Married catholic priests

[phil19034]

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. If married men are allowed to become priests, then the norm would become that we have married priests as diocesan priests. Men who want to be celibate, would eventually all become religious order priests.

The majority of lay people have pastors who are diocesan priests. The priests who we are accustomed to being their for us at all hours of the day are diocesan priests.

A lot of people assume that by allowing married men to become Latin Catholic priests will increase vocations. But there is no solid evidence to support that the theory will actually work.

And while it would be nice to have some extra part time Priests, what we need is more FULLTIME Priests.

I honestly think allowing married men to become priests will only result in part time priests. Which is why I would only be ok with select Deacons to become priests after several years of ministry and if there is a vocation recognized by the Deacon, Bishop & the Deacon’s formation director.

 

[otjm]

There are 18,287 permanent deacons as of 2017. If 1% of them (187, for those who are math challenged) were ordained out the whole, I am not sure I would want to say that the permanent deaconate was a lie to the claim. And I was not the one proposing that it would or should be a source.

And should the rule be relaxed (celibate only) more than it is now, I still would not expect any significant number of ordinations out of the whole (as in, less than 1%). That is an issue which may, or may not reside with the bishop of the diocese; or it may be Canon law, or both. It is not, and was not, my proposal.

 

[otjm]

We have full time priests. Yes, we need more, but that is not specifically related to the topic. And there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that allowing married men to be ordained is going to give us more married than celibate candidates.

In fact, since it would likely follow the model of ordaining married deacons, an individual would have to be older than the average age of celibate candidates; and he would have a process which would include a yearly review of the wife’s support for ordination. And that is far more likely to be a stumbling block to any married man being ordained than the length of the program, or just about anything else. If the requirement be that he have no children under the age of 18, that puts him at a minimum of 40 or more, assuming he married at 22 (and the average age of first marriages is about 26 - do the math).

 

[Augustinian]

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.

Here in Pittsburgh, they did a news story about 3 parochial schools, and the reporter indicated that the vast majority of students attending Catholic schools were non-catholic.

 

[phil19034]

We have full time priests. Yes, we need more, but that is not specifically related to the topic. And there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that allowing married men to be ordained is going to give us more married than celibate candidates.

In fact, since it would likely follow the model of ordaining married deacons, an individual would have to be older than the average age of celibate candidates; and he would have a process which would include a yearly review of the wife’s support for ordination. And that is far more likely to be a stumbling block to any married man being ordained than the length of the program, or just about anything else. If the requirement be that he have no children under the age of 18, that puts him at a minimum of 40 or more, assuming he married at 22 (and the average age of first marriages is about 26 - do the math).

But there IS circumstantial evidence that a married Diocesen priesthood would become the norm.

The Eastern Churches and Protestantism are perfect examples. Once you give up the requirement for priestly celibacy among the Diocean priests, more men are going to wait until they are married before joining the priesthood.

And the young men who want to be celibate will most likely join religious orders because most of the men in the seminary will be older, married men. The priestly fraternity of the diocesan priesthood will most likely become exactly like the perm diaconate.

If you want priestly celibacy among the diocesan priests to remain the norm, we must keep it the way it is OR allow select Deacons with X number years of experience as Deacons to become priests.

 

[babochka]

mrsdizzyd:

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

I am a member of the parish where that priest serves. Yes, there were some logistical issues, but they’ve been worked out and have served as a model for future married priests in the Eparchy. He and his wife are quite happy with the health insurance that they have been provided.

Of all the reasons to keep mandatory celibacy in the West, the argument about finances is the weakest.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

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.

Here in Pittsburgh, they did a news story about 3 parochial schools, and the reporter indicated that the vast majority of students attending Catholic schools were non-catholic.

Yeah, esp in the cities.

But some people see part of the reason for parochial schools to plant seeds and to battle the culture.

So it all depends on the philosophy. Many Catholic schools (post 1960s) feel that catechism is not the the primary or a top reason for Catholic Schools.

While Catholic Schools were originally founded to teach the faith 1st and then to educate; today some schools focus simply on teaching academics & Catholic social teaching (or sometimes only select social teachings)

 

[otjm]

You cannot determine, from Eastern Rite Church experience, how the ratio will work, any more than you can say that there will be regularly accepted dance in the Roman Rite in America because it is accepted by the Church in Africa and some of the Pacific Islands. different cultures, different responses.

You are making assumptions that someone with a call to that vocation is not going to have that call unless and until they are married, or that they will ignore the call and get married (and to their great surprise, have a wife who does not support being the priest’s wife).

Hey - I get it; you don’t like the idea of married priests, and you are going to throw up every possible objection.

The short of it is that it does not matter a whit what you or I think. It only matters what the Pope decides, and the question has been formally proposed to him.

I was in the seminary, in college, from 1964 - 1966. Celibacy/married priests were discussed back then. It most definitely was not the main topic of discussion, nor was it discussed often; but it certainly was discussed. and since then, I have watched a number of individuals who were discerning a vocation. Nothing leads me to believe that any man discerning a call to priesthood is going to be flippant about it, or play a “duble dip” approach. Those I have seen dealing with the issue generally had a stronger inclination to one of the other vocations. and I have known those who married, and later expressed some sense of “what if…”, and to a person had a spouse who wanted no part of it. You flat out ignore the impact and say-so that the wife has.

Further, while the average age for vocations is somewhat overall later (possibly partially due to the closing of high school seminaries?) and so the age of entry has gone up somewhat, the starting point is likely to be after anyone who has married no longer has children at home. And that in itself tends toward far later entry into the issue, and as likely, if not more likely, the older they get, the less likely they are to follow through towards a vocation to priesthood also.

And yes, I have heard Cardinals commenting on the matter negatively; and have wondered if there was not an issue unresolved from decades past which they might be imposing on the discussion.

As to those preferring celibacy, there are two distinct vocations; one is to priesthood, and the other is to religious life. There is no basis whatsoever of assuming that those who feel they have a vocation both to celibacy and priesthood would want to b e in an order - or that the order would necessarily want them. There are 25,757 diocesan priests and only 11,424 Religious priests (both figures contain those who are retired or retirement age). And the number of priests ordained as a Religious member are significantly less per year than for diocesan. Again, nothing at all indicates that those choosing to be celibate would also choose an order.

 

[Gorgias]

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

Not necessarily true. In my diocese, parishes subsidize parochial schools to the tune of 25-50%. And it isn’t just “their choice” – it’s what’s expected of them. There’s no way that the cost of education can be borne through tuition – that would amount to about $8-10K per student.

 

[Gorgias]

That is an issue which may, or may not reside with the bishop of the diocese; or it may be Canon law, or both.

It would be extraordinarily difficult to codify a “1% rule” in canon law. Rather, “up to the ordinary” would become the standard. And, once we cross that bridge, it would be difficult to expect that many (if not most?) dioceses would need to add two zeroes to that percentage of married deacons-cum-priests.

 

[ajg]

The Catholic schools in my area are about $6k per student and if you expand further to New Orleans, I’ve been told there “cheaper” Catholic schools are about $7k. The most expensive I know of is about $14k.

 

[Gorgias]

The Catholic schools in my area are about $6k per student and if you expand further to New Orleans, I’ve been told there “cheaper” Catholic schools are about $7k.

Is that the actual cost of education per student, or merely the tuition rate charged per student?

 

[ajg]

Tuition rate. I do not have children yet, so I have not dug deeper.

 

[Gorgias]

Tuition rate. I do not have children yet, so I have not dug deeper.

Right. I’m talking about the actual costs, divided per student. Typically, in Catholic schools, this cost is defrayed by fundraising and by subsidies from the diocese and/or the parish(es).

 

[ajg]

Oh okay. I misread. I thought you meant that schools in your area could not charge that amount for tuition.

 

[phil19034]

You cannot determine, from Eastern Rite Church experience, how the ratio will work, any more than you can say that there will be regularly accepted dance in the Roman Rite in America because it is accepted by the Church in Africa and some of the Pacific Islands. different cultures, different responses.
…

I was in the seminary, in college, from 1964 - 1966. Celibacy/married priests were discussed back then. It most definitely was not the main topic of discussion, nor was it discussed often; but it certainly was discussed. and since then, I have watched a number of individuals who were discerning a vocation. Nothing leads me to believe that any man discerning a call to priesthood is going to be flippant about it, or play a “duble dip” approach. Those I have seen dealing with the issue generally had a stronger inclination to one of the other vocations. and I have known those who married, and later expressed some sense of “what if…”, and to a person had a spouse who wanted no part of it. You flat out ignore the impact and say-so that the wife has.

Further, while the average age for vocations is somewhat overall later (possibly partially due to the closing of high school seminaries?) and so the age of entry has gone up somewhat, the starting point is likely to be after anyone who has married no longer has children at home. And that in itself tends toward far later entry into the issue, and as likely, if not more likely, the older they get, the less likely they are to follow through towards a vocation to priesthood also.

And yes, I have heard Cardinals commenting on the matter negatively; and have wondered if there was not an issue unresolved from decades past which they might be imposing on the discussion.

As to those preferring celibacy, there are two distinct vocations; one is to priesthood, and the other is to religious life. There is no basis whatsoever of assuming that those who feel they have a vocation both to celibacy and priesthood would want to b e in an order - or that the order would necessarily want them. There are 25,757 diocesan priests and only 11,424 Religious priests (both figures contain those who are retired or retirement age). And the number of priests ordained as a Religious member are significantly less per year than for diocesan. Again, nothing at all indicates that those choosing to be celibate would also choose an order.

And there is nothing but assumptions that it will work out fine. What we really need is more seminarys like St Charles Borromeo in Philadelphia and St John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver and none that would tell seminarians that priests one day can get married or be ok with dating, fornication, and/or homosexual acts while seminarians are in college seminary.

 

[otjm]

I think you need to back that down seriously. Making allegations that seminaries are telling their students that dating, fornication and/or homosexual acts are permissible is outright libel unless you have actual proof. and actual proof is not someone said that someone wrote that so and so heard…

That is seriously over the line.

It also has had absolutely nothing to do with th conversations above or any comment I ahve posted. I do not appreciate that kind of response.

 

[billsannie]

Years ago I was personally acquainted with a number of seminarians and priests. One seminarian did tell me that homosexual acts were quite common at his seminary, and the officials did nothing to stop it. When asked why he didn’t transfer he said other seminaries were the same.

I personally knew a homosexual priest. He personally knew of a number of homosexual priests in the diocese. What I heard then, and since, from people with firsthand knowledge, leads me to believe that while many priests are straight, the rate of homosexuality among Catholic priests is very much higher than in the general population.

And I believe this is a major reason why married priests won’t be allowed as a general thing in the Catholic Church anytime soon. There is a certain gay culture in seminaries and in the priesthood as a whole, and trying to mix that with an influx of straight men would create an entire host of problems. For that and for many other reasons, I don’t see married priests happening any time soon.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Within the Catholic Church, there are about 19 lesser known “rites” or “churches” apart from the Roman Rite.

The others allow their priests to be married.

Within the Catholic Church there are also aggregations of local particular churches that share a specific liturgical, theological, spiritual, and canonical heritage, distinguished from other heritages on the basis of culture and historical circumstances. These are known as autonomous (“sui iuris”) churches. The 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches defines such a church as follows: “A group of Christ’s faithful hierarchically linked in accordance with law and given express or tacit recognition by the supreme authority of the Church is in this Code called an autonomous Church.”[10] There are 24 such autonomous Catholic churches, one “Western” and 23 “Eastern”, a distinction by now more historical than geographical. Although each of them has its own specific heritage, they are all in communion with the Pope in Rome. See the article on the Eastern Catholic Churches for a list of the 23 such churches. The total number of 24 is obtained by adding to these the Latin Church.

Particular churches sui iuris

Main articles: Particular church, Latin Church, and Eastern Catholic Churches

Latin liturgical tradition:
Latin Church
Alexandrian liturgical tradition:
Coptic Catholic Church
Ethiopian Catholic Church
Eritrean Catholic Church
Antiochian liturgical tradition:
Maronite Church
Syrian Catholic Church
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Armenian liturgical tradition:
Armenian Catholic Church
Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition:
Chaldean Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church

Byzantine liturgical tradition:
Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church
Byzantine Catholic Church of Croatia and Serbia
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church
Melkite Greek Catholic Church
Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic
Russian Greek Catholic Church
Ruthenian Catholic Church
Slovak Greek Catholic Church
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

 

[billsannie]

When I wrote of the Catholic Church, I meant the Latin Rite. You are correct that most Catholic rites allow priests to be married, although of course the Latin Rite is much larger than all the others put together.