Let's be real about the shortage of priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jas31784
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Spyridon said:
Loosening the Roman Rite restriction on married clergy would be a huge step in the right direction.
Click to expand...
Why would it be?

If this is a Western dynamic (and, looking at the rest of the Catholic world, you’ve gotta admit that it is!), then we need look no further than our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters. Mainline Protestant denominations have had married clergy for ages, and yet… they face a vocations crisis, too!

If it doesn’t work for them… what gives you any confidence that it would work in a Catholic context?
 
I don’t mean having a married clergy would solve the priest shortage.

I mean it would help alleviate it somewhat (I.E. be a step in the right direction).

I don’t think anything is going to change the course the West is on. We’re headed for judgment and disaster.
 
How is it a logical error? There are probably people who have thought exactly what you said. My motivation isn’t sexual in nature, more that I always wanted to have and raise children.
 
Jas31784 said:
In America in 1960, there were 1,527 men ordained to the priesthood. In 1998, only 460 were ordained–a decline of over 1,000 per year
Click to expand...
Where are you getting these numbers?

If it were 1,000 a year less, there would be 0 in 2 years.

Even if you messed up and wrote 1,000 instead of 100, it would still end up being zero.

And 10 would be too small because it would be a difference of like 500/1000 over 40 years.

After a quick google search, it looks like you are getting this from a publishing arm of the SSPX.

I strongly suggest you stop reading material from a dissident group like the SSPX.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
After a quick google search, it looks like you are getting this from a publishing arm of the SSPX.

I strongly suggest you stop reading material from a dissident group like the SSPX.
Click to expand...
Amen.

These kinds of threads always start out, seeming to focus with curiosity about a trend - decline of priests, decline in Mass attendance, or increase in some bad behavior, etc…They always seem to focus on, say, 1960, as a “typical” or base year. (Odd they never take 1970 as a base year), then compare to a few decades later. Then they ask "Gosh, what may have happened in the meantime that must have caused this tragedy (increase in bad behavior, drop in good behavior)?

Then someone will suggest, “You know, right after 1960 there was a Council”. Then the OP will say, "Heh, I had not thought about that, but now that you mention it…Could there be a connection, or causal factor?
 
Last edited:
I have to also strongly agree with a previous post.

I think if VII had not happened, the situation in the Church would be much, much worse.
 
If someone wants to criticize VII, that is ok. If someone else wants to promote the SSPX, that is ok too. In both cases, call it that, honestly and explicitly, right in the title of the thread. I disagree with threads that look like they are about one thing, when really there is a different purpose.
 
Last edited:
This book called The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church by Fr. Matthias Gaudron.
 
Last edited:
After doing some digging, I found this from the SSPX’s website archive:
Fr. Matthias Gaudron was ordained a priest of the SSPX by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in 1990. For 12 years he was rector of the International Seminary of the Sacred Heart in Zaitzkofen (Bavaria). He is currently serving at the Priory of St. Peter in Berlin.
Click to expand...
 
I never was promoting the SSPX. Simply used material from a book I read. If it’s by someone in the group I have no idea it just says by Fr. Matthias Gaudron. Seems he would know what he’s talking about.
 
edtaylor51 said:
How is it a logical error? There are probably people who have thought exactly what you said. My motivation isn’t sexual in nature, more that I always wanted to have and raise children.
Click to expand...
It’s an error in understanding the logic of ‘vocation’. The vocation to the priesthood in the Latin Catholic Rite, normatively, has always included the notion of celibacy.

Is that doctrine? No. Is that a discipline which, in her wisdom, the Church has asserted throughout the ages? Yes.

I’m not saying that your motivation is sexual; I’m just pointing out that the Latin Rite of the Church has perceived that, by and large, ministerial priesthood and marriage are two distinct vocations.

(Incidentally, our non-Catholic Christian brethren agree: they don’t have a ministerial priesthood, so marriage is completely acceptable to them… as it’s the only vocation they recognize.)
 
How would it have been worse?
I am not criticizing your statement I just am curious.
I have some in my family who are very hardline traditionalists and seem to say once the Mass was changed many people stopped going to church.
I’ve also heard the view of priesthood was lessened by the laity.
I remember my grandmother telling me when the first Norvus Ordo began for the first year she would go home and say a Rosary because it didn’t even feel like Mass anymore.
 
You gotta learn to differentiate between incidental externals and essential internal substance.

If the Vatican decreed tomorrow that pipe organs are banned, banjos and guitars are mandatory in all Masses, and all chasubles from now on must be made of either denim or flannel, I would LOATHE these decrees. But would I leave the Church or go in schism over them? No way. You couldn’t force me to.

Jesus spoke of liturgy exactly 0 times in the NT. I don’t say that because it’s not important, but to say that the particular forms and pecularities of the Liturgy are NOT sufficient reason to abandon communion with the Roman Church. He commands us to love one another - he didn’t command us to celebrate Mass according to the Tridentine Usage. He commands us to obedience - not to schism because we hate the new form of Liturgy.

It’s best to learn to love what the Church has given us, and to learn the strengths and weaknesses both of the current Rite and the old usage of the Roman Rite.
 
Last edited:
Oh I agree.
I love the OF and the EF. I view both as beautiful and reverent in their own way. I don’t view one as superior to the other but like Pope Benedict XVl said are two forms of the one Latin Rite. Sure i like certain aspects more between the two but it doesn’t make me view either is inferior, which I must admit you do seem to hear when you do attend EF Mass. Some people just love that form, others unfortunately seem to have an opinion that they are more righteous because they think there’s is the valid Mass. I think that is nonsense.
I go to daily Mass and Sunday vigil in the OF. I go to a Sunday afternoon Mass in the EF. I think it balances out for me beautifully.
Like i said I wasn’t taking the opinion that I didn’t agree just wanted your opinion. The Mass of Pius V and the Mass of Paul Vl are both beautiful and completely Catholic. I can’t stand when some say otherwise.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
QG this is interesting. What issues did you see your friends deserting for?

How is it you still seem to be hanging on?
Click to expand...
Well I don’t really feel comfortable speaking for my friends, but I will share my experience. All I can tell you is that I never was a believer. As I matured into an adult, my experience has been that the Catholic Church emphasizes way more negative things than positive. My personality type is such that I strive to be positive because it doesn’t come naturally to me. The Catholic church, in my experience, was counter-productive for me with regards to living life positively. It was detrimental to my existence and I didn’t like the person I was when I worked hard to be a believer and a follower of the Church. For example, I don’t really believe in the concept of sin. Instead, I believe in the concept of people going through life, some very broken. Some at great disadvantage. Some mentally ill. Etc. My ideas of why we are here and where we are headed are much different from the Catholic church teachings. I don’t believe in the whole “reward/punishment” system promoted by the Church. Add to that the fact that I disagree with the church on the following: Concept of original sin, views on human sexuality, exclusion of women in the hierarchy, attitudes towards suffering, infallibility of the pope, etc., the Catholic church isn’t a good fit for me. I try to be a “to each his own” person, so I don’t say much about it to anyone unless I feel like harm is being done (that goes for any religion). I come to CAF because many in my family remain Catholic and I like to keep up on things so I can understand them better.
 
You are entitled to your opinion but I am not interested in your approval or lack thereof. I was responding to someone who asked, in apparent interest, more about my beliefs. You shouldn’t feel threatened by someone like me. I am a good person on a good path in life. I just believe differently than you do. Judge much?

And incidentally, I didn’t claim to know any truth in my post. I just shared my beliefs.

Note: this response was a reply to a poster who left quite the uncharitable remark and then subsequently deleted it.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, people mock the council, but forget that it produced TWO sainted popes!
 
Hi QuertyGirl,

I am glad you are here, on CAF! Keep on posting. I am a cradle Catholic, 68, have always loved the Catholic Faith. In recent years I also have been weighed down by negativism, as you. I don’t find negative in the Faith, but in the individuals, in Church and the World. Including myself. I find great comfort in devotion to Divine Mercy, as far as negativity goes. Including mine.
 
Last edited:
Sainted by Popes who participated in and supported the Council. Couldn’t the same thing be said about a saint who was canonized under an Arian Pope ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top