Married Priesthood: Maintain celibacy as the 'norm' but allow dispensations on a case by case basis

[otjm]

The standard is to not ordain deacons who have young children.

And it is a standard, which obviously can be waived as it was with him (and I don’t know the ages of his children)

Let me get this straight: we’re trying to increase the availability of clerics, and so we’re suggesting that we ordain men who have greater family obligations and therefore less availability for ministry?

Given the fact that he travels quite widely, your question presumes facts not in evidence. There are many many dads, good fathers and good husbands, whose work means they travel, often a good bit. No one says that is easy; but if the presumption is that a dad who gets home at 5:30 or 6 every evening is a better dad, the case is not made.

Maybe we could let those who might venture forth make those decisions?

 

[MarriedRCPriesthood]

Otjm, I think you’re right to a large degree that the claim to abolish celibacy is a bogey man. I mention it here bc my primary audience are the defenders of the status quo who make this claim. At the time of this writing, a few days before Feb 12 and Querida Amazonia, this claim definitely does pop up by defenders of the status quo. But the norm will always be a young 18-25 year old seminarian in the seminary, and this isn’t going away and has been around since Trent when the seminary system was established. The exception proposed today are for proven married deacons. Viri probati is not the young seminarian but experienced permanent deacons. When the rumor first popped up a couple of weeks ago that celibacy was being abolished, my first reaction is that that is too far, and there may have even been some bad journalism. Facts, not rumors, is good journalism. Abolishing celibacy was not on the table in Amazonia, and it was not what the Amazon bishops voted on. On the other hand, the media definitely reports the matter as if celibacy is going to be abolished, but that is bc the media doesn’t get the nuances within the Catholic Church. The bogey man, whether real or perceived, needs to be addressed. I also want to add to your excellent comment that there is a difference between mandated celibacy and celibacy. Celibacy and continence has existed for centuries from the time of the Jews, but whether they are mandated by the Church has been so only for 16 Centuries for mandated continence and 9 Centuries for mandated celibacy.

 

[MarriedRCPriesthood]

Theological reflection on the wives of clergy appear in the East. Wives of priests are considered the mother of the parish. It’s not new Christianity.

Also, the feminine genius developed by JP2 in mulieris Dignitatem would not support your statement. There is greater theological development on the feminine element of the Church in the West. And then there’s Our Lady. Finally, Henri de Lubac wrote about the new theology by reflecting on the Church as theological development. This is where the hermeneutic of continuity will lay for a married priesthood.

Christ was celibate, but he was also married. Christ was married to His Church. If therefore you wish.to speak of Christ the celibate, you must theologically reflect on Christ the married. A married priest then is in persona Christi of Christ married to His Bride. Just as the Church is both virgin and mother, so too Christ was both celibate and married-lover.

That is a sample of theological develop of a married priesthood.

 

[otjm]

But the norm will always be a young 18-25 year old seminarian in the seminary,

Actually, my experience with seminarians now is that is not the norm. One, working his way through Philosophy has a law degree and practiced for a number of years; another has had a number of positions in administration in colleges. The entry age seems to be pushing a lot closer to late 20’s early 30’s. If I was to guess the age of the last three transitional deacons at my parish, I would put all of them well into their 30;s.

but whether they are mandated by the Church has been so only for 16 Centuries for mandated continence and 9 Centuries for mandated celibacy.

Only in the Roman rite. The Eastern Rite Churches have had a married clergy for 2,000 +/- years. And the sky didn’t fall, and celibacy didn’t end.

And the issue of continence: some years ago there was a (seemingly a bit heated) public discussion between a Canon lawyer and another (who may also have been a Canon lawyer) about the law as it allegedly applied to Permanent Deacons.

It ended with a rather pithy statement from Rome, if I recall: " no, they are not required." So, as to continence if and how it is currently applied to married priests (I have not heard) and if it is permanent or partial, I will leave to others.

 

[MarriedRCPriesthood]

Excellent points! Agreed. And thank you for mentioning the continence issue at the end of your comment. That canon lawyer was Dr. Ed Peters. I thought I heard about Rome’s reply to the permanent deacons, too, but that reply is not widely known. There are 45,000 permanent deacons in the world. As for married priests, when Pius XII dispensed and had ordained in 1952 a married Latin rite priest who was a convert, the news reported that he had full rights of marriage. There was no expectation that the married Latin rite priest would be continent. Pastoral Provision priests and Ordinariate priests were not asked to be continent. And I dont think the married permanent deacons that will be selected to the priesthood will be asked to be continent as married priests as well. Dispensation from celibacy thereby means dispensation from continence.

 

[MNathaniel]

I agree that a married Latin rite priesthood wouldn’t be an “intrinsic evil”.

I’m just not sure I follow your reason for believing we should allow these dispensations at this time.

Are any of the following your position?

1. We are suffering a priest shortage, and such dispensations would dramatically increase the number of men in the priesthood, due to a dramatically high number of married men (and their wives) who are raring for the husband to take on the responsibilities of a priest.
2. Whether or not there are enough married men willing to be priests to make a significant dent in the priest shortage, it’s the principle of the thing, and there should be no rite in the Catholic Church that so exclusively requires celibacy of priests. What if God calls a man to both? Who is the Church to say ‘no’ to that?
3. Married men are less likely to abuse children (or any person) than celibate men, therefore dispensations to married priesthood in the Latin rite should be permitted, to reduce the likelihood of sexual abuse by priests in the Latin rite.

Thanks! I don’t intrinsically disagree with what you’re calling for, but by default I’m roughly speaking ‘of a mind’ with Chesterton about never tearing down a fence until you know the reason why it was put up. I think change is always worth considering – but we need a good reason for it. Which specific reason(s) do you believe should persuade us to change the current discipline in the Latin rite? (PS I think any of the three reasons I listed are open to debate; nonetheless, as far as I know they are the main reasons people make proposals as you have.)

PS one counter-argument against it, in my mind, is that celibacy is a hard decision for anyone to make: it seems plausible to me that if the discipline permitted marriage, marriage would become more common than celibacy – and celibacy is a profound witness to Christ in our time, which may be more valuable than ever (post-sexual ‘revolution’, etc).

 

[Gorgias]

Given the fact that he travels quite widely, your question presumes facts not in evidence.

As does the notion that the ordination of married men will alleviate the clergy shortage problem, as does the notion that it will invigorate the church, as does the notion that a married priesthood is what the church needs. Hey… there’s a whole lot of hand-waving going on here… and you’re calling me out on it?

Otjm, I think you’re right to a large degree that the claim to abolish celibacy is a bogey man.

What about the real question: is the question whether we should abolish mandatory celibacy as the norm in the Latin Rite Church? After all, if the answer is “no, let’s allow it as a dispensation”, then we already have that dynamic, and there’s nothing more to ask for. So… this is about abolishing normative mandatory celibacy… right?

defenders of the status quo

You say that like it’s a bad thing…

Theological reflection on the wives of clergy appear in the East. Wives of priests are considered the mother of the parish. It’s not new Christianity.

“Pani Matka”. I’m familiar with the concept. It’s not a theological concept, however, is it? It’s just a lived custom, with no official role in the community (other than not wanting to tick of the pastor’s wife), right?

Also, the feminine genius developed by JP2 in mulieris Dignitatem would not support your statement.

The “feminine genius” isn’t about priest’s wives, though. It’s about women in general. Your claims are new, and not part of the Church’s tradition, no?

Christ was celibate, but he was also married. Christ was married to His Church.

Christ was actually celibate, and allegorically “married.” If you want to argue for an allegorical married priesthood, go for it. An actual one, though?

p.s., I see that no one wants to answer my question about whether the intent is to eliminate “normative mandatory celibacy”. I guess I can take that as an answer in the affirmative, since the only thing that folks are willing to address is the straw man of “eliminating celibacy”?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I say make it as Early Church had it… either ordain celibate men or older men who are married but are then required to practice continence (absolute withdrawal from sexual intercourse). This was, after all, how Early Church chose Priests. Also, widowers would be welcome to be Priests too.

After all, tradition is that Priest is to abstain from sexual intercourse before celebrating Liturgy. East had this relaxed to a day before Liturgy, West enforced as celibacy. Fact current exceptions who are married Priests in Latin Rite do not practice any form of this (at least before Sunday Liturgy?) is quite weird anyway.

 

[Gorgias]

I say make it as Early Church had it… either ordain celibate men or older men who are married

So, here’s the thing: we’re proposing to do this either as a sort of progressive social experiment, or because we think it’s going to solve problems. Is there any data out there that suggest that allowing the ordination of married men will make a dent in the problem? I mean, if we have ~100 (or even ~1000) men who express interest, we won’t make a dent in the problem.

More to the point, has anyone examined the downstream effects? Namely:

• unless we’re going with experienced deacons, we’re talking about a 6-8 year formation experience. Are we prepared to handle the continuing decline over that time frame? (And, if we are, doesn’t that mean that the need goes away by then, since the “retirement bubble” of Baby Boomer priests has already passed us by?)
• If we pull from the pool of deacons, are we saying that we no longer need or value their ministry, since we’re looking to deplete their current ranks?
  • by the same token, if we’re ordaining deacons as priests, are we prepared for the drought of deacon candidates (who know, ostensibly, get in line to become priest candidates instead)?
• one of the bigger issues to be resolved is the question of our parishes’ ability to support priests and their families from a financial perspective, and thus, stressing already fragile parish resources. Presuming that we’d need to resolve these questions before accepting men into formation programs – and that we’d have resolve questions of forming appropriate formation programs in the first place! – we’re really talking about the first ordinations to be, perhaps, at least a minimum of eight years (and a maximum of 13-14 years) away from the date that the decision to proceed might be made. Like I said, this issue seems tied to the Baby Boomer demographics, which will have come and gone by then. Why solve a problem that will already have passed?

 

[Dhc8_Type]

That’s called Sunday for my dad. The church in the city has 1st and 3rd service then the country church south of town has his 2nd service.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

If we pull from the pool of deacons, are we saying that we no longer need or value their ministry, since we’re looking to deplete their current ranks?

• by the same token, if we’re ordaining deacons as priests, are we prepared for the drought of deacon candidates (who know, ostensibly, get in line to become priest candidates instead)

This should definitely be prevented. Deacons are not just step to Priesthood, and are needed. Lack of Deacons in Latin Rite is alarming.

So, here’s the thing: we’re proposing to do this either as a sort of progressive social experiment, or because we think it’s going to solve problems. Is there any data out there that suggest that allowing the ordination of married men will make a dent in the problem?

What I suggested was to battle Priest shortage, because I thought that was usually the argument for allowing married Priesthood. Doing it as social experiment or “because we can” is not a good reason, I agree with you on that. What I meant by my suggestion was not ordaining Deacons as Priests or something like that, but making available Priesthood to those who are prepared to live continent life, even if they are in married state. It is something that makes sense to me more than allowing married Priesthood- at the same time, I am not saying it should be done right now or anything like that, I just view it as better choice than straight up allowing married Priests with no restrictions.

Basically, I meant to say that if Church indeed does allow married men to become Priests, I think it should have to first apply criteria I described above.

 

[commenter]

The Eastern Churches have had married clergy a long time. But the Eastern parishes in my US city are not necessarily typical of Latin parishes here.

I haven’t seen much information about the experience of Eastern Catholic married clergy in Eastern Europe or the Mid East, where they are the geographic diocese, with the bulk of Catholics in that local Church.

How large are the parishes they typically serve? Do they have a shortage of vocations? What age are men usually ordained at? (In my Latin Diocese, many men are ordained older than before).

Is there much recent history of separations, divorce, or other family problems?

What are the strengths the marriages bring to the parish, or other institution served?

 

[TheLittleLady]

We should maintain celibacy as the ‘norm’ in the Latin rite but allow dispensations on a case by case basis.

This is the current practice.

Not a dispensation, however, men who were ordained under specific conditions may petition their Bishop. If Bishop approves, then it goes to Rome to be decided. Last I read there was somewhere around 150 married Latin Rite priests in the US right now.

 

[jack63]

Deacon Harold Burke Sivers spoken openly about the need for younger men. He was ordained at the age of 35 and was being interviewed on Catholic Radio. Hos point was that there was a very positive value of an ordained man with younger children; that it gave a different type of witness to Catholic Marriage, and a different witness to younger people. He had some very good points to convey - and should the Church decided to ordain married men to the priesthood, those points would appear to be as valuable there as to his witness and evangelization.

Thanks again for another excellent post. I was reading up on Deacon Harold. There was quite a lot out there about him. I’ll need to read more about him. He has given many many interviews You don’t happen to have a link to this specific interview. I’ve been looking for a meaningful discussion on this point.

Having young kids and discerning for the diaconate would be a nice problem to have someday (God Willing…of course)!

https://www.deaconharold.com/about-deacon-harold/

 

[commenter]

MarriedRCPriesthood:

We should maintain celibacy as the ‘norm’ in the Latin rite but allow dispensations on a case by case basis.

This is the current practice.

Not a dispensation, however, men who were ordained under specific conditions may petition their Bishop. If Bishop approves, then it goes to Rome to be decided. Last I read there was somewhere around 150 married Latin Rite priests in the US right now.

Does this number include any cradle Catholics or is it limited to those who were clergy in other communions?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Celibacy in the priesthood should be chosen, not mandatory

As we’ve been told, celibacy is a gift. Fine, not everyone receives it, but that shouldn’t exclude those that don’t, from the priesthood.

My parish would’ve been better served with a married priest verses the two we had in just the past two years.

 

[jack63]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) MarriedRCPriesthood:

We should maintain celibacy as the ‘norm’ in the Latin rite but allow dispensations on a case by case basis.

Yes, but are there situations where they have not been clergy in another Christian faith and have successfully petitioned to be ordained Catholic priests? I don’t think so, but I’d be happy to learn otherwise. I think that is what the OP is referring to. Are there even situations where unmarried clergy in another Christian faith successfully petitioned to be a Catholic priest once they converted to Catholicism and were married?

 

[TheLittleLady]

I am speaking of converts.

 

[commenter]

The concern I have about married priests is the current crisis in Marriage. This is the crisis that has caused the more harm to the Church and secular Society.

60 years ago, when Catholic marriage looked like a powerful fortress, it would have been more prudent to draw from this pool to address a priest shortage.

Today?

 

[Gorgias]

What I meant by my suggestion was not ordaining Deacons as Priests or something like that, but making available Priesthood to those who are prepared to live continent life, even if they are in married state.

Right, but even that is up for grabs, if we extend the current discipline for married deacons onto married priests.

elibacy in the priesthood should be chosen, not mandatory

It is. It’s chosen by (generally) every man who is ordained by the Church.

My parish would’ve been better served with a married priest verses the two we had in just the past two years.

That smells like “the grass is greener” reasoning to me. Just wait till we have married priests in the throes of divorces, marital problems, or family issues, and we ask ourselves “what kind of witness are our leaders giving?”. Somewhere around 4-6% of priests are thought to have molested children; I’m guessing that far greater percentages of men have marital or family problems.