If priestly celibacy is not a dogma, why can't it be changed?

[RyanBlack]

Another “simple” change of culture? How do you propose making people less “cheap”…if they are not compelled to throw in an extra $5 now for missions to the poor, what makes you think they would be moved by a plea to give the priest a bigger salary so he can take a wife?

A man already ordained is forbidden by canon law to marry. This is the case for the Eastern Churches as well.

 

[malphono]

Both of these issues could fairly easily be solved by a simple change of culture. We can give priests and parishes more stability, and we can pay them more. Our particular way of doing things have built up around the culture of celibate priests.

As to the other question: 200 families giving an additional $5 each week to the collection could pay a pastor an additional 52,000 each year. This is over an above what he already makes. We’d have to work on that aspect of Catholic culture, too. We’re notoriously cheap.

Or (and this isn’t going to go down well with the hard-liners), it might be possible to revert to the “old country” idea where the local (married) priest was actually part of the community. In the Oriental and Eastern Churches in the Middle East (and I believe the reality was similar in Eastern Europe), the village priest had a trade, whether herding sheep or goats, or farming, or woodworking, or stone-cutting, or whatever, with which he supported his family. There was little support from the diocese. The villagers would often offer what they could, whether money or food, etc, and there were stipends for baptisms, weddings, funerals, etc, that also helped. And there was always stability. A married priest was rarely, if ever, uprooted and relocated. Frankly, I see no reason why a similar system couldn’t work today, even in the US. It seems to be accepted for deacons, so why not for priests? Yes, it has some aspects of the “worker-priest” movement, and OK, so we trade goat herding for computer tech, but the concept still seems to me to be sound.

 

[FrStevenJones]

Father, I have no doubt that many, many priests work as you describe. I also have no doubt that there are many priests who manage to lead more balanced lives. So much of it seems to depend on the type of parish(es): rural, urban or suburban. Do you have other priests? Do you have to travel long distances to get to your parishioners? At a local suburban parish in the local Latin diocese, there are about 3000 families. The parish has 2 priests, plus one in residence, and 2 deacons. The parish offers 2 Masses daily, one on Saturday evening and 4 on Sundays. Confessions are offered for 3 hours on Saturdays, with all three priests hearing them. The priests are quite busy, but not utterly swamped. It was in this parish that the priest was able to ski and play golf occasionally. In the same diocese, which is geographically large, there are many rural parishes, where the situation is as you describe. The life of the priests in these parishes is very different: hours spent in the car, driving from place to place. Their flocks are different; not quite as large, but spread out. I don’t know much about their lives, to be honest, but I suspect it is much like you describe. I know other priests who work hard in non-parish work (diocesan offices, academia, etc), but still help out with Mass on the weekends and are involved in youth activities, etc. They are all, by the nature of their vocations, on-call 24/7.

By comparison, I know a doctor who works in an urgent-care clinic. She has regular hours, 8 hour shifts. Another doctor I know, an OB, spends his time working in several different offices and delivers babies in 2 different hospitals. His life is crazy - on call hours, emergencies that run on for hours. Same profession, different lives.

My own priest ministers to a very small flock in his own parish. We are fewer than 25 families, but spread out over a large geographical area. There is no staff. He serves as pastor, secretary, finance guy, volunteer coordinator, catechist, janitor, appliance repairman, and gardener. He gives us his cell phone number and is responsive to our calls. In return, we respect his boundaries and family time, as much as we are able. If it is truly urgent, we’ll call in the evening or the middle of the night. If it can wait, we call at a more reasonable hour. If he cancels a house blessing because he forgot about a soccer game, we shrug it off. Life happens. If he can’t make a soccer game because he is needed as a priest, his family deals with it. Life happens. He also helps at the parish where his children go to school, saying Mass a few times each week and hearing confessions when he’s needed. In addition, he works full-time teaching theology at a Catholic High School. He is, truth be told, stretched way too thin, and so is his wife. He often wonders if a celibate priest would be better suited to the particular (financial) circumstances of our parish. I tell him that he is the priest that we prayed for and God has given him to us as our spiritual father for a reason. We have been immeasurably blessed with him as our pastor Thanks be to God, he and his wife are both extraordinary human beings, well suited to their vocations. He, with the grace of Holy Orders and the pair of them with the grace of Matrimony are an example to all of us.

To all the faithful priests, working 20 hours a day or 10, I am grateful. The church is grateful and I don’t think there needs to be this competition. Every priest has an extraordinarily difficult job in our culture. Each priest has his own life to lead and his own way of living out his vocation. Thank God for the gift of grace in the sacrament Holy Orders that is given to every priest, married or celibate. .

You can argue practical reason for or against celibacy, but the reality is that the Catholic Church allows and has always allowed married priests. Celibacy should not be decided based on practical matters, but spiritual. Married priests are equally able to bring us Christ in the Eucharist, hear our confessions, anoint us when we are sick, perform our marriages (necessary in the East). The tradition of married clergy in the East should not be affect the ancient and venerable tradition of celibacy in the west. The two traditions can co-exist and enrich one another.

Thanks, I appreciate your comments. My perspective is that being a father is a full time vocation. If I had natural children I don’t see how I could be the kind of father they would need without my duties as a spiritual father being greatly impacted. That, i believe is a practical reality that seems to be confirmed by the experiences of your pastor.

In the end, I contend that the practical realities highlight what Eastern and Latin Rite Catholics believe from theology: that walking in the fullness of Christ’s priesthood ( as a Bishop) requires celibacy. Logically this extends to every priest, to embrace the fullness. That’s why it seems crystal clear to me that the discipline of celibacy is correct: it is from Christ. I understand many disagree that this discipline needs to be embraced and reinforced. I also agree that a married priest is still a priest of Jesus Christ and no doubt doing his best to walk that. Praised be Jesus Christ, and peace be with all of you on this thread!

 

[seaton2005]

Sarcasm is not helpful here. To clarify: A monk may be either a brother or priest. The ministerial priesthood is in the person of Christ, whether he is living monastic or diocesan life. The priest is celibate because Christ was celibate. A spiritual mission, not a mission of natural fatherhood, but spiritual fatherhood. Thus the celibate priesthood is always the ideal, continuing the mission of Christ, offering himself completely to his bride, the church.

To clarify, I believe we are all persons of Christ regardless of vocation, correct?

 

[babochka]

Another “simple” change of culture? How do you propose making people less “cheap”…if they are not compelled to throw in an extra $5 now for missions to the poor, what makes you think they would be moved by a plea to give the priest a bigger salary so he can take a wife?

First of all, nobody is suggesting that a priest may take a wife. That has never been allowed.

I did acknowledge that “simple” change of culture is a bad choice of words, so I’m not sure why you felt the need to quote me on that. Is a person not allowed to acknowledge that she’s wrong? But, culture changes can and do happen. In parishes where confession is preached, the people start going to confession. In parishes in which generosity is preached, the people are generous. (I’m not talking about relentless fundraising campaigns here.) The diocese of Wichita started preaching tithing several years ago and the people responded. A Catholic education is now available free of charge to Catholics in the diocese. They changed the culture.

 

[RyanBlack]

Thanks, I appreciate your comments. My perspective is that being a father is a full time vocation. If I had natural children I don’t see how I could be the kind of father they would need without my duties as a spiritual father being greatly impacted. That, i believe is a practical reality that seems to be confirmed by the experiences of your pastor.

In the end, I contend that the practical realities highlight what Eastern and Latin Rite Catholics believe from theology: that walking in the fullness of Christ’s priesthood ( as a Bishop) requires celibacy. Logically this extends to every priest, to embrace the fullness. That’s why it seems crystal clear to me that the discipline of celibacy is correct: it is from Christ. I understand many disagree that this discipline needs to be embraced and reinforced. I also agree that a married priest is still a priest of Jesus Christ and no doubt doing his best to walk that. Praised be Jesus Christ, and peace be with all of you on this thread!

So are married priests in some sense second class, to be merely tolerated as a concession to converts and the Eastern Churches?

 

[FrStevenJones]

So are married priests in some sense second class, to be merely tolerated as a concession to converts and the Eastern Churches?

No, married priests are not “second class”.

Yes: the priest with an earthly marriage has a certain privation of the fullness of the ministerial priesthood, which celibacy embraces and reinforces. Like Christ, the celibate priest’s marriage is with the bride, Christ’s Church. This points the world to the marriage in heaven which continues forever, while earthly marriages end with the death of the spouse.

Yet, there are many good married priests and they should not be considered “second class”. But surely more of the fullness of Christ’s walk, in a ministerial priest, is a good thing!

 

[RyanBlack]

No, married priests are not “second class”.

Yes: the priest with an earthly marriage has a certain privation of the fullness of the ministerial priesthood, which celibacy embraces and reinforces. Like Christ, the celibate priest’s marriage is with the bride, Christ’s Church. This points the world to the marriage in heaven which continues forever, while earthly marriages end with the death of the spouse.

Yet, there are many good married priests and they should not be considered “second class”. But surely more of the fullness of Christ’s walk, in a ministerial priest, is a good thing!

In other words, married priests and their ministry is inferior. BTW, the eastern view of marriage is that the marriage bond does not end with the death of the spouse; rather, it is eternal.

 

[Sochi]

Friends, Romans, Countrymen/women,

I am reeling at the moment!!! :stretcher:

Just found out that priestly celibacy is not Dogma. It is (t)radition which can be discussed and changed if agreed upon. The same way many traditions (small t) have been changed over the centuries.

Sorry, I’m a 3yo Catholic, must have skipped this part at RCIA or my mind was wandering.

Why isn’t it Dogma?

Despite all the piety, fact is that priestly celibacy stemmed from economic consideratons attached to inheritance by widows, and therefore the diminution of Church property, i.e. a worldly, material concern. Did Jesus have a brick and mortar storefront for His Teaching? You know the answer to that. It was a direct transmittal taking place in the the hearts of men and women, in homes or fields or plazas.

And as for the holy purity of priests as espoused by some of the pious on here, there were a few who were my good friends on into later life, and still are. On the other hand, dear angels, I could point to a few daemons in cassocks as well.

There is a good use for celibacy. Been there, done that. But in the Church, it is both an economic tool and an unnecessary one, and by any means, save in some circumstances, should not be a life long condition. Like poverty, it has an entirely transcendental meaning and practice, and as far as I can tell, those parts of the vows are very largely misunderstood.

 

[MacQ]

First of all, nobody is suggesting that a priest may take a wife. That has never been allowed.

I did acknowledge that “simple” change of culture is a bad choice of words, so I’m not sure why you felt the need to quote me on that. Is a person not allowed to acknowledge that she’s wrong? But, culture changes can and do happen. In parishes where confession is preached, the people start going to confession. In parishes in which generosity is preached, the people are generous. (I’m not talking about relentless fundraising campaigns here.) The diocese of Wichita started preaching tithing several years ago and the people responded. A Catholic education is now available free of charge to Catholics in the diocese. They changed the culture.

Very well…and sorry for nailing you about “simple”…I do see that you acknowledged that earlier.

Still, I can’t quite envision a pastor standing up preaching about giving more so his salary can be raised to support a family, and that swelling up hearts to pony up more than they do now. Not sure how many priests want it either.

 

[seaton2005]

What I interpreted as sarcasm is to take my post and insert your own words in it, line by line, co-opting my words and thought for another end, without explaining what you were doing. To me this was not only sarcastic but disrespectful. Perhaps that was not your intent.

Maybe a better way to make your point is to use the verbiage “twisting my words.” That has a different meaning than “sarcasm” as used here.

 

[Jennifoo]

Friends, Romans, Countrymen/women,

I am reeling at the moment!!! :stretcher:

Just found out that priestly celibacy is not Dogma. It is (t)radition which can be discussed and changed if agreed upon. The same way many traditions (small t) have been changed over the centuries.

Sorry, I’m a 3yo Catholic, must have skipped this part at RCIA or my mind was wandering.

Why isn’t it Dogma?

I’m curious as to why you’re “reeling” about this. Why does it trouble you that there have bern married priests? Do you view them as somehow inferior or impure?

I only ask this because those I know who oppose married clergy view them as impure. And that disturbs me because Holy Mother Church has always affirmed the sacredness of the marriage bed.

Personally, I have no problem with the idea of a married clergy. I do think it would require a lot of work to make it possible, but I don’t view it as inferior to, or at odds with, the celibate clergy.

May the Crucified and Risen Savior bless you abundantly.

 

[otjm]

Sorry, but that whole statement strikes me as, well…condescending.
The priesthood is not just a JOB. It is a calling. It is a dedicated life, and that should command some respect…that a priest chooses to minister to a large flock, and to respond at all hours of the day to people’s needs (deathbeds don’t happen between 9 and 5 no matter how good a time manager you are)…should inspire some reverent respect rather than criticism.

I never said it was “just a job”. But it, just like “a job”, has tasks which need to be accomplished, activities which can be delegated, and time which can be spent productively or not. There is nothing condescending about it at all. The conversation is about the amount of time a priest spends in and about ministry, with some saying that there are so many demands on a priest that he could never be a descent husband and father. Fr. StevenJones indicates he pastors three parishes; it would appear that he has rural parishes and that is not the norm. Most priests are parish priests; but not all. Some have limited duties with a parish, and have other responsibilities during the week. Teaching is one of those duties; work in the chancery is another.

Your comment about all hours of the day is true in part, that part being that there are after dinner meeting, and there are sick calls. I have yet to meet a priest assigned to a parish who is having multiple night sick calls each week, perhaps the chaplain at the hospital does, but most parish priests simply don’t. Those are facts, not criticism, and there is no lack of reverence.

 

[otjm]

I’m just having trouble understanding why people who don’t want to be priests themselves are so adamant and invested in a married priesthood. Especially if they’re not even members of a rite that is affected.

You don’t know whether someone wants to be a priest or not if that issue has not been discussed. Your comment in inappropriate.

 

[Abu]

RyanBlack #104
So are married priests in some sense second class

Married priests are not “second-class” as RyanBlack interminably fantasizes, as they have the same Catholic spiritual sustenance to offer.

But the Magisterium has clearly taught celibacy for priests as superior, spiritually, shown with the ample justification based on the history of required continence from the start of the Church, based on Christ’s’ teaching, for they can devote all of their time to their vocation as Bishop Virgil Bercea of Oradea Mare of the Rumanians explains in post #22.

**Priestly Celibacy and Its Roots in Christ … Interview with Fr McGovern
National Catholic REGISTER, May 19-25, 2002
Indeed, John Paul II points out in his 1979 Holy Thursday Letter to Priests that celibacy is so closely linked to the language of the Gospel that it refers back to the teaching of Christ and to apostolic tradition.”

Attention to facts is a worthy endeavour.

 

[RyanBlack]

Married priests are not “second-class” as RyanBlack interminably fantasizes, as they have the same Catholic spiritual sustenance to offer.

But the Magisterium has clearly taught celibacy for priests as superior, spiritually, shown with the ample justification based on the history of required continence from the start of the Church, based on Christ’s’ teaching, for they can devote all of their time to their vocation as Bishop Virgil Bercea of Oradea Mare of the Rumanians explains in post #22.

**Priestly Celibacy and Its Roots in Christ … Interview with Fr McGovern
National Catholic REGISTER, May 19-25, 2002
Indeed, John Paul II points out in his 1979 Holy Thursday *Letter to Priests ***that celibacy is so closely linked to the language of the Gospel that it refers back to the teaching of Christ and to apostolic tradition.”

Attention to facts is a worthy endeavour.

Charity towards those with whom one disagrees is a worthy endeavor as well.

 

[otjm]

Very well…and sorry for nailing you about “simple”…I do see that you acknowledged that earlier.

Still, I can’t quite envision a pastor standing up preaching about giving more so his salary can be raised to support a family, and that swelling up hearts to pony up more than they do now. Not sure how many priests want it either.

At least in this archdiocese, salaries are handled by the archdiocese, not the parish, so the issue is moot - more giving at the parish level would have no impact.

 

[Abu]

SyroMalankara #69
Paphnutius…a strictly ascetic monastic argued against the enforced celibacy of any rank of the Church’s offices

“Funk accepted … the spurious story of Saint Paphnutius of Egypt called ‘a Bishop and hermit.’ It is asserted that at the Council of Nicea this holy man pleads with the Fathers to not impose continence on priests saying that it is too heavy a burden to place upon them. He proposes to allow the particular Churches to decide on their own practice.

“The well-known Church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, who was present at the Council and sympathetic to the Arians, does not make any reference to this episode. It is first recorded by the 5th century Greek historian Sozomen. As Stickler points out, there are several arguments against the authenticity of this episode, but the most telling one is that the Eastern Church itself, which should have had a great interest in it, either did not know of it or, because the Eastern Church leaders were convinced that it was false, did not have a record of it in any official document it used. None of the polemical writers on clerical celibacy made use of it, nor did the Council of Trullo (691) refer to it. And given the polemical tone of Trullo it would have served its purpose well to have referred to it if it was true. The story of Paphnutius was used against the Gregorian reform, and this was why Pope Gregory VII, at the Synod of Rome in 1077, condemned the episode as one of the two most important falsifications used by the opponents of the reform (See The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995, pp 62-5).”
christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/celhist3.html

The erudition and reality found in Cardinal Stickler’s treatise, is accompanied by a like reality in Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).

 

[SAVINGRACE]

No, married priests are not “second class”.

Yes: the priest with an earthly marriage has a certain privation of the fullness of the ministerial priesthood, which celibacy embraces and reinforces. Like Christ, the celibate priest’s marriage is with the bride, Christ’s Church. This points the world to the marriage in heaven which continues forever, while earthly marriages end with the death of the spouse.

Yet, there are many good married priests and they should not be considered “second class”. But surely more of the fullness of Christ’s walk, in a ministerial priest, is a good thing!

 

[MacQ]

At least in this archdiocese, salaries are handled by the archdiocese, not the parish, so the issue is moot - more giving at the parish level would have no impact.

Context does matter. The context of my comment was that it was part of a thread where someone opined that the extra donations to support priests’ families could be gotten through effective preaching.
I don’t know that Bishops would be any happier to try that than priests.