the Council of Carthage (397). When it quoted Carthage as a precedent, Trullo changed what Carthage had decreed in order to provide a precedent for Trullo’s unprecedented action. The Carthaginian canons were widely known. Trullo did not simply make a mistake. Trullo falsified the Carthaginian canons for its own purposes. This is the origin of the Eastern Orthodox discipline regarding priestly celibacy.

‘Ever since the Eastern Churches separated themselves from Rome, Rome has always referred to the Eastern discipline in respectful terms, so as not to widen the breach. But Rome has never accepted the Trullan canon as a valid ecumenical decree. Rome has studiously avoided suggesting that the Eastern practice is of equal value with the apostolic tradition of clerical celibacy preserved by Rome.’
cuf.org/2003/05/priestly-celibacy-is-here-to-stay-the-history-of-priestly-celibacy/

The difficulty with married priests is well illustrated by this factual account which is strong, and proclaims the reality:
**A Bishop’s Experience with Married Priests
VATICAN CITY, OCT 22, 1999 (ZENIT).- **At the Synod of Bishops for Europe Bishop Virgil Bercea of Oradea Mare of the Rumanians, is young, joyful, strong in faith, polite, candid, clear-thinking and certain. Like other countries of Eastern Europe, Rumania has Catholic priests of the Eastern rite who are married.
“Celibacy is not a problem for us, it is a choice,” Bishop Bercea said. “I think the debate that has taken place in the West is characterized by ignorance on the subject. In our Church, 20% of the priests of the Greek-Catholic rite are married, while the others, of the Latin rite, are celibate. In my diocese, I have married priests with children and, in general, they have more problems than the others, as those who are celibate can dedicate themselves full-time to the mission, while those who are married must give part of their time and concern to guide and support a family. I understand them and help them, but it must be admitted that family life is a huge commitment.” [My emphasis]

The Case for Priestly Celibacy
Re an Episcopalian priest who decided to convert to Catholicism:
‘As my bleary-eyed friend discovered at that early morning Mass, the sacraments of Holy Orders and matrimony are too consuming to allow for both. A married priest can’t help giving his first thoughts to his wife and children. To the extent he does so, he may be forgoing his priestly role as “father,” and people who call a married priest “father” would rightly get the idea that they are second in line as spiritual children. Paul understood this perfectly well when he wrote to the Corinthians, "For he who is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of this world, how he may please his wife; and he is divided” (1 Cor 7:32-34).’
**George Sim Johnston **
This article originally appeared in the September 2006 issue of Crisis Magazine.
Printed with permission from InsideCatholic.com
catholicnewsagency.com/re…stly-celibacy/

 

[otjm]

Notice how otjm evades the renewed affirmation of St John Paul II in Pastores Dabo Vobis for the celibate priesthood.

I am not evading anything. The restriction of priesthood to only celbate males is and always has been a matter of discipline, not doctrine. I love St. John Paul but do not find it dispositive. And I am not bound by faith to agree.

**Priestly Celibacy Is Here to Stay – The History of Priestly Celibacy
Fr. Ray Ryland Ph.D.
From the May/Jun 2003 Issue of *Lay Witness ***Magazine
Breaking with Tradition

And the point is? If Father Ryland is trying to raise an Apostolic Precedent to doctrine, I do not find it succeeds. And if it is a discipline, then it can be subject to modification and/or change.

As I noted elsewhere, there was a lively public conversation/debate as to whether or not continence was demanded of married deacons. The jist of the article was that it was. And Rome has publicly said “Nope”. So I am not particularly swayed by the article, considering that the Roman rite has decided not that continence must be permanently practiced by married deacons, or restricted to a period of time when they serve at the Mass, but that it is not required at all. Not a modification, but a change.

‘Those who advocate optional clerical celibacy often appeal to the Eastern Orthodox practice as a valid apostolic precedent. (But how could there be two contradictory “apostolic” traditions?) Prior to 692 all the Eastern Churches followed the apostolic tradition requiring continence of both married and unmarried clergy. The Council of Trullo in 692 radically changed this discipline.

‘In Canon 13, Trullo explicitly (and polemically) rejected the discipline of Rome—that is, the universal discipline observed to that time. The Council decreed that henceforth married men ordained to the diaconate and the priesthood should be allowed to remain in conjugal union with their wives after ordination. This privilege was not extended to married men ordained to the episcopate. The Council ruled that these others would still have to live in perpetual continence after ordination, but gave no reason for this ruling.

The difficulty with married priests is well illustrated by this factual account which is strong, and proclaims the reality:
**A Bishop’s Experience with Married Priests
VATICAN CITY, OCT 22, 1999 (ZENIT).- **
“Celibacy is not a problem for us, it is a choice,” Bishop Bercea said. “I think the debate that has taken place in the West is characterized by ignorance on the subject. In our Church, 20% of the priests of the Greek-Catholic rite are married, while the others, of the Latin rite, are celibate. In my diocese, I have married priests with children and, in general, they have more problems than the others, as those who are celibate can dedicate themselves full-time to the mission, while those who are married must give part of their time and concern to guide and support a family. I understand them and help them, but it must be admitted that family life is a huge commitment.” [My emphasis]

Two points: 1) there is a vast amount of evidence that people who have “what they do” (I don’t want to get off the point of an argument between vocation and work - this is about time demands) have to juggle the time demands with family, so it is not as if this were an issue only to married priests; and 2) there is an underlying assumption that needs to be challenged, and that is that the model of priesthood is the parish pastor. What is the primary function of a priest? Providing the faithful with the sacraments and evangelization. Evangelization is also a responsibility of the laity, and deacons… The Church has for centuries upon centuries had more than one model of priesthood - to wit, monks (who were not meant to be parish priests, as various orders who were doing so in the 20th century have seemed to realize as they have pulled back from parish ministry). There is no reason that a married man, called to the priesthood, necessarily has to work any significant number of hours in the parish; some obviously just as a pastor does. But they well could have a “day job”; and assist the pastor in providing the sacraments, including Reconciliation and the Mass, without making an inordinate demand on the family.

The Case for Priestly Celibacy
Re an Episcopalian priest who decided to convert to Catholicism:
‘As my bleary-eyed friend discovered at that early morning Mass, the sacraments of Holy Orders and matrimony are too consuming to allow for both. A married priest can’t help giving his first thoughts to his wife and children. To the extent he does so, he may be forgoing his priestly role as “father,” and people who call a married priest “father” would rightly get the idea that they are second in line as spiritual children. Paul understood this perfectly well when he wrote to the Corinthians, "For he who is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of this world, how he may please his wife; and he is divided” (1 Cor 7:32-34).’
**George Sim Johnston **

THis point is hilarious - I used to serve at the 6:30 a.m. Mass during the week, and the people there were on their way to work. And guess what - they had families!!! If they could make it to morning Mass ( I suspect no more bleary eyed than the Episcopalian), what point is being made?

This article originally appeared in the September 2006 issue of Crisis Magazine.
Printed with permission from InsideCatholic.com
catholicnewsagency.com/re…stly-celibacy/

Crisis Magazine would not exist if it could not manage to create a crisis about something.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t know that any problem has to be solved for the Church to decide to ordain married men - other than the problem that ordaining anyone solves.

Perhaps, but the question remains: if we are to give up the discipline of a celibate presbyterate, what’s the reason for giving it up? What’s the ‘problem’ that making a change in discipline solves?

We already have, and have had for longer than I have been alive (which was well prior to Vatican 2), priests who have had a “day job” - teachers primarily; scientists, doctors…

That’s a red herring.

Diocesan priests don’t have ‘day jobs’ – at least, not in the way that deacons do. There’s a big difference between the two: priests might not be assigned to full-time ministry, but if they’re not, then they’re assigned by their bishop to another form of ministry. Deacons, on the other hand, have true ‘day jobs’ – their work is distinct from and not directed by the diocese.

Married deacons often have a “day job”, and definitely not all are in a parish 24/7… and the world and the Church have not fallen apart because of it.

That’s because deacons, while working their ‘day job’, are primarily in ‘part time’ ministry that works around their work schedules. Are you suggesting that we ordain men as priests to a sort of ‘part-time’ ministry? That was tried in the 20th century, and the worker-priest movement was abandoned as a failure.

 

[GEddie]

why in creation do people insist on saying that anyone who thinks married men should be allowed to be ordained, is thereby in favor of changing away from celibacy?

Because in effect, that is what it would be.

Currently, in the Catholic Church, a celibate priesthood is the norm. If married men were routinely admitted to formation, that would be reversed.

Why should a millennial discipline be changed just because some feel uncomfortable with it? No-one is urging other Churches to change to normative priestly celibacy, nor should they.

ICXC NIKA

 

[otjm]

Perhaps, but the question remains: if we are to give up the discipline of a celibate presbyterate, what’s the reason for giving it up? What’s the ‘problem’ that making a change in discipline solves?

where do you get this idea of "giveing up the discipline of a celibate presbyterate? The Catholic Church has had both for 2,000 years without “giving up” anything, in the Eastern churches.

And it is not as if this is some strange idea out of left field, or from the back side of Mars. The Roman rite has been ordaining married men for several decades now. It is limited to married men, who have been ministers and have converted. The discussion is about extending that to include married men who were not converts.

I will send the question back to you - what “problem” does ordaining convert ministers “solve”? It is the wrong question - ordination is not done to “solve” a problem. It is done to carry on the work of Christ.

That’s a red herring.

Diocesan priests don’t have ‘day jobs’ – at least, not in the way that deacons do. There’s a big difference between the two: priests might not be assigned to full-time ministry, but if they’re not, then they’re assigned by their bishop to another form of ministry. Deacons, on the other hand, have true ‘day jobs’ – their work is distinct from and not directed by the diocese.

Okay, so you consider teaching, and science, and law, and medicine to be forms of ministry. I may or may not agree with you. For starters, if a married man is ordained, other than the general shortage of priests for parishes there is no particular reason that he would have to be assigned to a parish full time. The complaint is that there is “too much to do, taking him away from family”. I propose a model that does not assign married men full time to a parish. No red herring. And personally, whether it is a “form of ministry” or not to me is largely irrelevant.

That’s because deacons, while working their ‘day job’, are primarily in ‘part time’ ministry that works around their work schedules. Are you suggesting that we ordain men as priests to a sort of ‘part-time’ ministry? That was tried in the 20th century, and the worker-priest movement was abandoned as a failure.

perhaps it was a failure; or perhaps how it was done was a failure. Can you cite studies on it?

 

[otjm]

Because in effect, that is what it would be.

Hogwash. In that case, that has already been done - and I deny that what has been done has done away with celibacy. We already ordain married convert misnsters, and that has not “done away with celibacy”. And the Churchhas had both married and celibate men ordained for 2,000 years and it has not done away with celibacy. The Eastern Churches are fully Catholic.

Currently, in the Catholic Church, a celibate priesthood is the norm. If married men were routinely admitted to formation, that would be reversed.

Wrong on both counts. The norm in Eastern Churches is that we have both; there is neither a norm for married men or for celibate men; both are ordained. A norm can be modified without being reversed.

Why should a millennial discipline be changed just because some feel uncomfortable with it? No-one is urging other Churches to change to normative priestly celibacy, nor should they.

Who said anything about being uncomfortable? That is your issue, not mine.

Why was a millennial discipline changed? It has been. Why should it be kept only to married convert ministers? I see no logical reason.

People keep saying “What problem will it change?”. It will change the issue of how many priests we have, no more and no less than will the ordination of a celibate man. Each ordination provides us one more priest, whether they are celibate, or married convert ministers, or married Catholic men.

The question is, why should we not ordain married Catholic men?

We haven’t done it for a millennium. Sorry - doesn’t work - we are doing it right now.

It is too hard on a family. Sorry - the same issue applies for anyone who works more than 40 hours a week. It is not exactly a unique issue.

They might not be as available. Neither are married deacons, and neither the world nor parishes nor the Church has been damaged by that. It may mean they are not assigned as pastors - but they would know that coming in.

Worker priests “didn’t work” - Okay, why? What didn’t work? Are there solutions to why it didn’t? What were the issues? What were the expectations? Why is it now working for deacons?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I have followed the discussion with interest.

I choose, however, to limit my contribution to saying that the decision to alter the discipline for the West rests solely with the Magisterium. As when the Council Fathers at Vatican II supported the initiative to restore the permanent diaconate in the Western Church and to open it to men who were married and Blessed Paul VI did so, the decision rests with the Holy Father motu proprio or acting with the College of Bishops. As a theologian and priest coming to the twilight of his life, I have confidence they will correctly discern the movement of the Spirit on this issue. My own personal thoughts are irrelevant…only theirs are relevant and, most importantly, dispositive.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Worker priests “didn’t work” - Okay, why? What didn’t work? Are there solutions to why it didn’t? What were the issues? What were the expectations? Why is it now working for deacons?

Actually, I am at a loss to understand why others are invoking the issue of the Worker Priests at all. Those of us who actually knew that movement and what it was about would say that it is almost the diametric inverse of what is being discussed in this thread.

 

[Rosebud77]

Celibacy is not primarily about sex but about commtiment. If sex is totally at the centre of life then there are problems Todays young seem to see sex as almost mandatory which is maybe at the source of the reduction in vocations that demand celibacy.

 

[Wesrock]

Again, more references to celibacy being the norm for only a millennium. Technically true. Again, though, clerical continence has essentially been the norm in the west for 2,000 years. It’s been relaxed as the norm for deacons, but has continued to be applied to the episcopate and presbyteriate.

otjm, unless you’re asking that we ordain married men with the expectation that they live as brother and sister with their wives, it’s misleading to talk as if you’re advocating a change to only a milleniun old discipline and a return to the norm before then. If you still advocate for changing the norm, that’s one thing, but I haven’t seen you acknowledge it as being anything older than a millennium, which is why I keep harping on it. I apologize if I’ve missed it.

 

[ffg]

There should be a ‘shadow a priest for 24 hours’ program. People might see why the rules are what they are, outside of the marriage to the Church bit of Holy Orders.

 

[babochka]

There should be a ‘shadow a priest for 24 hours’ program. People might see why the rules are what they are, outside of the marriage to the Church bit of Holy Orders.

Sure, but in all fairness, a person should be able to shadow a married priest for 24 hours as well. Preferably a married priest in an area of the world in which married priests are the norm, like Eastern Europe.

 

[ffg]

Sure, but in all fairness, a person should be able to shadow a married priest for 24 hours as well. Preferably a married priest in an area of the world in which married priests are the norm, like Eastern Europe.

Well, if you are talking about exceptions to the rule, I would disagree because, though there are exceptions, the rule would be what is a natural course and what is taught.

We don’t live by exceptions, though we know they exist and will happen. I love every convert especially those ministers of other faiths who take their families into the CC. Of whom, some get approval for priesthood. To convert is a great and powerful action.

If you are talking about something that is a rule, absolutely, where marriage is allowed, shadow away.

Take care,

Mike

 

[phil19034]

Sure, but in all fairness, a person should be able to shadow a married priest for 24 hours as well. Preferably a married priest in an area of the world in which married priests are the norm, like Eastern Europe.

The Eastern Churches grew up with married priests, with West grew up with celebacy. This has resulted in different seminary programs/practices, different parish sizes, etc.

My understanding is that in the East (compared to the West) the parishes are smaller on average and there are more of them. Meaning the parishenor to priest ratio is lower. In the West, parish sizes are typically larger and newer parishes can be quite huge. For example, I attended a parish in FL while on vacation that had over 10,000 families.

I personally don’t see a need to make any changes. However, I do think that allowing select, veteran Permanent Deacons to become “part time Priests” might not be a bad idea. As long as the requirements were such that it remained the exception.

I would envision seeing least the following restrictions:

1. permission from wife, esp regarding a possible full or partial vow of continence
2. be recommended by Bishop and
3. no young children (or perhaps requiring no children under 13 or even 18)
4. must have been a deacon for several years (perhaps 7 or 10 at minimum)
5. and perhaps a minimum age limit like 50 or 60 years of age.
6. no pay, no benifits, and no retirement from the Church for their priestly duties (unless they were widowed and became “full time priests” BELOW a certain age set by the dioceses)

To me, the goal would be for these priests to be primarily weekend assistants and perhaps (if time allowed, to assist with confessions, pre-Cana, marriage/family ministry, etc at parishes around the diocese as possible.

Also, I could also envision them working with more than one parish. I.E. Perhaps being weekend assistance at one parish and helping out at another parish during the week that is closer to their home and/or day job.

But the MAIN requirement would be a system that insures this remains the exception and not the norm.

God Bless

 

[Abu]

phil19034 #96
The Eastern Churches grew up with married priests, with West grew up with celebacy.

Incorrect.

A too common misconception, as posts #58, 64, 83, 87 make incontrovertibly clear – it is high time to jettison the errors.

As Wesrock affirms (#93), clerical continence has been the Apostolic Norm since the beginning.

The Apostolic Norm was jettisoned at Trullo by the East.

 

[babochka]

Incorrect.

A too common misconception, as posts #58, 64, 57, 83 make incontrovertibly clear – it is high time to jettison the errors.

As Wesrock affirms (#93), clerical continence has been the Apostolic norm since the beginning.

The Apostolic Norm was jettisoned at Trullo by the East.

I believe the poster was referring to the situation, as it is now and has been for hundreds of years, having affected the Easter way of formation of priest, as well as the relationships and expectations of parishioners regarding their priests. Reaching back into antiquity, more than 1000 years ago, is rather irrelevant to that point.

 

[babochka]

Well, if you are talking about exceptions to the rule, I would disagree because, though there are exceptions, the rule would be what is a natural course and what is taught.

We don’t live by exceptions, though we know they exist and will happen. I love every convert especially those ministers of other faiths who take their families into the CC. Of whom, some get approval for priesthood. To convert is a great and powerful action.

If you are talking about something that is a rule, absolutely, where marriage is allowed, shadow away.

Take care,

Mike

No, I’m talking about something that is the rule. It is common to say that married priests won’t work because of x, y, and z, when x, y, and z are dealt with every day by married priests all over the world.

So, if someone wants to recommend shadowing a priest for 24 hours to show just how it cannot possibly work, for example, to balance family and ministry, it seems only reasonable to equally study an entirely different model of ministry. If you’re going to look at a married priest, don’t look at a married Latin-rite priest who is struggling to fit his married life into a celibate model. Look at a priest who exercises his ministry in a world in which he is normal, surrounded by other priests who are married and dealing with the same issues.

 

[Abu]

babochka #98
I believe the poster was referring to the situation, as it is now and has been for hundreds of years

1. Please note my corrected post numbering in evidence.
2. We don’t need excuses we need the reality of facts. Continued confusion can be removed only by the facts.
3. The Apostolic Norm from the beginning was unilaterally overthrown at Trullo.