Is this true - re married priests?

[RCMom]

This was posted on another board that I occasionaly post on. The poster admits that she considered herself “*traditional on some aspects and progressive on others” *and went on to say that she thinks that there should at least be “dialogue” about women priests and contraception. I do not want to debate the isuses here. I agree with sevearl other posters on previous posts that to change these facets of our religion would be changing our religion. What I am questioning is the truth of her statement regarding married priests. Can anyone help?? Thanks!

As far as married priests, do you know the history of priests in the Catholic Church? I’m not sure of the year it happened but married priests were allowed at one time. The reason that priests were not allowed to marry (I believe it was during some of the dark times in the Church where it was very corrupt) was that the Church wanted the inheritances of the priests going to the Church and not to families. At one time some priests had a lot of $ and thus the church wanted that money. I believe the Church needs to go back and reexamine and prayerfully reflect upon this issue.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes, this is true, up until at least the 9th Century the Roman (Latin) Catholic Church allowed married men to be ordained to the priesthood.
One of the issues involved in the change of this discipline was as this person states.

The Roman Catholic Church today has some priests that are married, they are mostly converts who were ministers or priests in other churches that allow married clergy.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have always and still do allow married men to be ordained to the priesthood. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church both have ordained married men in the USA very recently and the Byzantine (Ruthenian) is moving that way as they have a couple of married candidates in the seminary right now.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The reason that priests were not allowed to marry (I believe it was during some of the dark times in the Church where it was very corrupt) was that the Church wanted the inheritances of the priests going to the Church and not to families

This, OTOH, is pure garbage revisionist “history”. Yeah, I’m sure that the average married priest of that time earned so much that his money going to a family would have just bankrupted the world’s economy. . .

There are quite good sources which address this canard. . .

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

 

[RCMom]

Thank you for clarifying, David.

BTW - I am originally from Rochester. Have things improved at all up there? My husband and I went to U of R and were married and had our first child baptized at St. Louis in Pittsford. I was born in Brockport, and still have family there. We are considering a return to the area, but I am concerned about the diocese and the direction it was headed in several years ago. Also, I feel quite strongly about sending my children to Catholic schools, and several of the elementary schools are closing.

J

 

[RCMom]

tantum ergo

I am confused. Does that article suggest that men COULD marry and become priests at long as they remained celibate?? Maybe I read it wrong. I did skim it kind of fast…guess I’ll go back and read more thoroughly.

Thanks for the link.

J

 

[Brendan]

RCMom:

tantum ergo

I am confused. Does that article suggest that men COULD marry and become priests at long as they remained celibate??
J

Marriage is not a doctrinal impediment to Holy Orders. All of the other Catholic Churches, married men are Ordained to the Priesthood. They do take an vow of Celibacy, but it is Celibacy within their Marriage. If their wife dies, they cannot remarry.

The Latin Church has chosen, as a matter of general discipline, to only Ordain unmarried men to the Priesthood ( Deacons may be married).

The historical reasons were twofold.

In the East, A priest generally had a second job, to make a living. He was a priest on Sundays, but might be a cobbler, a farmer ect… the other days. They generally served smaller congregations.

The West preferred a more ‘full time’ priest serving a larger parish.

But even in the East, the call to a fully Celibate life is considered more ideal. Bishops are chosen from men who are unmarried. So theologically, the fully celibate man is more ideal, as a fuller represenation of life in Heaven ( “they are neither given or taken in marriage”)

There are also instances of corrpution that encouraged the spread of a Celibate priesthood, but not in the way the article had to say.

There were cases of corrupt clergy embellizling church funds to enrich their families. Heck, this certainly happens today, a few tele-evangleists come to mind.

A celibate priesthood helps the clergy resist this temptation.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Tantum ergo:

The reason that priests were not allowed to marry (I believe it was during some of the dark times in the Church where it was very corrupt) was that the Church wanted the inheritances of the priests going to the Church and not to families

This, OTOH, is pure garbage revisionist “history”. Yeah, I’m sure that the average married priest of that time earned so much that his money going to a family would have just bankrupted the world’s economy. . .

Actually not true.

The issue with inheritances was that there were cases where children of priests were inheriting Church property. It had nothing to do with the earnings.

 

[kage_ar]

ByzCath:

The Roman Catholic Church today has some priests that are married, they are mostly converts who were ministers or priests in other churches that allow married clergy.

We have one such priest in a neighboring parish. Convert who was a minister and was married. From what I understand, when a minister converts and wishes to become a priest - the local Bishop reviews and decides if the cause should be taken up, then it goes to Rome for individual review. The cases are rare but not impossible…

 

[Harriet]

There are married priests in the Catholic Church in England today because when the Anglican Church started ordaining women they wanted to become Catholics.
One must ask, if the Catholic Church can make allowances for these anomolies why not for all? It makes no sense and I’m confused.
Why can’t men be married, how can the Catholic church teach about the joys of family life when none of them are actually allowed to experience the joys for themselves?

 

[Brendan]

Harriet:

There are married priests in the Catholic Church in England today because when the Anglican Church started ordaining women they wanted to become Catholics.
One must ask, if the Catholic Church can make allowances for these anomolies why not for all? It makes no sense and I’m confused.

First of all, there are far more married priests than just the occasional converted Anglican or Lutheran. A large number, if not most, of the Eastern Catholic priests are married (at least worldwide)

So the Church has no problem what so ever with Ordaining married men.

But the Church, in Her Wisdom, has found the celibate state to be preffered in the West.

Why can’t men be married, how can the Catholic church teach about the joys of family life when none of them are actually allowed to experience the joys for themselves?

St. Paul encouraged celibacy in 1 Cor 7:7-9

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn

Now St. Paul is not critizing marriage in any way, in Ephesians he extols it to no end. But clearly, a celibate state is the prefered one, if one can abide by it.

Christ Himself said the same in Matt 19:12, when He says that “and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven”

Family life is certain to be cherished, but it is certainly not the ONLY state of life to be cherished.

Where does God command, or even desire that one experience all the joys He offers to Man? And what about the joys of devoting one’s life completely to God? Is that not to be encouraged

 

[dcmac]

The problem with familial Church property inheritance can be traced to the Irish in almost all cases in the Roman Church. It was the Irish who re-evangelized Europe after the Germanic Tribes overtook the Roman Empire and destroyed it, which included the Church.

These Irish missionaries took with them the Irish practice of a familial connection to church property, which can be traced to Brehon (ancient, native Irish law that is older than most other forms of European law) Law. In this law the ancient Irish Druids were entitled to give “Termon” to their kindred, which was the only source of private ownership in Ireland. At this time the Irish Clan structure shared the land with all members of the clan with a Chief or Chieftain to serve as an overlord/protector. When Christianity overtook pagan Druidism as the religion of the people this practice of “Termon” was transferred to the family of a church’s founder. This did not mean that in every case the founder was a married priest, though that certainly was a reality. What it truly means is that a Coarb or Erenagh of a particular church and its land were of the same family as the founder.

This practice became very corrupt and the Church did need to put an end to it. In places where the practice was widespread and corrupt one traces it to the re-establishment of the Church in the overrun Empire of Western Europe. It held on longer in Scotland, Ireland and the Isle of Mann than in any other part of Europe.

However, it was not strictly, as some people put it, a matter of a son or descendent simply stealing the moneys/lands/profits thereof from the Church. It was more complicated than this and unfortunately does take its formation from the Irish missionaries who re-evangelized Europe.

(I am sorry for taking so long, but one of my double major undergraduate degrees was in western civilization history before I moved on and got my doctorate in Psy.D., which makes me a rather anal person when it comes to historical facts and how they are presented and used. I hope that everyone else’s posts and mine can help you with a reply to the obviously heterodox woman you are conversing with… )

 

[JimG]

We have a married priest in our diocese, former Episcopalian. He has a large family, and has been assigned to a variety of priestly assignments within the diocese. His wife, incidentally, says that she would most emphatically NOT recommend a married priesthood generally.

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

ByzCath:

Yes, this is true, up until at least the 9th Century the Roman (Latin) Catholic Church allowed married men to be ordained to the priesthood.
One of the issues involved in the change of this discipline was as this person states.

The Roman Catholic Church today has some priests that are married, they are mostly converts who were ministers or priests in other churches that allow married clergy.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have always and still do allow married men to be ordained to the priesthood. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church both have ordained married men in the USA very recently and the Byzantine (Ruthenian) is moving that way as they have a couple of married candidates in the seminary right now.

They cannot become bishops however – either in the Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Churches…

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

Harriet:

There are married priests in the Catholic Church in England today because when the Anglican Church started ordaining women they wanted to become Catholics.
One must ask, if the Catholic Church can make allowances for these anomolies why not for all? It makes no sense and I’m confused.
Why can’t men be married, how can the Catholic church teach about the joys of family life when none of them are actually allowed to experience the joys for themselves?

This is an shows an extremely shallow understanding of a Catholic priest’s life.

My pastor is my spritual father. He has a few thousand sons and daughters. His spiritual father is the bishop of our diocese who has over a hundred such sons…

Your comments remind of those who carp about priests giving advice about marraige when they have never been married. How could they do such a thing? Do oncologists need to get cancer before they can be good oncologists? I think not.

If you want a great response to priestly celebacy, please read:

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=40383

It was written by Archbishop Timothy Dolan and it’s a great (and quick) read.

 

[Milliardo]

Pariah Pirana:

This is an shows an extremely shallow understanding of a Catholic priest’s life.

My pastor is my spritual father. He has a few thousand sons and daughters. His spiritual father is the bishop of our diocese who has over a hundred such sons…

Your comments remind of those who carp about priests giving advice about marraige when they have never been married. How could they do such a thing? Do oncologists need to get cancer before they can be good oncologists? I think not.

If you want a great response to priestly celebacy, please read:

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=40383

It was written by Archbishop Timothy Dolan and it’s a great (and quick) read.

That is absolutely true. For another analogy: does a psychiatrist have to be mentally ill or formerly mentally ill to understand his patients? Of course not. So such conclusions as a priest having to be married to understand family life are false.