S
StAnastasia
Guest
We can get used to a smaller, purer Church.
- Status
L
_L
Guest
It’s important to hammer the crucial detail that celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine or dogma because it can cause serious scandal to the Church if we don’t emphasize this because all of the sudden the ignorant people in the media will start using the mere glimmer of conversation on this manner to push a pro women priest, pro homosexual marriage agenda in the Church.
There is nothing inherently wrong with married priests, but judging by the attitude of some you would think the mere concept is pure evil. Let’s not forget that one of the greatest Saints in the Church, St. Patrick was the son of a deacon and the grandson of a priest since priests were allowed to marry in his time.
We shouldn’t be content with fewer people receiving sacraments and a dwindling flock if it can be avoided. Think of all the people that would be missing out on the gospel and the sacraments if we just decided we would be content with a Church with a very small number of priests when that could be avoided. If things proceed the way they are now, we may see situations where we have basically one solitary priest in a single area and people who used to go to multiple different parishes with their own local priest(s) would then be forced to all go to this one priest for mass, confession, and so on and sometimes this means traveling quite far.
The foreseeable problems I see are the economic effects. If a priest is a father to his own children as well, he will need to provide for them as well, and in this day and age more is required for children than just food and clothing. The priest’s income will have to come from the collection plate, and I can totally see situations where parishioners take issue with the way the priest may be using the collection money if they see one of his kids fiddling with the newest expensive gadget or other high priced device that are churned out these days. And you also have to think of things like education; you may have a case where a priest is using collection money in his salary so to speak for his children’s college education, and you may have a case where less well off parishioners are donating week in and week out and they can’t even afford to send their own kids to college and yet they are financing the education of the priest’s children so I can see this becoming an issue. This could be solved by having a working mother also, but if they have a large number of kids then it can still become an issue as well. A married man becoming a priest would be a sacrifice not only for him but for his whole family, wife and kids included.
I can see however a more realistic option:
If the low number of priests becomes an incredibly dire problem I can see the admittance of married men into the priesthood, but they could act with less responsibility than the parish priest. Like if we have a situation where there is basically one single priest per parish and that priest is overwhelmed by the number of people that need him, local married priests who live in their own houses could assist that priest by coming in and hearing confessions, performing baptisms, celebrating multiple masses, etc. when that priest is simply not able to and this would allow for the main priest to tend to the big picture stuff in his own parish or just give him a much needed rest if he has a large congregation that he cannot seem to handle alone. Under this situation, it would seem married men who are ordained as priests could continue with their family life and regular source of income (to ease the financial burden on the Church) but would act as much needed “auxiliary priests” who can assist the regular celibate parish priest whenever he needs them.
just my two cents.
There is nothing inherently wrong with married priests, but judging by the attitude of some you would think the mere concept is pure evil. Let’s not forget that one of the greatest Saints in the Church, St. Patrick was the son of a deacon and the grandson of a priest since priests were allowed to marry in his time.
We shouldn’t be content with fewer people receiving sacraments and a dwindling flock if it can be avoided. Think of all the people that would be missing out on the gospel and the sacraments if we just decided we would be content with a Church with a very small number of priests when that could be avoided. If things proceed the way they are now, we may see situations where we have basically one solitary priest in a single area and people who used to go to multiple different parishes with their own local priest(s) would then be forced to all go to this one priest for mass, confession, and so on and sometimes this means traveling quite far.
The foreseeable problems I see are the economic effects. If a priest is a father to his own children as well, he will need to provide for them as well, and in this day and age more is required for children than just food and clothing. The priest’s income will have to come from the collection plate, and I can totally see situations where parishioners take issue with the way the priest may be using the collection money if they see one of his kids fiddling with the newest expensive gadget or other high priced device that are churned out these days. And you also have to think of things like education; you may have a case where a priest is using collection money in his salary so to speak for his children’s college education, and you may have a case where less well off parishioners are donating week in and week out and they can’t even afford to send their own kids to college and yet they are financing the education of the priest’s children so I can see this becoming an issue. This could be solved by having a working mother also, but if they have a large number of kids then it can still become an issue as well. A married man becoming a priest would be a sacrifice not only for him but for his whole family, wife and kids included.
I can see however a more realistic option:
If the low number of priests becomes an incredibly dire problem I can see the admittance of married men into the priesthood, but they could act with less responsibility than the parish priest. Like if we have a situation where there is basically one single priest per parish and that priest is overwhelmed by the number of people that need him, local married priests who live in their own houses could assist that priest by coming in and hearing confessions, performing baptisms, celebrating multiple masses, etc. when that priest is simply not able to and this would allow for the main priest to tend to the big picture stuff in his own parish or just give him a much needed rest if he has a large congregation that he cannot seem to handle alone. Under this situation, it would seem married men who are ordained as priests could continue with their family life and regular source of income (to ease the financial burden on the Church) but would act as much needed “auxiliary priests” who can assist the regular celibate parish priest whenever he needs them.
just my two cents.
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
Thanks
P
PbloPicasso
Guest
Works for me, and I’m not bent on only the TLM… but it would bring back memories from my childhood. A Divine Liturgy would work best for me though.
P
ProVobis
Guest
This really isn’t about the Traditional Latin Rite. I know of a married priest who says the Usus Antiquior. It appears he was ordained via the Eastern route.
M
minkymurph
Guest
There’s no doubt the married priests = safe children argument is incredibly flawed. If you are a child abuser, marriage won’t stop you - neither will not being a priest - and it’s highly likely that some people are simply against the practice of celibacy and the recent scandals lend weight to the argument.
I agree some priests may have joined the priesthood because they were either pedophiles or hebephiles, and the priesthood not only gave them ready access to children but opportunities to groom them. It has been established that the vast majority of child abusers neither seek nor except help because they don’t see anything wrong with what they do, and the only way to stop a child abuser is deny them access to children. Every profession or vocation that involves working with children or young people has stringent vetting procedures and child protection policies. They are not impervious and sometimes get through the net because they are so adept at covering their tracks and presenting themselves trustworthy people. However, they are in place and Prevention is better than cure and for the sake of the safety of our children and young people, we cannot afford to delude ourselves an end to celibacy will prevent child abuse. It’s not enough. The implementation of stringent child protection policies and vetting procedures make it more difficult for child abusers to have access to children. In addition, there should also be a definite consequence for child abuse. I see these as more effective measure in preventing child abuse than an end to celibacy. Even if priests did marry, these measures would still necessary in order to prevent child abuse, and in these areas I feel the Church has been wanting.
B
BrushedByAngels
Guest
Of course it was RCC. I received all of my sacraments there as well as having my son baptised there. It was back when our Bishop was raping little boys so its possible ‘anything goes’ was the situation. All I know was he eventually left and became a priest at a different parish (and yes its RCC as well.) There were other slightly odd things I noticed, but that would start a new topic or thread…
S
StAnastasia
Guest
L, I appreciate your suggestion, but I don’t think we need a grade of “auxiliary priest.” In fact, I think this thread is mistitled, because I don’t think the bishop is advocating the abolition of celibacy. There will always be room for celibate priests; I occasionally teach the seminarians in a Cistercian monastery, and by definition Cistercian (Trappist) monks will always lead monastic, celibate lives.
What the Irish bishop probably is suggesting is an end to mandatory celibacy. Make it optional, and some priests will choose celibate lives, while others may choose the married life. There is a terminological confusion here, I think. Multiple vocations are possible: my vocations are to being a parent and to being a theologian/professor. The vocations of priesthood and fatherhood are no more theologically antithetical than are the vocations of fatherhood and teacher, or motherhood and oncologist.
If we don’t think sex is dirty or somehow sullies the person in a married sexual relationship, then how could it sully or make dirty a priest? How would a married priest necessarily be any less holy, or worthy, or effective than an unmarried priest?
StAnastasia
O
OraLabora
Guest
The issue of a celibate clergy is a red herring, when it comes to the sexual abuse scandal in the Church. Being married has not stopped sports coaches, scout leaders, teachers and Protestant clergy from sexually abusing minors.
Secondly, the thought that a married clergy would solve the issue with lack of vocations is also wrong. Mainstream Protestant churches, including the Anglicans, are facing the same issue. It would seem that the greater culprit here is the secularization of society in general, because in areas where spirituality plays a greater part in life (e.g. Africa, Poland), vocations are plenty. Moreover in my area, some monastic and religious communities (that will incidentally remain celibate forever) seem to be able to attract young men as they at least have the attraction and support of community life. The life of a diocesan priest these days can be exceptionally lonely, long gone are the days when at least several priests would share a rectory.
There are many very practical difficulties with married clergy, namely the issue of property, and paying salaries sufficient so that a priest can reasonably hope to raise and educate a family.
Of course there are married clergymen in the Roman Church (outside the rare exceptions), I refer of course to permanent deacons.
I could see, in the foreseeable future, a possibility for a similar sort of arrangement for married men who feel they have a call to the priestly vocation later in life. These would be mature men who have careers or a source of stable income (e.g. pension), i.e. similar to permanent deacons. I actually think that their life experience, and accumulated wisdom, might make them excellent priests and pastoral counsellors. With (at least in my area) “pastoral units” made up of many parishes under a “priest-moderator” (newfangled terminology I guess for “curate”), these priests could help provide the sacraments to outlying parishes and relieve the load on the many overworked priests. Yes I know, we can import priests from abroad, but I think it is very useful to have priests that share the culture and life experience of their local communities.
The thing is that we already have deacons to fulfill a significant part of that role. They can lead Sunday communion services when no priest is available, they can preach, they can be involved in pastoral counseling, they can baptize, marry and bury. Theirs is an honourable service ministry. If the Church men in similar life circumstances to become priests, I suspect that the permanent diaconate would disappear, the diaconate would become transitory for all those on the path to a priestly vocation.
So what we have now, is what we have now: celibate priests and married deacons. The main point is that this is an issue of discipline, not dogma. The Church could some day rule that the permanent diaconate has been a failure, or is inadequate to meet the needs of the Church, and elect to ordain mature married men to the priesthood. If she does, then we as obedient Catholics have to accept that decision.
If she doesn’t, as is the case now, we also have to accept that decision.
But it doesn’t mean that people, including bishops, are prohibited from opining on the issue, one way or the other. If a bishop questioned dogma, I’d have serious issues with that. But discussing a discipline, well, it’s a free world. It would perhaps be better that the debate be confined to within the Church but after all this is 2011, and it’s never been easier to get a message out there, and I doubt we can muzzle 100% of the clergy. We can’t have a double-standard of expecting the Church leaders to have a voice on social issues in the secular world while denying them the right to speak of the challenges facing the Church herself in the same world.
Secondly, the thought that a married clergy would solve the issue with lack of vocations is also wrong. Mainstream Protestant churches, including the Anglicans, are facing the same issue. It would seem that the greater culprit here is the secularization of society in general, because in areas where spirituality plays a greater part in life (e.g. Africa, Poland), vocations are plenty. Moreover in my area, some monastic and religious communities (that will incidentally remain celibate forever) seem to be able to attract young men as they at least have the attraction and support of community life. The life of a diocesan priest these days can be exceptionally lonely, long gone are the days when at least several priests would share a rectory.
There are many very practical difficulties with married clergy, namely the issue of property, and paying salaries sufficient so that a priest can reasonably hope to raise and educate a family.
Of course there are married clergymen in the Roman Church (outside the rare exceptions), I refer of course to permanent deacons.
I could see, in the foreseeable future, a possibility for a similar sort of arrangement for married men who feel they have a call to the priestly vocation later in life. These would be mature men who have careers or a source of stable income (e.g. pension), i.e. similar to permanent deacons. I actually think that their life experience, and accumulated wisdom, might make them excellent priests and pastoral counsellors. With (at least in my area) “pastoral units” made up of many parishes under a “priest-moderator” (newfangled terminology I guess for “curate”), these priests could help provide the sacraments to outlying parishes and relieve the load on the many overworked priests. Yes I know, we can import priests from abroad, but I think it is very useful to have priests that share the culture and life experience of their local communities.
The thing is that we already have deacons to fulfill a significant part of that role. They can lead Sunday communion services when no priest is available, they can preach, they can be involved in pastoral counseling, they can baptize, marry and bury. Theirs is an honourable service ministry. If the Church men in similar life circumstances to become priests, I suspect that the permanent diaconate would disappear, the diaconate would become transitory for all those on the path to a priestly vocation.
So what we have now, is what we have now: celibate priests and married deacons. The main point is that this is an issue of discipline, not dogma. The Church could some day rule that the permanent diaconate has been a failure, or is inadequate to meet the needs of the Church, and elect to ordain mature married men to the priesthood. If she does, then we as obedient Catholics have to accept that decision.
If she doesn’t, as is the case now, we also have to accept that decision.
But it doesn’t mean that people, including bishops, are prohibited from opining on the issue, one way or the other. If a bishop questioned dogma, I’d have serious issues with that. But discussing a discipline, well, it’s a free world. It would perhaps be better that the debate be confined to within the Church but after all this is 2011, and it’s never been easier to get a message out there, and I doubt we can muzzle 100% of the clergy. We can’t have a double-standard of expecting the Church leaders to have a voice on social issues in the secular world while denying them the right to speak of the challenges facing the Church herself in the same world.
M
minkymurph
Guest
I have heard it said that just prior to the Reformation, it was believed that those who married were more lustful and sinful, and that the clergy were considered more spiritual and pure because they were celibate. Thankfully times have changed and hopefully no one thinks now the vocation of marriage is not a lesser one.
I am also given to understand that celibacy was a choice in the past. (Council of Nicea) I have also heard it said the reason celibacy was introduced as a discipline is because some Pope’s in the past had wives, mistresses and children, and they were making their sons cardinals and giving them property and land.
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
Your post is a breath of reason, wisdom, and fresh air in an issue that typically has posters here at daggers drawn. I have frequestly expressed similar opinions regarding the creation of Simplex priests of a mature age, likely largely drawn from the ranks of married deacons. Thank you.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Thanks. I garbled a sentence in my post above, just to be clear, I said:
But I meant:
But yes, I think that this idea (“simplex priests” as you call them, kind of like the Graduale Simplex
) is certainly worth serious consideration, and bishops should not be forced into silence on the issue. It’s something that at the very least should be discussed not only among the clergy, but also with the lay Catholics in the pew and the reality is that modern media is probably the only way to reach out to Catholics who may not be 100% faithful in church attendance, and there is no need to demonize clergy that want to opine on the topic.
T
TevereNauta
Guest
My very limited $.02 as a layman (although as one discerning a vocation to the Diocesan Priesthood) goes along with what the majority of you fine folks have said: celibate priest is a discipline, not a dogma. And yes, indeed, allowing priests to marry would most definitely, I think, lead to greater vocations. Personally, I am neither for nor against implementing such a change, and leave it to our God-given Magisterium, though I do kind of lean towards letting priests marry. We are not talking about ordaining the womenpriest movement, after all.
As a nota bene to this major story, let me link my beloved La Stampa’s latest link about it: Ireland’s Priests who want to marry
It brings up that the (in)famous Cardinal from Vienna, along the same lines, also wanted to ordain women to the diaconate among letting priests marry (which again, I am not totally against as it is not the priesthood per se) but I digress.
I did have a few points of interests though, and a few questions to bring up…
As a nota bene to this major story, let me link my beloved La Stampa’s latest link about it: Ireland’s Priests who want to marry
It brings up that the (in)famous Cardinal from Vienna, along the same lines, also wanted to ordain women to the diaconate among letting priests marry (which again, I am not totally against as it is not the priesthood per se) but I digress.
I did have a few points of interests though, and a few questions to bring up…
- If priests were allowed to marry, is there a canon law that states it must be prior to ordination?
- Would this mean bishops have to remain celibate? I know the ordered clergy and brothers/sisters would remain celibate, I think, according to their charism, but AFAIK there has never been a licitly married Pope in St. Peter’s chair? Perhaps awesome brother JR could clarify…
S
StAnastasia
Guest
TevereNauta, I don’t see why there would be an objection to restricting the ordination of bishops and the election of popes to the ranks of celibate priests. After all, historically there have been popes who were members of various religious orders.
As for when marriage could happen, there is a funny story involving a Greek Orthodox seminarian who was in one of my father’s graduate theology seminars several decades ago. He had postponed marriage so long that he realised only a few months before his scheduled ordination that he’d better get on with it. So there was a frantic couple of months within the local Greek Orthodox community of this seminarian in knocking on the doors of households of a variety of eligible young ladies, until he found one who would consent to marry him before his ordination. Talk about awkward! But awkwardness does not necessarily mean wrong…
StAnastasia
P
ProVobis
Guest
Fair question. I don’t believe there are any strict Church laws against women studying in the seminaries (St. Mary’s in Baltimore, as an example) but I could be wrong now.
I
Iotaunum
Guest
That’s the problem today. People want to know what the minimum requirements are. If it IS possible they will fight tooth and nail to get any over and above done away with. This applies to Celibacy. Is it possible to have a priest who is married? Yes - therefore they call for an end to it. Is it really necessary to abstain from meat on Fridays? No - therefore they get rid of the pious practice. The same with everything else.
When I saw protestant clergy on TV in documentaries where they were taking their children to football, bickering with their wives and going 'round to the in-laws for dinner I seen people who were not set apart - just living like lay people. Booking holidays, getting letters home from school about bad behaviour and watching TV soaps with their wives - I just thought ‘Thank God priests are not like that’. Priests were always set apart. They didn’t live “common lives”. There was a profound respect for the celibate priest who had give up everything to serve Christ. This is not saying the eastern rite priests are not holy, but it made the priest stand apart and made him seem more like an alter Christus. When you went to see the priest he didn’t have to send his children into the other room, or ask his wife to make tea as the protestant ministers did on the documentaries.
I think many myths need cleared up, becuase the clergy themselves are starting to believe them. 1/ Celibacy does not cause, or increase the risk of child abuse. 2/ Celibacy does not put off true vocations. 3/ Celibacy is not a useless or antiquated law 4/ Celibacy is not unfair to priests. I hate to see it when people accuse the Church of doing wrong. The Church is the spotless bride of Christ and it makes me,justifiably, angry to hear; “the Catholic Church has apologised for a priest abusing a child”. The Catholic Church of all institutions should be the most horrified. The bride of Christ has no need to apologise for an unworthy member violating its own teachings and laws and commiting intrinsically evil acts. Sure, if a bishop covered it up or moved a child abuser on, then he should be accountable in his own capacity - but not the Church. It is the same people who accuse the Church itself of crimes such as this and others such as discriminating against women for not ordaining them that are the most vocal in the call to abolish celibacy and other doctrines and disciplines.
The communists and the liberals got it right. They knew to succeed they would have to educate the young. This made them mad; the fact that the Church demanded the education of her children. Now we see how liberal and rebellious education is. One teacher teaching religion in a catholic school said they also teach the Children to “think outside the box” - what does this mean in terms of Church teaching and dogma - I will tell you, for I went to Catholic Schools; It means that the teacher says: “the church teaches IVF is wrong but what do YOU think?” then they proceed to put on a video about a couple crying and saying that their cute child would not be alive if the Church had its way. This is aparantly thinking outside the box. The same with celibacy. The children have no idea why priests are celibate, so why ask them their opinion on the matter. Catholic schools unfortunately toady breed liberal minds, rebellious for the sake of rebellion. I am surprised to see any children today make it though Catholic school and remain a practicing Catholic. And I attended a Catholic school complete with Chapel and teaching nuns!
P
Patchunky
Guest
P
PbloPicasso
Guest
Exactly why I’ve always believed this discipline should no longer be required. Being one of the victims, I believe I have the right to speak my opinion. Marriage should not be required, however, it seems that if you read scripture on the qualifications of an elder it says that he must be the husband of one wife and have believing children. When I returned to the Church I really felt called more to the Eastern Church, not the Latin rite. This is but one reason, not the sum of all though. Spiritually speaking, I prefer the eastern Church.
M
minkymurph
Guest
I agree that the practice of faith should not be about the bare minimum. Just because something ‘isn’t necessary’ doesn’t mean it’s a bad practice or it should be done away with.
I agree with you priests should be set apart, but not in an elitist way which is what it became. Priest are shepherds not dictators, and serve the people as Jesus demonstrated by washing the disciples feet.
What is the ‘Bride of Christ’ and ‘The Church?’ Are we not all part of the Bride of Christ and the Church? Are not the bishops who covered it up and those who committed the acts part of the Church, and the Bride of Christ? Therefore, what do you mean by 'the Bride of Christ has no need to apologize, ’ or ‘the Church’ should not apologize|? Do you mean the Vatican,as in the Pope and Cardinals should not apologize? Would you say none of them knew? If not, then perhaps they have nothing to apologize for. However, I don’t think they would endear themselves to the flock by publicly stating, ‘we have no need to apologize because we are the Bride of Christ and we are not responsible for what priests and bishops we appoint do.’
Children are taught to think outside the box in all subjects because a truly educated mind needs more than a good memory, which is all that is required for passing exams.
- Status