Irish bishop urges end to celibacy in clergy

[minkymurph]

Firstly, I have to say I was not shocked to hear this on the news today. Anyone who has talked to any number of priests, bishops and laity in Ireland today will realise in just how much of a minority those who want to keep Priestly celibacy are. So this statement is pretty much a reflection of the thoughts of a vast majority today in Ireland. I have talked with Catholics I know who attend daily Mass, give out communion, do the readings etc in the parish and when the subject of Celibacy comes up I am shocked to hear that all of them think priests should be allowed to marry. Not only that, but half of them throw in the statement that they would have no objection to women priests either!

Your right. Bishop Daly’s statement is a reflection of the thoughts of the majority today in Ireland. Celibacy is seen as contributory factor to the recent scandals and have prompted calls for priests to be allowed to marry, because people here think it is natural to want to marry and have children; and celibacy is an unnatural. I once asked a priest if there was any theological reason why a married man couldn’t say the Mass. He said there wasn’t. He further said that celibacy is a discipline, therefore can be changed.

The problem with that is that it does not work in practice. Given the choice to be celibate and live the married life most candidates would chose the latter, going on what the majority opinion seems to be here.

I would agree that most candidates would choose to marry if they had the choice. The Church would have difficulty maintaining a celibate order of priests, and recruiting young men into it which is the down side of the argument. There is great value in having priests, or others for that matter, who are celibate because they can devote their life to the Church and their Parish because they don’t have the additional burdens marriage and family bring. If your not married you’re also have more freedom to move around. I would also say if you were married, you would want to be based in particular Parish and not move around. I would say if priests were given the choice to marry, celibate orders would gradually be eroded and become a thing of the past which would be a loss.

The bottom line is Priests and bishops - even laity- are faced with a vast reduction in vocations. Their answer however, I believe, is a cure worse than the disease. The loss of vocations is not due to celibacy. The children need taught catechism once again in schools, and taught why priests are celibate. If you ask a school pupil here today (as they did on the news) they have no objections to married priests since they don’t even know why they are celibate to begin with. It is as though they have been done wrong and had their rights violated when they are not allowed to marry. “There’s nothing wrong with being married” was an answer given by one child (17/18 years old) who just demonstrated that they did not know anything about the doctrine.

I don’t know I would both agree and disagree that the loss of vocations is not due to celibacy. I would disagree in the sense that people think it is, and are of the opinion that child abuse wouldn’t have happened to the extent it did if priests were allowed to marry. I would stress I don’t agree with that opinion for many reasons; so in that sense I agree with you the loss of vocations is not due to celibacy. What I see as a major factor in the loss of vocations in Ireland, is that people have lost faith in the Church, and organized religion in general. Many people tell me they have completely lost faith in the Church because of the recent scandals and apparently there is worse to come. It’s all very well to say they shouldn’t, but the reality is they have. Their trust has been broken, there’s a lot of anger and emotions are running high. Therefore, people have lost confidence in the teachings of the Church, and no longer see giving your life to the Church as a worthy vocation. That’s what I see as a stumbling block to vocations. So in that sense, I agree with you that celibacy is not the reason for loss of vocations.

I agree with you regarding proper teaching in schools. The Catholic Church in Ireland is going to have to work very hard to re-establish the trust, respect and confidence of it’s members. Teaching children why priests become celibate, enhancing their appreciation of the value of devoting one’s life to the Church and the Church in general, is a good way to start - but it’s going to take time for wounds to heal.

 

[TrueLight]

Their trust has been broken, there’s a lot of anger and emotions are running high. Therefore, people have lost confidence in the teachings of the Church, and no longer see giving your life to the Church as a worthy vocation

Sad but true. All the more reason why the Church should not react by changing its practice because there is less faith among the laity.
**
Disclaimer: The following is about the Latin church, not the Eastern Churches:**

In a time when Catholics are becoming more and more Protestant, I believe it is important to hold onto authentic Catholic practices.

Priestly celibacy is a great witness to the world.

 

[minkymurph]

Just thought of something.

Could a married man not become a priest if he and his wife through no fault of their own can’t have children?

Mind you, the demands placed on a priest I’d say he’d have to have a pretty understanding wife.

 

[Redbaron998]

My stance on celibacy remains the same as it always had, I do not have a problem with the idea of married priests and IF the Church in its wisdom saw fit to permit it I would accept it. I would actually personally look into the vocation, as it is I am discerning a vocation to the Deaconite when I turn 35. However, this decision it totally the domain of the Church which knows much more about it than I do, and so I trust them to know if and when the discipline should change.

If the Church did permit married priests I imagine it would be the same as with Deacons or EO priests where they can marry and become priests but if their wife should pass away they would be expecited to remain celibate the remainder of their life. In addition the Bishops are usually selected from the celibate priests. Regardless I believe there will always be a special place of honor for celibate priests and even if priests are permitted to marry celibate priests will still be around.

 

[ProVobis]

I would agree that most candidates would choose to marry if they had the choice.

I’m not quite sure about that. Statistics are showing that people are waiting longer before they get married, if they get married at all, even choosing to have children out of wedlock. Economic conditions being what they are, people are cohabitating more or living longer with their parents. I don’t know what the tax laws are in Ireland, but in the U.S. there is the so-called marriage tax penalty affecting working couples, and seeing what priests’ salaries are, I don’t see how a priest alone could provide for himself and a wife, much less for a family.

 

[minkymurph]

Sad but true. All the more reason why the Church should not react by changing its practice because there is less faith among the laity.
**
**

I agree the Church shouldn’t react by changing it’s teachings - or change it’s teachings simply in accordance with the popular demand of the day. Sometimes the Church has to be prepared to be unpopular. Allowing priests to marry would be a popular decision, but I don’t think it would lead to greater faith. It may also lead to greater loss of faith because I’ve heard many people say here they have no confidence in their opinion, the Church has backtracked on things it has stated in the past, and ‘greater understanding,’ and ‘re-interpretation’ are just cops outs that are used to avoid admitting they may have been wrong. However, a lot of people here are of the opinion that celibacy was a major factor in the scandals and they is why they think priest should be allowed to marry, and arguments to the contrary to date, are not accepted. Very difficult issue to resolve at present and it’s certainly beyond my capacity to do so.

I personally wouldn’t have a problem with orders of married priests, because there’s nothing in Catholic teaching to my knowledge that prevents a married man from saying the Mass, hearing confessions or anointing the sick. However, I wouldn’t like to see celibate orders lost because they can devote their life to the Church.

 

[malphono]

The Holy See clearly recognizes as shown by the fact that the abominable 1929 ban on married Eastern Catholic priests in the USA (rammed through by the Latin Rite Hierarchy at the time) is finally no longer in effect.

Albeit that a few bishops of some EC Churches have exploited certain “loopholes” (or even flounted it outright), Cum data fuerit is actually still in effect.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Just thought of something.

Could a married man not become a priest if he and his wife through no fault of their own can’t have children?

Mind you, the demands placed on a priest I’d say he’d have to have a pretty understanding wife.

I don’t see why this kind of situation would allow a man to become a priest. Latin Rite priests may not be married.

 

[minkymurph]

I’m not quite sure about that. Statistics are showing that people are waiting longer before they get married, if they get married at all, even choosing to have children out of wedlock. Economic conditions being what they are, people are cohabitating more or living longer with their parents. I don’t know what the tax laws are in Ireland, but in the U.S. there is the so-called marriage tax penalty affecting working couples, and seeing what priests’ salaries are, I don’t see how a priest alone could provide for himself and a wife, much less for a family.

Nope, it is different here.

Married couples pay less tax here than single people. You also get a tax reduction for every child you have and in addition, get Child Benefit. I get £115.00 per month for two kids. That changed from David Cameron was elected and couples who collectively earn over a certain amount no longer get it.

In the past, you also got tax relief on your mortgage if you were married, but not if you were cohabiting. That law changed in accordance with political correctness an cohabiting couples can now claim it. I you are on a low income, the government will also pay some of your childcare costs, in some cases almost all of it, they will sometimes pay for your kids to get a taxi to and from school depending on your income and were you live in relation to the school. Kids from disadvantaged backgrounds can also get free school dinners and their parents get an allowance for school uniforms and shoes. If you have a child with a disability they will also pay transport costs to and from school, you can claim a ‘carer’s allowance’ - about £50.00 a week, and Disability Living Allowance for the child which may amount to £250.00 a week depend on the child’s level of disability. You can also claim for new furniture and having your house decorated if your a clever person on a low income. Foster carers are also paid a considerable sum by the government - up to £20 000 per year, and can claim for things a child in their care damages - such as a carpet or a table.

Really sorry if it looks like I’m derailing the thread but I thought it was worth mentioning as having children can be a lucrative business here.

Tax laws and childcare benefits is one the things that prompted same sex civil partnerships here 'cos, ‘gay’ couples felt all of the above was discriminatory toward them.

 

[BellsSmells]

Albeit that a few bishops of some EC Churches have exploited certain “loopholes” (or even flounted it outright), Cum data fuerit is actually still in effect.

Thanks be to God. It’s a hideous, arrogant piece of Church legislation that drove many from it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thanks be to God. It’s a hideous, arrogant piece of Church legislation that drove many from it.

The legislation is in effect but I believe the Vatican, instead of going back on the legislation, said that their consent is presumed. Of course particular Churches like the Ruthenians are in a deeper hole in this case because they made it part of their own particular canons to explicitly seek permission from the Vatican.

 

[StAnastasia]

The solution to the priest shortage is for families to live with a strong Catholic identity. No young man will consider becoming a priest if Catholicism is a foreign lifestyle. Parents should look with favor on their sons becoming priests, and should encourage all their children to spend some time considering whether a vocation is their calling.

This is a pious hope, but may not be a solution. A number of the boys in our school and parish with whom I’ve talked are leery of the priesthood because (naturally) at this point in their lives, celibacy appears sexually impotent to them. These are normal, healthy boys (including my sons), with normal, healthy, pubescent excitement about girls. They are not at this stage in the slightest bit interested in a career that would permanently shelve the sexual interest just being awakened in them by their hormonal drives.

Few kids in general – and boys in particular – are ready as teenagers to make a lifetime commitment to celibacy. I think encouragement by the Church is good and necessary: encourage young people to get a good education, to live in the world and get some experience, to meet a lot of different people, and to enter religious life when they know full well what sacrifice is involved.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

If the Church did permit married priests I imagine it would be the same as with Deacons or EO priests where they can marry and become priests but if their wife should pass away they would be expecited to remain celibate the remainder of their life.

That really doesn’t make sense. If sex is not evil in a deacon’s first marriage, why should that change for a second marriage? Or if a deacon can function in a first marriage, why not in a second? I don’t understand the rationale. There might be more vocations to the diaconate if that odd clause were excised.

 

[malphono]

That really doesn’t make sense. If sex is not evil in a deacon’s first marriage, why should that change for a second marriage? Or if a deacon can function in a first marriage, why not in a second? I don’t understand the rationale. There might be more vocations to the diaconate if that odd clause were excised.

Actually, I think it does make sense. It has nothing to do with “having sex” or jansenist idea of “sex being evil” or any of that, but rather with the Sacrament of Holy Orders. A man can legitimately receive the Sacrament of Matrimony and then Holy Orders, but not in reverse. Three of the seven Sacraments may routinely be conferred multiple times: Eucharist, Penance, and Extreme Unction. Whereas (ideally) Matrimony is conferred once, can be conferred more than that, depending on certain exceptional factors. However, each of the 3 degrees of Holy Orders may be conferred once and once only, and there are absolutely no exceptions. Once the diacontate (being the first degree of Holy Orders) is conferred, there’s no “turning back” so-to-speak. It’s the same in the East/Orient: if a man is not married before he is ordained to the diaconate (even if it is the “transitional” diaconate), he must remain forever celibate.

 

[DCNBILL]

That really doesn’t make sense. If sex is not evil in a deacon’s first marriage, why should that change for a second marriage? Or if a deacon can function in a first marriage, why not in a second? I don’t understand the rationale. There might be more vocations to the diaconate if that odd clause were excised.

It has always been this way in the Church, it is a matter of the order of the sacraments. While a married man can be ordained a permanent deacon and under special circumstances a priest, an ordained man cannot marry with a rare exception of permanent deacons who loose their wives and still have small children.

And the numbers for the permanent diaconate are increasing at a pretty good rate, in our diocese as of this Saturday will have ordained 33 permanent deacons in the last 5 years.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Latin Rite priests may not be married.

This is not always true.
As I said, we have a married priest in my diocese, who was ordained this year and then there is this guy!!

So while the norm is that Latin rite priests are not married, it is not unheard of for the discipline to be dispensed.

 

[malphono]

While a married man can be ordained a permanent deacon and under special circumstances a priest, an ordained man cannot marry with a rare exception of permanent deacons who loose their wives and still have small children.

Yes, there is that rare exception, which I neglected to mention. It exists in the East/Orient for priests as well. The exception is, indeed, rare, (I don’t know (either first hand or via hearsay) of case where it has been done in recent memory), and requires a special dispensation.

 

[StAnastasia]

It has always been this way in the Church, it is a matter of the order of the sacraments.

So it’s arbitrary? “It’s always been this way.”

 

[StAnastasia]

Yes, there is that rare exception, which I neglected to mention. It exists in the East/Orient for priests as well. The exception is, indeed, rare, (I don’t know (either first hand or via hearsay) of case where it has been done in recent memory), and requires a special dispensation.

It seems kind of silly to require a young deacon with a number of young children – who falls in love with a woman who desires to participate in his life and help him raise his children – to obtain a “special dispensation.” It’s probably not like he is going to do something with his sexuality the second time around that he hadn’t do the first time. Why put up this arbitrary obstacle to what might make him a more effective deacon?

 

[malphono]

It seems kind of silly to require a young deacon with a number of young children – who falls in love with a woman who desires to participate in his life and help him raise his children – to obtain a “special dispensation.” It’s probably not like he is going to do something with his sexuality the second time around that he hadn’t do the first time. Why put up this arbitrary obstacle to what might make him a more effective deacon?

It is not an “arbitrary obstacle” and while you may think it silly, the Church does not. She never has. At the risk of redundancy, I have to repeat: this has nothing to do with “sex” or “sexuality” or any such thing.