P
phil19034
Guest
Yes, some of them do. https://www.cpg.org/linkservid/5280...Meta/0/?label=2015 Church Compensation Report
And some Jewish Rabbis at rich Synagogues make over $200,000 per year
- Status
And some Jewish Rabbis at rich Synagogues make over $200,000 per year
D
dochawk
Guest
I believe Jewish practice is to pay the Rabbi in long with what the congregation makes.
Some protestants follow a similar practice.
hawk
Some protestants follow a similar practice.
hawk
P
phil19034
Guest
Exactly… have a Good Friday
M
Miguel25
Guest
Ok I am pastor Miguel from the church of england nice to meet you Phil
O
otjm
Guest
Your comment about a “relatively easy way” for married men to become priests resulting in the majority becoming married priests is either redundant, or you mean that the majority of priests would only come from married men. The latter is nothing but pure speculation, and ignores the fact that, just like married deacons, the wife has significant (name removed by moderator)ut as to ordination. And there is an old, old rule: if Momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy. You are correct that if married priests were full time in a parish, that the cost could be (not guaranteed at all) significant. As a significantly high number of married Catholic women work, there is no reason to assume the priest would be the sole support of the family; additionally, you presume that all married priests are going to be full time in a parish. Neither of those are givens.
I have no statistics as to how many married deacons are full time in parish or Church work (given they could be at the chancery). It appears, from what I know, that many have full time day jobs. There is no reason to presume married priests would not be the same. So the issue of financial obligation being a major roadblock is a straw man argument.
Further, your comments about degrees again presumes that all married priests would be on the pastor track. That is unlikely at best. It is also the track for deacons to go through 5 years of training, but that is not a given either. As far as I know, there is no specific track for a 2 to three year Masters (as in other Masters programs), but that is not an impossibility. And there is nothing to say that a married man could not get his Masters and then go through a 2 or 3 year transitional deacon program.
I have no statistics as to how many married deacons are full time in parish or Church work (given they could be at the chancery). It appears, from what I know, that many have full time day jobs. There is no reason to presume married priests would not be the same. So the issue of financial obligation being a major roadblock is a straw man argument.
Further, your comments about degrees again presumes that all married priests would be on the pastor track. That is unlikely at best. It is also the track for deacons to go through 5 years of training, but that is not a given either. As far as I know, there is no specific track for a 2 to three year Masters (as in other Masters programs), but that is not an impossibility. And there is nothing to say that a married man could not get his Masters and then go through a 2 or 3 year transitional deacon program.
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
Forgive me. I’m just a protestant trying to find my way to the Catholic church, but this thread strikes me as ridiculous.
All this business about the church having to house entire families for every parish is flatly absurd! You can simply provide a cost of living allowance. Wives quite frequently work. If they don’t, families find a way to survive. I’m not sure why some of you think you have to provide a complete living solution for married clergy and their entire families.
This business about providing priests with 6 figure salaries is silly. Do you really think EVERY married clergyman receives a massive salary? Protestant churches pay ministers what they can. If they are a wealthy church they pay more. If they are a poor church they pay a pretty meager stipend.
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!
If you aren’t comfortable with the idea of more married priest I can understand that. But, the problem is not a financial one.
All this business about the church having to house entire families for every parish is flatly absurd! You can simply provide a cost of living allowance. Wives quite frequently work. If they don’t, families find a way to survive. I’m not sure why some of you think you have to provide a complete living solution for married clergy and their entire families.
This business about providing priests with 6 figure salaries is silly. Do you really think EVERY married clergyman receives a massive salary? Protestant churches pay ministers what they can. If they are a wealthy church they pay more. If they are a poor church they pay a pretty meager stipend.
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!
If you aren’t comfortable with the idea of more married priest I can understand that. But, the problem is not a financial one.
A
Augustinian
Guest
What the problem with this is that families are so small nowadays, I don’t think in many parts we have enough children for the replacement level.
Lots of families only have a few children, giving one up to celibacy and no grandchildren is asking a lot.
When families had at least 4 or 5 children each- one could become a celibate, you still had 3 or 4 other chances for grandparenthood.
P
philipl
Guest
I see nothing wrong with married men becoming Priest.
P
Pup7
Guest
One of our priests at the military chapel is a convert. He was the chief celebrant Saturday night.
At the Vigil he talked about his four kids and his oldest daughter in particular. I wondered if there were any folks there who were having their first experience at Mass, and if there were, what in the world was going through their heads?
At the Vigil he talked about his four kids and his oldest daughter in particular. I wondered if there were any folks there who were having their first experience at Mass, and if there were, what in the world was going through their heads?
J
JimG
Guest
This is quite true. And when total fertility levels fall below replacement level, having enough priests is not the main problem. Having insufficient children is the main problem, keeping one’s nation alive is the main problem.
P
phil19034
Guest
Here are some good articles in support of priestly celibacy
www.catholiceducation.org
catholicexchange.com
And here are some thoughts from 2 Married Priests who are pro celibacy:
http://www.wfaa.com/mobile/article/...rch-clergy-should-stay-celibate/287-424838120
www.patheos.com
www.patheos.com
www.patheos.com
www.patheos.com
www.patheos.com
www.patheos.com
Why Not Married Priests? The Case for Clerical Celibacy
George Sim Johnston presents a convincing case for maintaining the celibate priesthood. Each month, when I face an auditorium full of engaged couples...
www.catholiceducation.org
10 Reasons for Priestly Celibacy
Priestly celibacy seems a hard teaching of the Church, a heavy burden that must be borne with ascetic grit and iron resolve. But that’s not how the popes of the twentieth century saw it.
catholicexchange.com
And here are some thoughts from 2 Married Priests who are pro celibacy:
http://www.wfaa.com/mobile/article/...rch-clergy-should-stay-celibate/287-424838120
A Married Priest On Married Priests - 1
What are the pros and cons of being a married priest? I'll be writing on various aspects of this question over the next few days. Firstly, we need to get
www.patheos.com
A Married Priest On Married Priests
Last week I was asked by an editor at the New York Times to contribute a very short article as part of a forum on the issue of married priests in the
www.patheos.com
Will Married Priests Solve The Vocations Crisis?
Here is my latest article for ZENIT asking whether admitting married men to the priesthood will solve the crisis in vocations. It would certainly seem, at
www.patheos.com
Married Priests?
Deacon Greg notices that the subject of married priests does not come up on the agenda of the Synod for the Family and comments here. Here are a few of
www.patheos.com
We Can't Afford Married Priests?
Pascal Emmanuel Gobry admits to having confused thoughts about married priests here. The topic is confusing. As soon as you come up with a good reason for
www.patheos.com
Married Priests? Yes But No
Here's how the conversation usually goes: Typical Catholic: "A married priest! Wonderful! I think they should all be allowed to get married!" FDL: "Well,
www.patheos.com
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
Perhaps you should tell the 20+ Eastern Rite Churches that secret that no man can have 2 Brides, since they did not get the message 2,000 years ago and apparently no one has told them recently. In fact, the Roman rite did not get it either for close to 10 centuries.
C
commenter
Guest
A better way to explain it is that we are far below replacement level in terms of stable marriages. It is the stable marriages that provide donations steadily. They are the ones that staff most church volunteer tasks.Augustinian:
This is quite true. And when total fertility levels fall below replacement level, having enough priests is not the main problem. Having insufficient children is the main problem, keeping one’s nation alive is the main problem.
They are the continuity glue that holds together every parish, and most Catholic schools. It is true they have many of the babies, but specifically they provide the background for the vast majority - almost all - of vocations.
This is where we are hurting.
O
otjm
Guest
Yes, we all know that Fr. Dwight Longenecker has his opinions, and they are usually dragged out by someone who is against any married priests. Anyone honest in the matter certainly should have an opportunity to speak up, and I do not say his opinions are wrong; rather, they are his opinions.
As to your article from catholiceducation: " A married clergy would certainly dilute the Catholic priesthood as an eschatological sign. "
I seriously doubt that. We have had monastics since early in the Church, and a married clergy is not going to impact them. Further, this is a slander to the Eastern Rites, which for 2,000 years has had both. Were it such a horrible impact, why have they continually had celibate clergy as well as married? We already have married clergy in the Roman rite, and I have yet to see any scintilla of dilution of an eschatalogical sign.
More from ec: “As my bleary-eyed friend discovered at that early morning Mass, the sacraments of Holy Orders and matrimony are too consuming to allow for both.” That is pure, unadulterated poppycock. One instance of either of them having a late night issue - child, or parishioner - has an issue that night. And yes, the next morning isn’t the most pleasant; but that has nothing to do with ordaining married men.
And yet more from ec: "Preachers’ wives and preachers’ kids do not have an easy time. " I will give a little clue: neither to doctors families; or business owners families, nor any number of professionals families (lawyers, CPA’s) nor anyone who has likely not seen a 40 hour work week since beginning in their business/profession. And we have several decades of married clergy experience, including those deacons who have had children at home (as in, prior to college) after they started on their journey to ordination, and after. Oh, I guess deacons with a full time job and the work of the deaconate added to that don’t count…
And again from ec: "The other argument against celibacy is that the Church’s requirement of continence is a primary cause of the sex scandals. ". Apparently the author did not read the John Jay report; The great majority of the sex scandals in the priesthood were with teenage boys. That is one strike against tht comment; the other strike is that the author, as usual with most commentary against a married priesthood, sees the issue as an “all or nothing”; having a married priesthood means getting rid of celibacy. Why? The Eastern Rites have had both for 2,000 years; so what we have is a red herring. and that dead fish is starting to stink.
As to your article from catholiceducation: " A married clergy would certainly dilute the Catholic priesthood as an eschatological sign. "
I seriously doubt that. We have had monastics since early in the Church, and a married clergy is not going to impact them. Further, this is a slander to the Eastern Rites, which for 2,000 years has had both. Were it such a horrible impact, why have they continually had celibate clergy as well as married? We already have married clergy in the Roman rite, and I have yet to see any scintilla of dilution of an eschatalogical sign.
More from ec: “As my bleary-eyed friend discovered at that early morning Mass, the sacraments of Holy Orders and matrimony are too consuming to allow for both.” That is pure, unadulterated poppycock. One instance of either of them having a late night issue - child, or parishioner - has an issue that night. And yes, the next morning isn’t the most pleasant; but that has nothing to do with ordaining married men.
And yet more from ec: "Preachers’ wives and preachers’ kids do not have an easy time. " I will give a little clue: neither to doctors families; or business owners families, nor any number of professionals families (lawyers, CPA’s) nor anyone who has likely not seen a 40 hour work week since beginning in their business/profession. And we have several decades of married clergy experience, including those deacons who have had children at home (as in, prior to college) after they started on their journey to ordination, and after. Oh, I guess deacons with a full time job and the work of the deaconate added to that don’t count…
And again from ec: "The other argument against celibacy is that the Church’s requirement of continence is a primary cause of the sex scandals. ". Apparently the author did not read the John Jay report; The great majority of the sex scandals in the priesthood were with teenage boys. That is one strike against tht comment; the other strike is that the author, as usual with most commentary against a married priesthood, sees the issue as an “all or nothing”; having a married priesthood means getting rid of celibacy. Why? The Eastern Rites have had both for 2,000 years; so what we have is a red herring. and that dead fish is starting to stink.
P
phil19034
Guest
Look, Eastern Parishes (Catholic and Orthodox) are typically FAR smaller than Latin Parishes.
A large Eastern Parish would have 400 families, while a Latin Parish could have several thousand families.
It’s comparing applies and oranges. The Eastern Churches matured and grew up around married priests, the Latin Church didn’t.
There are simply a large number of logistical and cultural things that would make a change to more married priests difficult.
Again: I’m fine with select married Deacons becoming priests; but I strongly think if married priests become the norm, it will not be good for the Catholic Church in the short run, and PERHAPS might be bad for the long run.
As long as people, esp Latin Catholics, fail to understand that celibacy is a higher calling, married priests will be a bad idea.
Last edited:
S
Seagull
Guest
Children of Catholic priests live with secrets and sorrow - The Boston Globe
A Globe review finds the children are often denied love and support and pressured to keep the scandal secret. And the church has done absolutely nothing to help.
www.bostonglobe.com
Here’s a very interesting article -
G
goout
Guest
Where I live, Deacons are almost exclusively older, well off, married men who do not need income. Great men, but, a limited slice of the cultural pie. The average working stiff is not a deacon because time away from work and concerns like health insurance and retirement provision are huge concerns. Again, this is where I live. Other places probably vary.
I have what is probably a very disagreeable solution to this problem.
Take funding away from the schools that are failing our children in so many ways, and put it towards vocations. We are spending boatloads of money subsidizing schools that are turning out less than 20% Christian disciples. Put those resources towards people who are willing to intentionally sacrifice their lives for Christ.
I have what is probably a very disagreeable solution to this problem.
Take funding away from the schools that are failing our children in so many ways, and put it towards vocations. We are spending boatloads of money subsidizing schools that are turning out less than 20% Christian disciples. Put those resources towards people who are willing to intentionally sacrifice their lives for Christ.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
Yep. Men have children out of wedlock.
Ok.
Ok.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Aah, but your claim is that ‘married priests’ would solve the ‘vocations problem.’ So… do Eastern Churches and Protestant churches in the West have vocations problems themselves? Why yes! Yes, they do.
So, if it doesn’t solve the problem for them, then… why should the Catholic Church adopt their standard?
G
Gorgias
Guest
This is an important point that often gets overlooked in this debate. Since the priesthood is not a job, but a vocation, bishops continue to have an obligation for the care of priests, even once they retire. But, if a married priest retires, he has to care for his wife, does he not? So, for the 37% of priests who are retired – by your count – the diocese takes on a greater financial responsibility, since it is caring for two, rather than one, person.
Along the lines of the financial considerations involved in this question (and I really do think that, theology aside, financial considerations are what throw this idea out of consideration), we must also consider the increased costs of retirement and health care costs for married priests.
- Status