Married catholic priests

[Gorgias]

HOWEVER, my position is that we should only allow select older Deacons to become priests

That brings with it another important vocational consideration: permanent deacons discerned a vocation that is terminal – that is, permanent – the vocation to the diaconate. If we open the priesthood to ‘permanent deacons’, aren’t we gutting that vocation and saying it isn’t a ‘real vocation’? After all, it’s really just a potential stepping-stone to priestly ordination…

 

[otjm]

The size of the parish is irrelevant to the issue of the discipline of celibacy.

There are few issues of logistical and cultural issues which would militate against ordaining some married men. The issue of a married clergy has been in part addressed by married deacons; people have welcomed them. and most married deacons are not full time in a parish. The difficulties which have been laid out in this thread are not givens, but they are assumed to be givens by those who oppose married priests.

and I don’t even k now why you use the term “norm” with married priests - I seriously doubt they will ever become the “norm”.

As long aas Catholics understand the celibate priesthood as a “higher calling”, married priests will not impact the issue. Celibacy will not go away, in spite of the fears of those opposed to married clergy. Married priests have been part of the Church for 2,000 years; and part of the Roman rite for close to 1,000 years; it was by discipline stopped, and it has been re-instituted on a limited basis. Celibacy has not fallen apart either in the Eastern rites nor, where we have married priests in the Roman rite.

It will be up to the Pope as to whether or not we relax the discipline of celibacy only; and given that the bishops of Brazil have requested it, I presume the matter is still on the table. We may or may not see it relaxed in the US, and/or in Europe. Some other parts of the world have a surplus of priests, which may or may not impact any expansion. And there is no rule which says that if it is relaxed, that the Church would start ordaining men with young children. That is highly unlikely, given the deaconate process.

 

[otjm]

Some schools may be failing children. However, children are far more failed by their parents than their schools. I have seen it both in the schools, which teach the Faith, and in the religious education programs which teach the Faith; both sets of kids have parents who cannot be bothered to get their children to Mass on Sunday.

The family is the primary source of teaching children; perhaps not math and science, or even necessarily reading. But they most certainly are the primary educators of morals and behavior. I can’t think of how many parents with teenage children I have heard say " But I can’t get my kids to go to Mass". That problem didn’t start with the teenage years; it started when they were out of the cradle, and no one could set parameters to their behavior. add to that helicopter parents, and all the other variations of “If I correct them, I might damage their (apparently weak) psyches” and you have kids who have no moral guidance of basic right and wrong.

 

[babochka]

Children of Catholic priests live with secrets and sorrow - The Boston Globe

Here’s a very interesting article -

Which has nothing to do with married or celibate priests faithfully living their vocations.

 

[otjm]

Allegedly, all deaconate programs have made it clear to those seeking the deaconate, that it is not a “priest in waiting” program. I have read a number of articles concerning married clergy in which deacons have pointedly expressed that they have no interest in being ordained a priest, and I have spoken with a number who have emphatically said the same.

And even if it were opened to a subsequent ordination to priesthood for some, the two vocations are clearly different, and not simply passage from one to the next.

 

[Gorgias]

Allegedly, all deaconate programs have made it clear to those seeking the deaconate, that it is not a “priest in waiting” program.

And even if it were opened to a subsequent ordination to priesthood for some, the two vocations are clearly different, and not simply passage from one to the next.

Fair enough, but if you claim it’s not “priest in waiting”, and yet you ordain priests out of the ranks of those deacons, aren’t you putting the lie to the claim?

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

HOWEVER, my position is that we should only allow select older Deacons to become priests

That brings with it another important vocational consideration: permanent deacons discerned a vocation that is terminal – that is, permanent – the vocation to the diaconate. If we open the priesthood to ‘permanent deacons’, aren’t we gutting that vocation and saying it isn’t a ‘real vocation’? After all, it’s really just a potential stepping-stone to priestly ordination…

No, because there is no such thing as a vocation to “Permanent Diaconate.”

There is a calling to the Diaconate though.

Also, I said SELECT deacons. Some Deacons actually might be called to the priesthood, should it be allowed. Not all will be, just as not all monks are called to be priests.

I strongly believe there are SOME Deacons who would be called to the priesthood, if they are allowed.

The idea of transitional Deacon vs Permanent Deacon is a mistake. All deacons should be treated the same way. If a seminarian is ordained a Deacon and for some reason at the last minute doesn’t become a priest - he should be able to continue ministering as a Deacon (assuming he didn’t do something unbecoming).

And a Deacon of several years should be able to become a priest if he, his bishop, and formation director all believe he has a calling to the priesthood.

Furthermore, how many Bishops have been ordained Bishop while never feeling they were called to be a Bishop? Sometimes a vocation develops.

Point is: are the callings to the priesthood & diaconate different? Yes. Some Deacons are not called to be priests and would be horrible at it. But some would make wonderful Priests. Point is, the callings are different but NOT mutually exclusive.

God Bless

 

[goout]

Some schools may be failing children. However, children are far more failed by their parents than their schools. I have seen it both in the schools, which teach the Faith, and in the religious education programs which teach the Faith; both sets of kids have parents who cannot be bothered to get their children to Mass on Sunday.

The family is the primary source of teaching children; perhaps not math and science, or even necessarily reading. But they most certainly are the primary educators of morals and behavior. I can’t think of how many parents with teenage children I have heard say " But I can’t get my kids to go to Mass". That problem didn’t start with the teenage years; it started when they were out of the cradle, and no one could set parameters to their behavior. add to that helicopter parents, and all the other variations of “If I correct them, I might damage their (apparently weak) psyches” and you have kids who have no moral guidance of basic right and wrong.

Well, yes you are another step deeper into the problem. I think the the corollary to that is that schools cannot solve the problems that families are causing.

Parishes spend an incredible amount of money for what have become private schools.
I am sorry. But our schools are not turning out Christian disciples in any great percentage. It may be primarily the family’s fault, but in any case, maybe it’s time for those resources to be put in other areas.

The children where I live who continue in the faith are not doing so because of the school, but rather because their parents instilled the faith in them at home and live it outside the home. Most of them are involved with the Mass in some way. That is the influence of priests and deacons, sisters, nuns, and some of the lay pastoral associates.

This is a hard thing to think about and the cause of a lot of sadness, but the results speak for themselves.

 

[phil19034]

otjm:

Some schools may be failing children. However, children are far more failed by their parents than their schools. I have seen it both in the schools, which teach the Faith, and in the religious education programs which teach the Faith; both sets of kids have parents who cannot be bothered to get their children to Mass on Sunday.

The family is the primary source of teaching children; perhaps not math and science, or even necessarily reading. But they most certainly are the primary educators of morals and behavior. I can’t think of how many parents with teenage children I have heard say " But I can’t get my kids to go to Mass". That problem didn’t start with the teenage years; it started when they were out of the cradle, and no one could set parameters to their behavior. add to that helicopter parents, and all the other variations of “If I correct them, I might damage their (apparently weak) psyches” and you have kids who have no moral guidance of basic right and wrong.

Well, yes you are another step deeper into the problem. I think the the corollary to that is that schools cannot solve the problems that families are causing.

Parishes spend an incredible amount of money for what have become private schools.
I am sorry. But our schools are not turning out Christian disciples in any great percentage. It may be primarily the family’s fault, but in any case, maybe it’s time for those resources to be put in other areas.

The children where I live who continue in the faith are not doing so because of the school, but rather because their parents instilled the faith in them at home and live it outside the home. Most of them are involved with the Mass in some way. That is the influence of priests and deacons, sisters, nuns, and some of the lay pastoral associates.

This is a hard thing to think about and the cause of a lot of sadness, but the results speak for themselves.

Yeah, but most parochial Catholic Schools fund themselves via tuition. And ones that can’t are eventually closed or merged.

That’s why we have a lot more regional Catholic K-8 schools today and why there are very few (hardly any) parish high schools left - the majority are diocesan.

Parishes might help their parochial elementary/middle school via active parish member discounts, but there are some parishes that are financially independent of their schools.

In my parish (for example) we no longer have an parish K-8 School. Instead we are part of a regional school where 3 catholic schools (for 4 parishes) were all merged together. Our parish offers discounts to our active parish members, but I don’t know if we directly help them fund anything else. And I know that 1 of the 4 parishes pays NOTHING towards the regional school.

And our parish also has a pre-school, which is lumped in financially with the parish. However, the preschool pays for itself.

So the schools really aren’t part of the problem. And they are potentially part of the solution since so many Catholic School ran by religious orders have become Catholic in name only.

God Bless

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Just a point of clarification: many Protestant branches have a glut of “vocations” rather than a vocation issue. Baptists are an excellent example of this. The non-denomination evangelical churches are overrun with ministers. New bible colleges being built across the country.

 

[phil19034]

Just a point of clarification: many Protestant branches have a glut of “vocations” rather than a vocation issue. Baptists are an excellent example of this. The non-denomination evangelical churches are overrun with ministers. New bible colleges being built across the country.

But liturgical protestant Churches do not have a “glut of vocations.”

In my opinion, baptist and non-denominational groups have “vocations” because it takes a lot less schooling.

If every single Catholic nun, Deacon, or lay man with a theology degree decided to become baptist or non-denominational - each of them could open their own “church” tomorrow.

Also, the net number of new clergy in Protestantism isn’t growing. They are simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.

In summary… the reason “Bible churches” are springing up all over the place is due to relativism. When someone doesn’t like what their preacher says, they look for a different one that has a preacher who says what they like.

Also, you numbers don’t show the number of new “Bible churches” that open and then later fold. My sister was married in one that opened a few years before she got married and closed a few years later.

 

[tifischer]

I admire priest for their celibacy if that is what God calls them to…beautiful. So, I was apprehensive when I came into the Church and found out that our pastor was married…however, he did an amazing job…amazing church and family.

However, perhaps this is my limited experience but, I know personally two ex-nuns who left their vocation to be married traditionally. Both marital relations ended very poorly in divorce.

 

[goout]

Fair enough for you circumstances. Where I live the parish subsidizes 1/3 of the cost of running the school
One third (about $1.5 mil) of the cost, and we have families that are participating in Christian life at about 20%.

 

[mythbuster1]

Jewish priests weren’t allowed to have sex while serving in the Temple, either. Their solution can work for us, too: rotations. As long as there are at least two priests at a parish, they can have them saying daily Mass alternating weeks. The priest not saying Mass that week could be responsible for sick calls, et. al.

 

[phil19034]

Jewish priests weren’t allowed to have sex while serving in the Temple, either. Their solution can work for us, too: rotations. As long as there are at least two priests at a parish, they can have them saying daily Mass alternating weeks. The priest not saying Mass that week could be responsible for sick calls, et. al.

True enough

However, all of my points are that there are a lot of things that logistically make this DIFFICULT, not impossible (let alone theological, pastoral, and familiar reasons)

Let’s also keep in mind that people are asking us to reintroduce the situations that lead the Latin Church to require celibacy in the first place.

God Bless

 

[mythbuster1]

We’re no longer an agrarian society. Priests don’t own lots of land anymore, nor are most fortunes tied to land use.

 

[phil19034]

We’re no longer an agrarian society. Priests don’t own lots of land anymore, nor are most fortunes tied to land use.

Huh?

Priest trying to leave parish money, property, etc to their children was NOT the main reason for celibacy

 

[phil19034]

Fair enough for you circumstances. Where I live the parish subsidizes 1/3 of the cost of running the school
One third (about $1.5 mil) of the cost, and we have families that are participating in Christian life at about 20%.

But that’s your parish’s choice. No one is making your parish do this.

Catholic schools exist for a number of different reasons, with many different goals.

Your pastor and/or parish council obviously believe the $1.5 million is worth it. Perhaps you should ask your pastor/parish council to justify the investment?

However, let me ask you a question. If you could take that $1.5 million from the parish, how would you use it differently to increase the number of priests?

BTW - let me ask you a question. How much worse would this world be if all Catholic Schools closed? Sure, not all of them are very Catholic, but most are still better than what many people are getting in public schools and/or what’s coming soon to public schools.

 

[dochawk]

Do you really think celibate priests will disappear? There will likely be a mix of both, and dare I say, there will probably still be more celibate priest than married ones because it is the tradition in the church!

Yes.

It would be silly for the Western Church to try to eliminate celibate priests outside the monastery, and inconsistent with their tradition.

(Whereas unmarried non-monastic priests are an innovation in the East. The Russian Orthodox even have a saint known for marrying a young man while not far from his deathbed–so that he could be ordained. I don’t know whether they ordain single men outside the monastery today.

If you aren’t comfortable with the idea of more married priest I can understand that. But, the problem is not a financial one.

Our former bishop told me that when he hired the first married priest (from Europe), health care turned out to be the hardest part . . .

hawk

 

[dochawk]

And here are some thoughts from 2 Married Priests who are pro celibacy:

Well, that gives new meaning to “take my wife–please!”

Apparently the author did not read the John Jay report; The great majority of the sex scandals in the priesthood were with teenage boys.

A Penn State study a few years ago came up with a couple of surprising results:

1. the Catholic church had the lowest rate of such abuse by clergy,
2. the rate is higher, not lower, for married clergy in denominations with both. [although I expect that this one comes from who was and wasn’t closeted for what in the past, and cannot be used as a general conclusion]

Priest trying to leave parish money, property, etc to their children was NOT the main reason for celibacy

It was, though, the reason that both East & West stopped choosing married bishops in the second century (while married priests remained the norm for both).

hawk