Married Clergy - Two vocations bring on challenges

[hwriggles4]

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This is something that is not often heard enough, and I’m glad a solid Catholic publication has brought this in the open. It is an article about the struggle that some of our married clergy, particularly the ones with younger children, face with demands on their time.

Through personal experience, most of the married clergy that I am familiar with (with one exception) are empty nesters, and I do know a few good priests who are widowers with grown children. I live in the South, and in the South we have many converts.

I’m also sharing this to help others see that a married clergy is an exception to the norm, and that when a former Protestant minister converts, there is a lengthy process with the Pastoral Provision. The Pastoral Provision is not a “rubber stamp”, and it is often a few years before the former Protestant minister is ordained a Catholic priest, with the former Protestant minister often having to find a 9-to-5 job and doing some extra studies under supervision for a few years before being ordained.

Here is the link to the article: osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/Story/TabId/2672/ArtMID/13567/ArticleID/20057/Juggling-roles-daunting-challenge-for-married-priests.aspx

Enjoy the article, and feel free to express thoughts, but please do not make comments that these priests are doing “half a job”, and I have yet to meet a Catholic priest who converted from the Episcopal Church who is lukewarm. In fact, I sometimes hear much more “orthodox” and “solid” preaching from these priests than I do from “Fr. Nice” and “Fr. Yeah Whatever” who was ordained circa 1974.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This is something that is not often heard enough, and I’m glad a solid Catholic publication has brought this in the open. It is an article about the struggle that some of our married clergy, particularly the ones with younger children, face with demands on their time.

Through personal experience, most of the married clergy that I am familiar with (with one exception) are empty nesters, and I do know a few good priests who are widowers with grown children. I live in the South, and in the South we have many converts.

I’m also sharing this to help others see that a married clergy is an exception to the norm, and that when a former Protestant minister converts, there is a lengthy process with the Pastoral Provision. The Pastoral Provision is not a “rubber stamp”, and it is often a few years before the former Protestant minister is ordained a Catholic priest, with the former Protestant minister often having to find a 9-to-5 job and doing some extra studies under supervision for a few years before being ordained.

Here is the link to the article: osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/Story/TabId/2672/ArtMID/13567/ArticleID/20057/Juggling-roles-daunting-challenge-for-married-priests.aspx

Enjoy the article, and feel free to express thoughts, but please do not make comments that these priests are doing “half a job”, and I have yet to meet a Catholic priest who converted from the Episcopal Church who is lukewarm. In fact, I sometimes hear much more “orthodox” and “solid” preaching from these priests than I do from “Fr. Nice” and “Fr. Yeah Whatever” who was ordained circa 1974.

Most Eastern Catholic Churches have continued the Tradition of married men being ordained to deacon and priest for 2000 years. They seem to manage as well, and are usually much more orthodox than the typical “Fr. Nice and Fr. Yeah Whatever” priests I read about on CAF

 

[on_the_hill]

My concern about married R. Catholic priests (in the U.S,) is that it would take a couple generations for people to accept.

For example: “Why did Fr.Joe’s kid get a new bike for Christmas? I can’t afford a new bike for my kid and I’m putting my money into the envelope every week!”

 

[SyroMalankara]

My concern about married R. Catholic priests (in the U.S,) is that it would take a couple generations for people to accept.

For example: “Why did Fr.Joe’s kid get a new bike for Christmas? I can’t afford a new bike for my kid and I’m putting my money into the envelope every week!”

Maybe Fr. Joe’s kids have wealthy grandparents; or Fr. Joe’s misses is a doctor; or Fr. Joe saved up for a year; or Fr. Joe buys at garage sales and is a heck of a handy man. Heck, Fr. Joe might be real good friend’s with Deacon Joe, who’s son is a bike salesman.

 

[otjm]

In my experience (and I was in college seminary in 1964-1966, so there is a bit of it), this is a discussion that rapidly finds itself mired in emotional responses and in apparent absolutes.

I do not suggest that priesthood is a “profession”. However, for all the discussion of the struggle of having a family and being a priest, it is as if everyone else in the working world is a 9 to fiver, or 8-5 Monday through Friday. I hate to break the bubble, but most professionals and small business owners would be laughing so hard they would be crying - if they could take the time way from the demands of their work life and family life to do so.

Back in the 70’s (and I sort of doubt it has changed all that much) an attorney starting out of law school with a large firm could expect to be “at work” at least 80 hours a week. Eighty. Not a typo. And to this day I don’t know to many attorneys in large law firms who work 40 hours a week. Maybe occasionally, but certainly not on a regular basis.

Doctors? Still making rounds; still having emergency work, and not too many of them doing 40 hour work weeks. CPA’s? Try to even find one during tax season(s) - there is more than one season. Small business owners? Not at all unusual to be working 7 days a week.

Yes, it is a struggle to balance the parish and the family; and there may be answers - among which can be that the model of every priest having a parish (and some with two or three, and occasionally four) may not be the model the Church needs to follow with absolutely every priest. In fact, it does not, but the great majority of priests are either pastor or associate in a parish.

The sad part about the discussion is that it seems to devolve to an all or nothing argument. That misses the point entirely; the Church does not have to abandon or get rid of celibacy; it is not an either/or. It can be a both/and matter - as factually it is right now. Nor does the Church need to demand that married candidates be beyond the “child bearing” years. Any married man who wants to become a priest would have to go through the same gauntlet that married deacons do - and that is, the wife would have to be on board, and that issue would not be a one-time discussion. Momma ain’t on board, ain’t gonna happen. Just like Momma ain’t happy…

Can there be problems with married men being ordained? There already have been problems with non-married men being ordained, so welcome to the real world. The married deaconate undoubtedly has had a few bumps in the road, and yet it moves along quite well on the whole. None of that is a reason to not ordain a married man (although I have seen that proposal a number of times).

Ordaining married men is not an insult nor is it a minimization of ordaining celibate men. That is another red herring that seems to pop up in these conversations; one does not need to “do away” with celibacy, nor does one need to not emphasize vocations to celibate men if one ordains married men. The Church - through the Eastern rites - has had a married clergy and a celibate clergy since the time of Christ. There are a number of reasons the Roman rite decided to stop ordaining married men; and that was centuries ago. And the Roman rite is now ordaining married men. Expanding that to cradle catholic married men is neither earth shaking, nor is it going to turn the Church upside down. It is not that far a step, nor is it a dismissal of Sacerdotalis Caelibatus. It is a modification of the current discipline further than it has been modified to date.

And I seriously doubt that the Church would be inundated with requests for admittance to seminary; and any request would need to be carefully filtered - just as current requests need to be. We have a shortage of priests; this is not a cure all, nor necessarily any cure to that issue. However, every man ordained is one more than we had before the ordination. As the Eastern rites have shown for 2,000 years, every married man ordained is one doing the work of Christ and the Church here on earth, just as do the celibate ones.

 

[otjm]

My concern about married R. Catholic priests (in the U.S,) is that it would take a couple generations for people to accept.

For example: “Why did Fr.Joe’s kid get a new bike for Christmas? I can’t afford a new bike for my kid and I’m putting my money into the envelope every week!”

That complaint is far more likely to come from someone who does not put an envelope in each week, or sticks a few dollars in (never mind tithing, which would be 10%; Catholics average, last time I saw a statistic, an average of 2% - average, meaning those who do step up to the plate are making up for a lot of others).

 

[TK421]

Ordaining married men is not an insult nor is it a minimization of ordaining celibate men. That is another red herring that seems to pop up in these conversations; one does not need to “do away” with celibacy, nor does one need to not emphasize vocations to celibate men if one ordains married men. The Church - through the Eastern rites - has had a married clergy and a celibate clergy since the time of Christ. There are a number of reasons the Roman rite decided to stop ordaining married men; and that was centuries ago. And the Roman rite is now ordaining married men. Expanding that to cradle catholic married men is neither earth shaking, nor is it going to turn the Church upside down. It is not that far a step, nor is it a dismissal of Sacerdotalis Caelibatus. It is a modification of the current discipline further than it has been modified to date.

And I seriously doubt that the Church would be inundated with requests for admittance to seminary; and any request would need to be carefully filtered - just as current requests need to be. We have a shortage of priests; this is not a cure all, nor necessarily any cure to that issue. However, every man ordained is one more than we had before the ordination. As the Eastern rites have shown for 2,000 years, every married man ordained is one doing the work of Christ and the Church here on earth, just as do the celibate ones.

Hi ojtm,

I think you make some good points. I myself feel strongly convinced in holding to the discipline.

I will add that the reasons for celibacy as a discipline for clergy & religious are primarily spiritual/evangelical and practical for secondary reasons, if at all.

We become religious to witness the high holiness of the Church. By approving our congregation, the Church expects much from us. The Church believes our way of life will lead many to holiness. If we live our vows fully, this life has the power to bring us to perfect love, to make us holy, to help us love God perfectly. We may make mistakes but that love for one another and for Jesus must remain.
-St Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

In my opinion, I do see removing celibacy as a discipline as a being a threat to vowed celibacy as a whole, and Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism affirm this rather than the other way around: few people make the leap to such a life when it is not required of them, and that is because making a lifelong commitment to celibacy is something that goes against a natural good with very powerful built-in motivations for spousal love & children (though in trade for an even higher good) and that is not an easy thing to do. I am not being critical per se of these rites: perhaps this arrangement is what God wants, but that doesn’t mean He necessarily wants it for the largest part of the Body.

For most people, that kind of vocation is not meant to be at all, but even if they do have such a vocation in store for them, as either a religious or a clergy, it is extremely easy not to answer it. So it is extremely important to have an actual tangible ecclesial power - the Latin Church herself - impose this upon her servants. Strict? Maybe, but I would say that’s how it needs to be. We’re in a state of war against the powers of hell and against our own natures.

To my knowledge, the Latin Church is the only one that holds this discipline (not sure). If it goes, then it is gone; perhaps forever.

 

[otjm]

Hi ojtm,

I think you make some good points. I myself feel strongly convinced in holding to the discipline.

I will add that the reasons for celibacy as a discipline for clergy & religious are primarily spiritual/evangelical and practical for secondary reasons, if at all.

We become religious to witness the high holiness of the Church. By approving our congregation, the Church expects much from us. The Church believes our way of life will lead many to holiness. If we live our vows fully, this life has the power to bring us to perfect love, to make us holy, to help us love God perfectly. We may make mistakes but that love for one another and for Jesus must remain.
-St Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

In my opinion, I do see removing celibacy as a discipline as a being a threat to vowed celibacy as a whole, and Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism affirm this rather than the other way around: few people make the leap to such a life when it is not required of them, and that is because making a lifelong commitment to celibacy is something that goes against a natural good with very powerful built-in motivations for spousal love & children (though in trade for an even higher good) and that is not an easy thing to do. I am not being critical per se of these rites: perhaps this arrangement is what God wants, but that doesn’t mean He necessarily wants it for the largest part of the Body.

For most people, that kind of vocation is not meant to be at all, but even if they do have such a vocation in store for them, as either a religious or a clergy, it is extremely easy not to answer it. So it is extremely important to have an actual tangible ecclesial power - the Latin Church herself - impose this upon her servants. Strict? Maybe, but I would say that’s how it needs to be. We’re in a state of war against the powers of hell and against our own natures.

To my knowledge, the Latin Church is the only one that holds this discipline (not sure). If it goes, then it is gone; perhaps forever.

You see ordaining married men as abandoning a discipline. I don’t.

You see it as not only abandoning it, but also see (apparently) a tidal wave of married men applying to seminary and in itself overwhelming any celibate man who might entertain thoughts of a vocation. I don’t.

In 1975, there were 898 permanent deacons. by 1980 there were 4093; 1985 there were 7204, and the rate of ordinations slowed down; in 2015 there were 18802, That works out to a little over 1 per parish in the US. I suspect it will continue to grow, slowly.

There have been rumblings - suspicions - that any number of them (from a few, to many) have taken that route, waiting for the Church to take the nex step; and all I have seen is a push-back that they don’t see themselves as “priests in waiting”; rather, they see themselves as servants of the Church.

And with that there has been a winnowing due to spouses.

I still see men being ordained who understand and accept celibacy; and formation really starts in the local parish. They don’t suddenly get an inclination from whatever work they do; it starts earlier.

Are there married men who feel a call to priesthood? Yes, as some have said so. Is it an overwhelming number? No, I have only hears from a few.

I just don’t see any problem with issues you seem to think would occur. Further, as noted in the article (or rather, as I extract from the article), we have a tendency to see this with the eyes of people in the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe. There are other cultures out there, and they see things differently. The Church is not the Church of the US or the Western world; it is universal and there are cultural issues at play.

“Abandoning” celibacy is simply a fear card, which does not comport with the reality of the last 2,000 years. A priest is needed first and foremost for the sacraments. The Eastern Churches have not fallen apart; they have both celibate and married priests.

To me that is akin to worrying that we won’t have parish priests because we have active religious priests actively recruiting in vocations. God is eminently able to sort it all out; we need to ask for laborers to the harvest, and stop worrying if “too many” might have a wife. I seriously doubt that will be a problem. We will always have celibate men in orders. And we will always have celibate men in dioceses, if 2,000 years of history tells us anything.

And I fail to see that a married man who is a priest is not a witness to holiness; nor that a married man who is not a priest cannot be a strong witness to holiness.

Again - ordaining married men is not abandoning the discipline of celibacy, it is adding the disicipline of a married life and the witness to covenant which a married couple have, and that is not contraditory; it is simply different.

There is a difference between abandoning “celibacy”, and abandoning “celibacy only”. And it has already occurred, and is continuing to occur, both in the ordination of priests, and the ordination of deacons.

In other words, it is already here.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Hi ojtm,

I think you make some good points. I myself feel strongly convinced in holding to the discipline.

I will add that the reasons for celibacy as a discipline for clergy & religious are primarily spiritual/evangelical and practical for secondary reasons, if at all.

We become religious to witness the high holiness of the Church. By approving our congregation, the Church expects much from us. The Church believes our way of life will lead many to holiness. If we live our vows fully, this life has the power to bring us to perfect love, to make us holy, to help us love God perfectly. We may make mistakes but that love for one another and for Jesus must remain.
-St Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

In my opinion, I do see removing celibacy as a discipline as a being a threat to vowed celibacy as a whole, and Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism affirm this rather than the other way around: few people make the leap to such a life when it is not required of them, and that is because making a lifelong commitment to celibacy is something that goes against a natural good with very powerful built-in motivations for spousal love & children (though in trade for an even higher good) and that is not an easy thing to do. I am not being critical per se of these rites: perhaps this arrangement is what God wants, but that doesn’t mean He necessarily wants it for the largest part of the Body.

For most people, that kind of vocation is not meant to be at all, but even if they do have such a vocation in store for them, as either a religious or a clergy, it is extremely easy not to answer it. So it is extremely important to have an actual tangible ecclesial power - the Latin Church herself - impose this upon her servants. Strict? Maybe, but I would say that’s how it needs to be. We’re in a state of war against the powers of hell and against our own natures.

To my knowledge, the Latin Church is the only one that holds this discipline (not sure). If it goes, then it is gone; perhaps forever.

Mother Teresa, in your quote, is speaking about Religious.

We who are diocesan priests are not Religious. They are two very distinct vocations.

East OR West, one could not have a Religious living a married life because it is not compatible with being a Religious. We can and do have diocesan clergy living married lives.

 

[Rosebud77]

Something I have wondered about. Does anyone know how many celibate diocesan priests there are in the Anglican Churches?

I ask as I am remembering from my long ago childhood vicars who never married, We did not then have this era;s obsession with all things sexual and I had never even heard of homosexuality then but thinking of one in particular who was a fine vicar and single

I do not think the chosenly celibate priesthood is limited to RC.

Any facts? What about orthodoxy?are ALL priests married? I know they can be

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Something I have wondered about. Does anyone know how many celibate diocesan priests there are in the Anglican Churches?

I ask as I am remembering from my long ago childhood vicars who never married, We did not then have this era;s obsession with all things sexual and I had never even heard of homosexuality then but thinking of one in particular who was a fine vicar and single

I do not think the chosenly celibate priesthood is limited to RC.

Any facts? What about orthodoxy?are ALL priests married? I know they can be

It is not unknown in Anglicanism, but not all that frequent as I recall. Maybe about the same as the public in general.

 

[Cloisters]

In this modern assault against marriage, I have argued that we need both married and celibate priests. Married priests would help with the church’s image regarding the pedophilia scandals. Supposedly, married priests are more “natural” than celibate priests. Or perhaps we should publicize the married priests more than we do.

Some celibate priest-bosses seem to want to lay heavy burdens on the married priests, though, as if to punish them for being married.

Byzantine priests have optional marriage. I know of one in Knoxville, TN. The morning I met him, he had just led the Akathist, then he saw his young family off with their mom.

Families dip in to see working parents when they can, or when they’re in the area. Same holds true with priests. In this case, comparing it to a career would be helpful with time budgeting. I’ve never seen one hear confessions bottle-feeding an infant in their arms, but who knows… (Could be used as an image of God’s love in a work of fiction).

The Catholic Church has to realize what a trendsetter it is. Despite the criticism, folks are still looking to us for guidance and good example. Please don’t forget this!!!

Blessings,
Cloisters