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

[otjm]

You haven’t understood the key point. It all goes back to Christ the celibate who came on a spiritual mission for his bride, the Church. He didn’t come to father natural children, but spiritual children. If you don’t understand and accept that you also won’t understand why the exceptions you name are not the ideal. The Latin rite church follows the ideal. Exceptions are made, but following Christ in the fullness is the mission. Thus, celibacy.

I most thoroughly understood the key point, far better than you realize.

But I was not commenting on the key point. I was commenting specifically on your use of the word “discarded”.

The key point is not discarded if the Church permits married clergy. The Church has a 2000 year history of both a celibate and a married clergy; and the Roman rite exactly right now in time has a married clergy = and celibacy has not been “discarded”. Using such language is IMHO, an emotional trigger and bordering on dishonest dialogue. The Church has never discarded celibacy, and if more married men are ordained in the Roman rite, it won’t be discarded by that act.

Your key point is something I learned in 1964 when I was in the seminary. I didn’t pick at it then, and I am not picking at it now.

 

[otjm]

Dad not being there: he’s presiding over a funeral or a wedding or at a deathbed instead of at little Johnny’s soccer game. Pretty much every day.

Yes, that happens with corporate managers too…they have a big meeting or whatever. That some men are married to their jobs (without having taken a vow to be) is kinda tangential.
Not sure what deacons have to do with it. They have different roles, and they too have some marital requirements.
None of the priest I know would have time (or the money) to devote to a family other than the one they married by their vows.

Pretty much not every day; I am in a parish and there have never been daily or even weekly deaths.

People presume that priests are “at work” 24/7. Sorry, I have too many relatives who have been priests. I know differently.

The current model is still fixated on a priest being in his office all day 5 days a week, and With multiple Sunday Masses. The Masses won’t change; but the rest of Sunday is still open. However, a lot of what the priest does currently, was done by other priests (shared work in other words) when we had many parishes with 2 or more priests (like the parish I grew up in, in the 50’s and 60’s). Some of that work load can be (and is being) taken on by deacons. There is no reason that a married priest could not have shared responsibilities so that he had adequate family time.

And by my counting, adequate family time might mean, for example, that he is home when those teenagers get out of school - the period of time of the greatest likelihood of teenage conception.

I was in Real Estate for 7 years in the 90’s, and every year was a multi million seller before housing prices started going up 15 to 20% per year. I had twin daughters, and every day I had a 3 p.m. appointment that lasted until 6; it was with my daughters. I had that because it was my priority. Priests now cover for one another. The time issue is far less critical than you and others make it out to be.

 

[otjm]

We’re all “catholic”, but we are not one united Church…there are still many differences between the eastern rite (orthodox) and western (roman rite) churches. The Eastern Church doesn’t recognize our Pope, for example. Different liturgical calendars, and…different norms for priests and bishops.

We are one united Church. We are not one uniform Church, and nothing whatsoever in the New Testament requires uniformity. From the time that the Apostles went out, there was not uniformity; there was, however, unity.

And by the way, the Eastern Church most certainly does recognize the Pope.

 

[babochka]

Nowhere does the Church recognise any “advantages” to married priests – they are permitted under certain circumstances – and emphatically taught as an inferior state to that of celibacy.

It seems that you are referring to spiritual or theological advantages only, but the post that I was quoting listed a practical “advantage” to celibacy, that of greater ability of priests to serve the mission of the church. There are certainly practical advantages to a married clergy, just as there are practical advantages to a celibate clergy. The church does not need to recognize such advantages for them to be true.

 

[otjm]

False. That confused view of Scripture is often found among Protestants, and has been thoroughly refuted by the eminent testimony presented in the studies identified, and shows the lack of understanding of the reality from the beginning.

In fact, in 1 Tim 3:2, “St. Paul declares that a deacon, presbyter or bishop must be a ‘husband of one wife’, the reason being that a second marriage after widowhood was a sign that a man could not live in the dedication demanded of a cleric.” (Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised by Fr Peter Joseph, 2001, The Saint Austin Press, p 580). The same applies exactly as St Paul reiterates in Titus 1:6.

So the celibacy required for priests is from the time of the apostles, the Apostolic Norm, and obligatory, as confirmed by all scholarship, and by the Fathers and Popes. Any relaxation of this norm is strictly limited and confined to exceptional circumstances.

Major research has been undertaken into this controversy by scholars Cardinal Stickler, Father Cochini S.J., as well as Stefan Heid. What they all assure us of is that continence is the norm for the priesthood both East and West from the beginning of the Church’s history. Among the aforementioned, Stickler provides the most succinct and easy to understand presentation of the subject. He demonstrates that if a man was married prior to ordination, both he and his spouse took a vow of perpetual continence, this applied from the lower clerical ranks up to Bishop. In the West, the Council of Elvira in the fourth century makes direct reference in Canon 33 to this renunciation of the martial rights and notes that this meant no begetting of children. The penalty for violating this vow is removal from the clerical ranks. If a priest violated this solemn promise and begot a child it was considered adultery. As Stickler points out, Saint Jerome — who knew many Bishops, Fathers and monks throughout the East — testifies in his writings that continence is the norm in the Eastern Church and that married men who were ordained would separate from their wives. The same Council of Elvira, in Canon 27, as well as Nicea, in Canon 3, gives even further specifications: that a Bishop and priest is only permitted to have a blood sister, mother, aunt, or a daughter who is a consecrated virgin dwelling under the same roof. This excludes a wife. The Eastern change was a manipulation of early canons, and the canon from the Synod of Carthage (390) had declared perpetual continence.

Fr Anthony Zimmerman refers to *Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy *“which argues cogently from the sources that the tradition of clerical celibacy began with the apostles. If that is true, then opponents of obligatory celibacy oppose not the pope, but the twelve apostles. The book, written by Christian Cochini, S.J. (translated from French, Ignatius Press, 1990), merited this remarkable encomium from the late Henri Cardinal de Lubac: ‘This work is of the first importance. It is the result of serious and extensive research. There is nothing even remotely comparable to this work in this whole 20th century.’ And Curator of the Vatican Library, Fr. Alfons M. Stickler (later Cardinal) wrote: ‘This authoritative work is fully in accordance with the tradition of the Society of Jesus in the area of high-level scientific apostolate’ (Foreword to Cochini’s book).”

Father Thomas McGovern, a priest of the Prelature of Opus Dei in Dublin, is the author of Priestly Celibacy Today.
He writes: “…as John Paul II [now Saint] affirms in his 1992 document, Pastores Dabo Vobis, on the formation of priests, there is a great need today to present and explain the charism of celibacy “in the fullness of its biblical, theological and spiritual richness”.

“Indeed Pope John Paul II has referred to ‘a systematic propaganda which is hostile to celibacy’ and ‘which finds support and complicity in some of the mass media’.”
christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/ncrinterview.htm

The evidence of history clearly indicates that celibacy was not a universally mandated state for priesthood. Furthermore, continence was not universally mandated; the evidence is clearly to the contrary. There is a difference between “mandated” and “norm”, and there is evidence that continence was not a universal norm; and that even after it became a universal norm in the western rite, that it was just that - a norm, one that often was simply not lived up to.

Periodically, the issue would come up. If it was widely accepted among the clergy, there would be no need to reiterate it. The facts are, however, that there would be regional issues, then “universal” issues, and then it would be repeated. Why repeated? Because it was not actual practice.

That is not to impugn it, but to state the facts. Stating “this is what happened” neither says that it should have happened, or it should not have happened. It simply states “it did happen”.

 

[otjm]

This topic always seems to create a furor. Part of the furor is due to lack of knowledge of the history of the matter.

But there runs something deeper, it would seem. There appear to be some who appear to be greatly disturbed by even admitting a discussion of the matter. It is one thing to promote celibacy; it is entirely another to react as if celibacy is going to be thrown on the trash heap of history should the Church ordain some married men. That would seem to imply that there is a much deeper issue at play, one that is not coming to the surface. Whether that is an emotional reaction that those who might propose such a thing as admitting married men to orders are thereby denigrating the sacrifice which celibate priests have made comes to mind.

I have been around a long time, it seems. I knew priests in the 50’s, as my parents had a number of them over for dinners numerous times - and most of them not from our parish. And not all of them were against a married clergy then. One or two of them were laicized and then married. And I knew others who likewise were laicized and then married; one a relative.

One of the very bottom lines of the matter is that if the Church were to change the discipline, the Church would not ordain anyone whose spouse was not accepting of the change. "that is the current practice with married deacons - at least in my diocese; the wife has to attend a certain amount of the classes with her husband, and has to give consent.

And I know of a number of people who have felt that their desire to at least explore the possibility has been given a resounding “NO!” while some of our Protestant brethren have been ordained. I am well aware that the Church never promised to be fair. But some have had a hard time swallowing it.

 

[Abu]

otjm #66
continence was not universally mandated; the evidence is clearly to the contrary.

No “evidence” has been, or can be, produced that continence among the clergy was NOT mandated. You have failed singularly over the years to produce any facts, whereas all sound Catholic scholarship, as quoted, and backed up by stalwarts like Fr. George William Rutler, Henri Cardinal de Lubac, Father Thomas McGovern of Opus Dei, Jean Cardinal Daniélou, has irrevocably shown celibacy to be the Apostolic norm and mandated, and this has been historically explained in this thread, once again.

There is a difference between “mandated” and “norm”,

Mandated = ordered/prescribed.

While not a doctrine, an Apostolic “norm” means rules, including commands and prohibitions; “rule” means a prescribed guide for conduct; “prescribe” means issue commands or orders for; tradition means an inherited pattern of thought and action; custom means habitual practice of longstanding; practice means a customary way of acting; requirement means indispensable – the celibacy required for priests from the apostles was mandatory, and obligatory.

Fr. John Echert of EWTN on 10/Nov/03 had this to say:
“Let me recommend the very scholarly and thorough book on this topic, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Christian Cochini, S.J.

“He examines the question of when the tradition of priestly celibacy began in the Latin Church, and he is able to trace it back to its origins with the apostles. He examines evidence about the marital status of every known bishop, priest or deacon of the period and gives an exhaustive list of married clerics from apostolic times until the end of the seventh century, a list that includes not only the Western Church, but the East and also the Nestorian, Novatian and Pelagian Church. Then Cochini examines the relevant Church documents for the same period, including council and synod documents, papal letters, ecclesial and even secular legislation as it relates to the problem. He also provides a survey of scholarly literature on the topic. This is the definitive scholarly statement on the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Church East and West. What Cochini shows through patristic sources and conciliar documentation is that from the beginning of the Church, although married men could be priests, they were required to vow to celibacy before ordination, meaning they intended to live a life of continence. He provides extensive documentation, a bibliography and an index.”

 

[Abu]

Tarpeian Rock #60
Strange to contemplate that in making such a statement, Pius is teaching that he, all past, and all future popes spring from an inferior state of life, and that the vast majority of Christ’s faithful similarly live in an inferior state of life.

To choose to call “strange” what Pius XII is teaching is the unbalanced error.

SACRA VIRGINITAS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON CONSECRATED VIRGINITY
Extracts:

1. Holy virginity and that perfect chastity which is consecrated to the service of God is without doubt among the most precious treasures which the Founder of the Church has left in heritage to the society which He established.
2. Those therefore, who do not marry because of exaggerated self-interest, or because, as Augustine says,[15] they shun the burdens of marriage or because like Pharisees they proudly flaunt their physical integrity, an attitude which has been condemned by the Council of Gangra lest men and women renounce marriage as though it were something despicable instead of because virginity is something beautiful and holy, - none of these can claim for themselves the honor of Christian virginity.[16]
3. It is easy to see, therefore, why persons who desire to consecrate themselves to God’s service embrace the state of virginity as a liberation, in order to be more entirely at God’s disposition and devoted to the good of their neighbor. How, for example, could a missionary such as the wonderful St. Francis Xavier, a father of the poor such as the merciful St. Vincent de Paul, a zealous educator of youth like St. John Bosco, a tireless “mother of emigrants” like St. Francis Xavier Cabrini, have accomplished such gigantic and painful labors, if each had to look after the corporal and spiritual needs of a wife or husband and children?
4. It is first and foremost for the foregoing reasons that, according to the teaching of the Church, holy virginity surpasses marriage in excellence. Our Divine Redeemer had already given it to His disciples as a counsel for a more perfect life.[44] St. Paul, after having said that the father who gives his daughter in marriage “does well,” adds immediately “and he that gives her not, does better.”[45] Several times in the course of his comparison between marriage and virginity the Apostle reveals his mind, and especially in these words: “for I would that all men were even as myself. . . But I say to the unmarried and to widows: it is good for them if they so continue, even as I.”[46] Virginity is preferable to marriage then, as We have said, above all else because it has a higher aim:[47] that is to say, it is a very efficacious means for devoting oneself wholly to the service of God, while the heart of married persons will remain more or less “divided.”[48]
5. Holiness of life can really be attained, even without a chastity that is consecrated to God. Witness to this are the many holy men and women, who are publicly honored by the Church, and who were faithful spouses and stood out as an example of excellent fathers and mothers; indeed it is not rare to find married people who are very earnest in their efforts for Christian perfection.
   Notes;
6. S. Augustin., De sancta virginitate, c. 22; PL XL, 407.
7. Cf. can. 9; Mansi, Coll. concil., II, 1096.
8. Cf. Matth. XIX, 10-11.
9. I Cor., VII,38.
10. Ibid., VII 7-8; Cfr. 1 et 26.
11. Cf. S. Thom., Summa
    vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_25031954_sacra-virginitas_en.html

 

[SyroMalankara]

No “evidence” has been, or can be, produced that continence among the clergy was NOT mandated.

At the 1st Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 AD, the Western (Roman) legates attempted force Canons requiring celibacy of all clergy. These attempted amendments however failed, and a large part of their failure were the words of St Paphnutius of the Church of Alexandria, a Saint and miracle worker who was famed and respected across the empire, even receiving admiration from the Emperor himself. What made St Paphnutius’ words even more immpressive is that he himself had been a celibate monastic since entering the life as a teenager. Here a strictly ascetic monastic argued against the enforced celibacy of any rank of the Church’s offices (cf. Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers, Volume 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils:“Proposed Action on Celibacy”):

that too heavy a yoke ought not to be laid upon the clergy; that marriage and married intercourse are of themselves honorable and undefiled; that the Church ought not to be injured by an extreme severity, for all could not live in absolute continency. In this way (by not prohibiting marrital relations) the virtue of the wife would be much more certainly preserved (viz. the wife of a clergyman, because she might find injury elsewhere, if her husband withdrew from the marriage). The intercourse of a man with his lawful wife may also be a chaste intercourse. It would therefore be sufficient, according to the ancient tradition of the Church, if those who had taken holy orders without being married were prohibited from marrying afterwards; but those clergymen who had been married only once as laymen, were not to be separated from their wives.

This discourse of St. Paphnutius made so much more of an impression, since he had never lived in matrimony himself, and had had no conjugal intercourse. St. Paphnutius had been brought up in a monastery, and his great purity of manners had rendered him especially celebrated. Therefore the Council took the serious words of the Egyptian bishop into consideration, stopped all discussion upon the law, and left to each cleric the responsibility of deciding the point as he would. We must conclude that a law was proposed at the Council of Nicaea in the same way as the one which had been carried twenty years previously at Elvira, Spain. This coincidence would lead us to believe that it was the Spaniard Hosius who proposed the law respecting celibacy at Nicaea. The discourse ascribed to St. Paphnutius, and the consequent decision of the Synod, agree very well with the text of the Apostolic Constitutions, and with the whole practice of the Greek Church in respect to celibacy. Both, the Greek Church as well as the Latin one accepted this principle, that whoever had taken holy orders before marriage, ought not to be married afterwards. In the Latin Church, bishops, priests, deacons. and even subdeacons, were considered to be subject to this law, because the latter were at a very early period reckoned among the higher servants of the Church, which was not the case in the Greek Church. The Greek Church went so far as to allow deacons to marry after their ordination, if they had obtained permission from their bishop to do so. The Council of Ancyra affirms this (Canon 10). We see that the Greek Church wishes to leave the bishop free to decide the matter; but, in reference to priests, it also prohibited them from marrying after their ordination. While the Latin Church exacted of those presenting themselves for ordination, even as subdeacons, that they should not continue to live with their wives (if they were married), the Greek Church gave no such prohibition; but if the wife of an ordained clergyman died, the Greek Church allowed no second marriage. The Apostolic Constitutions decided this point in the same way. To leave their wives from a pretext of piety was also forbidden to Greek priests; and the Synod of Gangra (Canon 4) took up the defence of married priests against the Eustathians. Eustathius, however, was not alone among the Greeks opposing the marriage of all clerics, and in desiring to introduce into the Greek Church the Latin discipline regarding this matter. St. Epiphanius also inclined towards this side. The Greek Church did not, however, adopt this rigour in reference to priests, deacons, and subdeacons, but by degrees it came to be required of bishops and of the higher order of clergy in general, that they should live in celibacy. Yet this was not until after the compilation of the Apostolic Canons (Canon 5) and of the Constitutions; for in those documents mention is made of bishops living in wedlock, and Church history shows that there were married bishops (for instance, Bishop Synesius in the fifth century). But it is fair to remark, even as to Synesius, that he made it an express condition of his election to the episcopate, that he might continue to live the married life. Thomassin believes that Synesius did not seriously require this condition, and only spoke thus for the sake of escaping the episcopal office; which would seem to imply that in his time Greek bishops had already begun to live in celibacy. At the Trullan Synod (Canon 13) the Greek Church finally settled the question of the marriage of priests (First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, Proposed Action on Clerical Celibacy, Second Series, Vol. XIV, pp. 51/2)

As you can see, celibacy and continence was still a question in regard to Bishops, let alone corepiscopos, parish priests in the Metropolitan areas, and village priests.

 

[SyroMalankara]

On this day of his blessed feast (May 2)

St Athanasius the Apostolic:

But I have also thought it necessary to inform you of the fact, that Bishops have succeeded those who have fallen asleep. In Tanis, in the stead of Elias, is Theodorus. In Arsenoitis, Silvanus instead of Nonnus. In Bucolia is Heraclius. In Tentyra, Andronicus is instead of Saprion, his father. In Thebes, Philon instead of Philon, etc. [pp.538/9, Letter 12, Sect. 2, Letters of St Athanasius, Second Series, Vol. IV, Athanasius]

For we know both bishops who fast, and monks who eat. We know bishops that drink no wine, as well as monks who do. We know bishops who work wonders, as well as monks who do not. Many also of the bishops have not even married, while monks have been fathers of children; just as conversely we know bishops who are fathers of children and monks ‘of the completest kind’. [p.560, Letter 49, Sect. 9, ibid.]

 

[TMC]

People presume that priests are “at work” 24/7. Sorry, I have too many relatives who have been priests. I know differently.

True. I have known lots of priest over the years with the same observation. I also have some good friends who are Protestant pastors - with wives and kids. They are fine pastors and make it work. The argument that priests don’t have time to have a family is a canard. Its not the reason celibacy was mandated in 1100, and its not the reason the Church keeps to celibacy today.

My view is that this discipline will become optional again. There have always been celibate priests and probably always will be. But, in my view, there is no need for it to be a universal requirement.

 

[TK421]

The argument that it must never be allowed because they’d be too busy always makes me cringe as well. It just seems so weak, given the level of the commitments that everyday people have to make in secular professions which can rival that of - or surpass - the work schedule of a parish priest. CEOs are not by necessity celibate. Marines are not by necessity celibate. Medical doctors are not by necessity celibate. Jetliner pilots are not by necessity celibate.

Not that my opinion is or should be relevant, but I don’t want mandatory celibacy to go away, nor am I really concerned that it’s ever going to happen. The largest voices in support of change come from regions of waning influence, and in my experience, much of the desire for changing is rooted in skittishness. There’s been a decline of vocations in select regions of the world for the past several decades (a tiny slice of the Church’s history) and some believe we’re doomed unless we hook the clergy up to Match.com. However, I try to stick with reasons that aren’t easy to refute. Priestly celibacy is the ideal because a priest is a stand-in for Christ.

 

[TK421]

The argument of “busyness” is a poor one as best as I can see. If we followed this standard for every profession, we would have a vocation crisis of marriages. There are many married men whose professions rival - or surpass - however unstable a parish priest’s schedule may be. What do these men’s wives do? Simple: they either behave poorly, or they adapt to it like an adult. Some of the more obvious professions are military, pilots, or international business, but really, there are innumerable professions out there that are going to involve some level of instability.

The Latin Church maintains priestly celibacy because it believes this is ideal, since the priest is an instrument & surrogate of Christ to administer divine grace. It’s obviously never going to say you fundamentally can’t be validly ordained and be married because that matter has already been closed. If the Church were to ever dogmatically declare that (which it won’t/can’t, since the matter is closed), the Orthodox churches around the world would become invalid and essentially in the same boat as protestantism. Eastern Catholic ministers would become invalid. Even certain Latin-rite ministers would become invalid.

There are several prudential reasons to support disciplinary celibacy among the clergy, but these aren’t ultimately the reason behind the ancient tradition. I doubt it’s ever going to go away.

 

[drforjc]

True. I have known lots of priest over the years with the same observation. I also have some good friends who are Protestant pastors - with wives and kids. They are fine pastors and make it work. The argument that priests don’t have time to have a family is a canard. Its not the reason celibacy was mandated in 1100, and its not the reason the Church keeps to celibacy today.

My view is that this discipline will become optional again. There have always been celibate priests and probably always will be. But, in my view, there is no need for it to be a universal requirement.

As a convert child of a protestant minister, my perspective is a bit different. “Make it work…” they try the best they can but it is definitely not optimal.

 

[Itsjuslittleme]

Pretty much not every day; I am in a parish and there have never been daily or even weekly deaths.

People presume that priests are “at work” 24/7. Sorry, I have too many relatives who have been priests. I know differently.

The current model is still fixated on a priest being in his office all day 5 days a week, and With multiple Sunday Masses. The Masses won’t change; but the rest of Sunday is still open. However, a lot of what the priest does currently, was done by other priests (shared work in other words) when we had many parishes with 2 or more priests (like the parish I grew up in, in the 50’s and 60’s). Some of that work load can be (and is being) taken on by deacons. There is no reason that a married priest could not have shared responsibilities so that he had adequate family time.

And by my counting, adequate family time might mean, for example, that he is home when those teenagers get out of school - the period of time of the greatest likelihood of teenage conception.

I was in Real Estate for 7 years in the 90’s, and every year was a multi million seller before housing prices started going up 15 to 20% per year. I had twin daughters, and every day I had a 3 p.m. appointment that lasted until 6; it was with my daughters. I had that because it was my priority. Priests now cover for one another. The time issue is far less critical than you and others make it out to be.

 

[FrStevenJones]

Pretty much not every day; I am in a parish and there have never been daily or even weekly deaths.

People presume that priests are “at work” 24/7. Sorry, I have too many relatives who have been priests. I know differently.

The current model is still fixated on a priest being in his office all day 5 days a week, and With multiple Sunday Masses. The Masses won’t change; but the rest of Sunday is still open. However, a lot of what the priest does currently, was done by other priests (shared work in other words) when we had many parishes with 2 or more priests (like the parish I grew up in, in the 50’s and 60’s). Some of that work load can be (and is being) taken on by deacons. There is no reason that a married priest could not have shared responsibilities so that he had adequate family time.

And by my counting, adequate family time might mean, for example, that he is home when those teenagers get out of school - the period of time of the greatest likelihood of teenage conception.

I was in Real Estate for 7 years in the 90’s, and every year was a multi million seller before housing prices started going up 15 to 20% per year. I had twin daughters, and every day I had a 3 p.m. appointment that lasted until 6; it was with my daughters. I had that because it was my priority. Priests now cover for one another. The time issue is far less critical than you and others make it out to be.

I must say, with my heart firmly fixed on charity of the Lord Jesus, that these comments do not reflect an understanding of what many priests are doing, despite your familiarity with some priestly relatives. Many priests are working close to 24/7 much of the time. That is the life of a father when you have many, many spiritual children. That is how it is when you are a father to so many. What a gift to the priest, but yes it is exhausting! Many days there is enough time for only a few hours of sleep and even that is filled with dreams about serving my parishes. That is how it must be when the priestly heart is totally given to Christ and giving your all to his bride, the Church.

The idea that Sundays are “open” for priests other than Masses is 180 degrees away from my reality, and the reality of other priests I know. I have 2 masses Saturday evening and 2 on Sunday. I drive between 3 different country churches to provide the sacraments. Baptisms, religious education, meetings with people, days of prayer, marriage preparation, one on one counseling, Sunday Vespers, confessions, calls to to the hospital, visits to the sick. Spiritual direction, daily Mass, anointing of the sick, home communions. Meetings with the youth. Praying the breviary 5 times a day. Mass in spanish. Mass in Latin. Learning both. Planning liturgies, paying bills, overseeing the maintanence of the buildings and grounds and cemetery. Meetings with the parish council and altar society. Planning special liturgies. Writing back to parishioners who ask for many things, and seek your counsel. Reviewing and overseeing the sacramental records of the parish. The daily Holy Hour. Planning and conducting retreats. Preparing to preach and teach. Planning funerals and weddings. All these happen every day and Sundays too. When the people connect with their priest then their needs are almost insatiable. It is the hunger for God and that is a good thing, because the priest leads them to the Lord, but the needs are tremendous.

The priest needs to be available as a spiritual father pretty much every day, at any hour the calls come. That’s the reality I face as a priest every day. It is a labor of love, and it requires 120% of my energies. I have no deacon at my parishes and I have 3 parishes that I am responsible for. I totally am in love with my people and give my all every day. There is realistically no time to care for another earthly family, I have hundreds of spiritual children in my care, and that is where my energies must be given, and for this I am very grateful to my heavenly Father, for making me a priest of Jesus Christ.

 

[twf]

It is certainly a doctrine of the Church that consecrated life is the Christian ideal. This is distinct from the question of priestly celibacy. Whether one is a lay man or an ordained man or whether one is a man or a woman, one can be called to consecrated life, which is to say complete consecration to Christ and His Church while living out the evangelical counsels in perfect imitation of Our Blessed Lord. Certainly celibacy is intrinsic to this highest state of life. That being said, the question of priestly celibacy is separate from this. There will always be men who are called both to consecrated life and to the priesthood, as we see in the East where the monastic ranks have always remained strong despite the presence of a married parish priesthood, but whether secular / parish priests, who are not called to consecrated life, need be celibate is open to debate.

 

[johnmann]

Dogma is revealed truth. E.g., the Real Presence. Doctrine is derived truth. E.g., transsubstantiation. Disciplines are man-made rules. E.g., Communion at least during the Easter season. Dogma cannot change. Doctrine can develop as our understanding develops. Discipline can change with the flick of the pope’s pen.

BUT… disciplines come in many shapes and sizes. Meatless Fridays is a discipline. But so are holy days of obligation and even the Sunday obligation. The Church, could tomorrow say that Mass will now only be held on Wednesdays. Disciplines shouldn’t be lightly discarded.

I have no objections to a married priesthood per se. The issue of continence, i.e., no sex after ordination, is another discipline that would have to be resolved in conjunction. My worry with a married priesthood is purely practical. Priests typically make very little money, certainly not enough to support a family. Plus families benefit from establishing geographic roots but we move priests around. Finally, as I’m intimately familiar with married Protestant ministers, I know that having a family exponentially increases the probability of scandal. What if the priest’s unmarried daughter gets pregnant? What if the priest has serious martial troubles? What if the son is expelled from school or worse? It also increases the priest’s incentive to make more money. These aren’t necessarily insurmountable problems and the benefits of married priests may far outweigh these negatives but they are something to be aware of.

 

[babochka]

It is certainly a doctrine of the Church that consecrated life is the Christian ideal. This is distinct from the question of priestly celibacy. Whether one is a lay man or an ordained man or whether one is a man or a woman, one can be called to consecrated life, which is to say complete consecration to Christ and His Church while living out the evangelical counsels in perfect imitation of Our Blessed Lord. Certainly celibacy is intrinsic to this highest state of life. That being said, the question of priestly celibacy is separate from this. There will always be men who are called both to consecrated life and to the priesthood, as we see in the East where the monastic ranks have always remained strong despite the presence of a married parish priesthood, but whether secular / parish priests, who are not called to consecrated life, need be celibate is open to debate.

Beautiful! I’ve been looking for an effective way to say just this.

 

[babochka]

. My worry with a married priesthood is purely practical. Priests typically make very little money, certainly not enough to support a family. Plus families benefit from establishing geographic roots but we move priests around.

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.