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

[JimR-OCDS]

But it’s mandated, not chosen by married men who would also make good priests

To me it’s hypocritical to allow married priests who convert from Anglicanism, and not Catholic married men to become priests.

We’ve had two priest removed by the Bishop in the past two years alone.

The grass is greener in religions with married priest at the moment

 

[Gorgias]

But it’s mandated, not chosen by married men who would also make good priests

You’re missing the whole theology of the priesthood in the Latin Rite. The question isn’t “does this man think he’s called to the priesthood?”, but rather – in a nuptial manner, between the man and the Church – the question is “do this man and the Church together discern that he is called to the priesthood?”.

To me it’s hypocritical to allow married priests who convert from Anglicanism, and not Catholic married men to become priests.

You realize it’s not just a matter of them walking up and saying “I’m a married Anglican clergyman; where do I sign up for ordination?”… right?

The grass is greener in religions with married priest at the moment

And they, themselves, are dealing with crises in the numbers of ordained ministers! Why do we think adopting their solution – which hasn’t resolved their issues – will resolve our issues?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I understand very well what the theology of celibacy is about. I also understand the historical fact that it wasn’t always mandated in the Catholic Church and is allowed in the East and in Orthodox Churches.

In fact, the next town over from me, the former Catholic Church was purchased by the Orthodox Church and the pastor is married.

I also understand how Anglican priest are allowed to become priests in the Latin Rite. It’s an insult to Catholics, especially former Catholic priests who left to get married.

All religions have problems and I also spoke with a former Jesuit Priest, who left to get married. He use to teach Scripture in Rome, before marring a former nun. They were married over 35 years before she died and he died not long after

Anyway, ironically, he opposed a married priesthood as the ministry is today. He said it would have to change in order for married priests to be able to serve, He said the way the ministry is currently, would not be good for a married priest.

 

[Gorgias]

It’s an insult to Catholics, especially former Catholic priests who left to get married.

A Catholic man, who abandons his promises and his vocation, gets to claim “insult”?

 

[goout]

Finally, this is not a liberal issue, and it is not a conservative issue. It is a Catholic issue. Many conservatives are for a married Latin rite priesthood. It is not an intrinsic evil.

Thank you, Catholic Answers. I believe this position is consistent with what you have publicly taught.

The bottom line is that the Church has the authority to bind and loosen on the married priest issue. The Church taketh away, but the Church also giveth.

Addressing the liberal or conservative postures:
I pray that when my life is done no one will be able to discern a political bias.

I am
pro life from conception to death
staunchly against the death penalty
for very open immigration policy
mostly support large social programs
believe law abiding citizens should carry guns en-masse
believe transgenderism is unadulterated nonsense
marriage is uniquely between a man and woman
believe gay people should be allowed to live together in civil unions and have benefits
believe that women should serve much larger roles but they are not priests
and I believe that celibacy is a high and holy calling, but the priesthood should be opened up to married men

I try to be a Christian first before liberal/conservative

 

[steve-b]

My platform is this: We should maintain celibacy as the ‘norm’ in the Latin rite but allow dispensations on a case by case basis. This is consistent with the Magisterium, without abolishing celibacy.

In 1952, Pope Pius XII began dispensations of married men to the Latin rite priesthood before Vatican II in Germany. This was the first of 4 other married Latin rite priests that were also ordained in Germany within 12 years.

Dispensations continued under Paul VI who allowed the first married Roman Catholic priest to be ordained in the USA: Fr. Beck.

John Paul II then dispensed married men and allowed them to be ordained to the Roman rite priesthood through the Pastoral Provision.

Benedict XVI allowed married Latin rite Catholic priests through the Ordinariate. (At the time of this writing, Francis is examining the question for married deacons in the Amazon.)

None of these 20th Century Popes asked these men to remain continent when dispensing them from the celibacy canon. This is true for married Latin rite permanent deacons, too.

While celibacy and continence can be traced to the Twelve Apostles, ‘mandatory’ celibacy and ‘mandatory’ continence cannot be traced to the time of the Twelve Apostles. The key word is ‘mandatory’ or ‘compulsory’.

Earliest evidence points to the LOCAL Elvira Synod of AD 305 mandating continence. But this is a local council from Spain, not a UNIVERSAL mandate which came later. No earlier evidence exists for mandated celibacy or mandated continence. Even ‘conservative’ scholars admit that they cannot find evidence for ‘mandated’ celibacy before AD 305.

Finally, this is not a liberal issue, and it is not a conservative issue. It is a Catholic issue. Many conservatives are for a married Latin rite priesthood. It is not an intrinsic evil.

Thank you, Catholic Answers. I believe this position is consistent with what you have publicly taught.

The bottom line is that the Church has the authority to bind and loosen on the married priest issue. The Church taketh away, but the Church also giveth.

This point has already been given, that Eastern rite Catholics have married priests. Their discipline is different than Latin rite priests… although in the Latin rite, certain dispensations have occurred Re: married priests

Q:​

Has the Latin rite discipline, of a celibate priesthood, been [the / an] , impetus for would be Latin rite priests, to NOT pursue Latin rite priesthood in favor of Eastern rite Catholic priesthood?

 

[goout]

Given all the factors and the problems in clerical culture…
If you don’t bring the whole matter to the table for evaluation, you probably don’t get the best outcome.
It’s not that revoking the celibacy requirement is guaranteed to fix all the problems…the problem is that many people are unwilling even to examine the issue.

I have a nodule on one of my bodily glands. A biopsy is recommended that is very uncomfortable.
“I don’t do doctors or hospitals”. My wife’s reply is “If you have a problem denial will not heal you. You need to let him poke in there and examine that”.

 

[RyanBlack]

Has the Latin rite discipline, of a celibate priesthood, been [the / an] , impetus for would be Latin rite priests, to NOT pursue Latin rite priesthood in favor of Eastern rite Catholic priesthood?

Generally, no. It has often been the case that Latin bishops approve transfers of ritual church membership to one of the Eastern Churches with the understanding that married men are not eligible to be ordained as priests.

 

[Gorgias]

It’s not that revoking the celibacy requirement is guaranteed to fix all the problems…the problem is that many people are unwilling even to examine the issue.

I think that’s an unfair statement. Discussions on this issue have been going on nearly non-stop since Vatican II, not to mention since the Reformation. The issue’s been “examined” ad nauseam. The problem for some folks seems to be that it hasn’t been implemented.

Nevertheless, when the question is asked “will it resolve any problems?” the answer is always a smug, surprised “of course!”, without any attribution. As if a person is being unreasonable for even asking the question. Note the responses in this thread: no one has provided any argument for the proposal, other than the bald assertion that it will help.

I’m a businessman. If a person came to me and said “change your business model, on no greater authority or case other than I’m telling you to trust me on this one”, you know what my answer would be?

 

[goout]

goout:

It’s not that revoking the celibacy requirement is guaranteed to fix all the problems…the problem is that many people are unwilling even to examine the issue.

I think that’s an unfair statement. Discussions on this issue have been going on nearly non-stop since Vatican II, not to mention since the Reformation. The issue’s been “examined” ad nauseam. The problem for some folks seems to be that it hasn’t been implemented.

Nevertheless, when the question is asked “will it resolve any problems?” the answer is always a smug, surprised “of course!”, without any attribution. As if a person is being unreasonable for even asking the question. Note the responses in this thread: no one has provided any argument for the proposal, other than the bald assertion that it will help.

I’m a businessman. If a person came to me and said “change your business model, on no greater authority or case other than I’m telling you to trust me on this one”, you know what my answer would be?

That’s interesting. I am also in business. A couple years ago the local Chamber hired retail consultants to come and evaluate your business and provide constructive suggestions.
Many of the retailers got angry when the evaluation brought up things they didn’t want to consider changing. They reamed my shop a new one and it hurt. But it was the single most valuable process we’ve gone through, because it forced us to honestly evaluate things that were assumed correct.

Celibacy has been talked about, it hasn’t really been seriously considered. The smug “of course” you refer to in easily solving problems is news to me.

Celibacy is one of a stew of factors in clerical life. There are many that all contribute to the whole of clerical culture.
Well, we have serious problems. And if you don’t do complete and honest self evaluation you get those kind of results. Look around at the problems we have endured for the last 50 years while we were supposedly doing best disciplines.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Has the Latin rite discipline, of a celibate priesthood, been [the / an] , impetus for would be Latin rite priests, to NOT pursue Latin rite priesthood in favor of Eastern rite Catholic priesthood?

Generally, no. It has often been the case that Latin bishops approve transfers of ritual church membership to one of the Eastern Churches with the understanding that married men are not eligible to be ordained as priests.

As I understand, they must be already married THEN they can seek and be considered for, the Eastern rites priesthood. A single priest can’t then seek marriage, even in the Eastern rites

 

[Gorgias]

Many of the retailers got angry when the evaluation brought up things they didn’t want to consider changing.

Notice the difference, though: the consultants did research, provided a suggestion, and (presumably) made a case for that suggestion. That’s not what we’re seeing here – rather, we’re seeing a suggestion without any data behind it.

Well, we have serious problems.

Let’s look at those problems. If I’ve missed any, let’s add them to the discussion:

• clerical sexual abuse of minors.
  • it happens at the low end of the extent at which it occurs in society. this means that it’s not a problem of clerical life – or of celibacy – per se, but a human problem.
• decreasing numbers of vocations
  • are we really suggesting that celibacy is the cause of this dynamic? Especially in light of the data that demonstrates that, among Protestant communities, numbers of ministers are down (and numbers of abandonment of ministry is up)?

 

[RyanBlack]

As I understand, they must be already married THEN they can seek and be considered for, the Eastern rites priesthood. A single priest can’t then seek marriage, even in the Eastern rites

Priests who are celibate, even in the Eastern churches, are not permitted to marry. However, as far as your previous question, it is generally not the case that a married man from the Latin Church can transfer to one of the Eastern Churches and later be ordained priest while his wife is still alive. That is not to say it never happens. I personally know a married Eastern Catholic priest who was previously Latin Catholic. However, his transfer to one of the Eastern Churches took place many years ago and his reasons for transfer wasn’t with the idea of being ordained, since at the time he became Eastern Catholic, the Eastern Catholic Churches were not ordaining married men in the Americas.

 

[commenter]

Do most Eastern Catholic priests get married long before entering seminary, during seminary, or between graduation and ordination?
I assume Eastern deacons can’t marry?

The Latin seminaries are probably all “live on campus” so the preparation would seem to be very different, perhaps a little longer, if they were commuters.

It’s not just the academic preparation, but the formation.

 

[RyanBlack]

Do most Eastern Catholic priests get married long before entering seminary, during seminary, or between graduation and ordination?
I assume Eastern deacons can’t marry?

Well, in the American context, there’s not really a good answer to the first question, because we went for such a long period without ordaining married men, and only recently returned to the traditional practice. It is my understanding that in the traditional territories of the Eastern Churches, where there was a seminary system, young men would often marry after entering the seminary. I’ve also been told that in some areas, sons of priests would often become priests, having received much of their training from their fathers. Another pattern that I’ve heard of that happened in the Ottoman Empire, where the Church was marginalized, bishops would often ordain the most respected man in the village.

As to the question of deacons, in the Eastern Churches, a deacon who is not married is not permitted to marry.

 

[RyanBlack]

Do most Eastern Catholic priests get married long before entering seminary, during seminary, or between graduation and ordination?

As a follow-up to my previous response, it looks like multiple models may emerge in the US. The Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Melkites, and Romanians are all utilizing the Byzantine Catholic Seminary of Ss. Cyril and Methodius. It is my understanding that there is a mix of married and unmarried seminarians from a broad range of ages. A man from my parish in his 60s who is married was recently ordained. There is married deacon I know from another Eastern Catholic parish in my state who is moving with his wife to attend the seminary later this year. They are in their late 40s to early 50s. On the other hand, the Melikites, in addition to using the seminary, are exploring other means of priestly formation for some married men. Patterns will become more clear over time.

 

[otjm]

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?

Nowhere have I said that the ordination of married men will “alleviate” the clergy shortage problem. I have said that anyone who can present the sacraments to parishioners is an addition - a point for some reason you seem to deny. If in the next ten years my archdiocese had 5 more individuals ordained - who were married - in addition to those who will be ordained in the next 10 years - and are celibate - we would have 5 more priests. That would not “alleviate” the priest shortage, but it most certainly would not cause the shortage to increase - that would be due to more priests dying. we are losing them faster than we are replacing them.

Nor have I said that ordaining married men would “invigorate” the Church. I have no clue where you get that one, but it wasn’t from me. As to what the Church needs, it needs more priests. The Catholic Church has had married priests since its beginning - in the Eastern rites, and has a history of married priests up to somewhere around the 10th century, and has them now in the Roman rite. It is not like this is something new and scandalous.

And I have no clue what you are referring to as “hand waving”. I might smile at you, but I am not waving my hands,

Nor, as I have said elsewhere, do I have any idea who it is who is proposing eliminating celibacy - that again is a boogeymen in some people’s closet as they keep dragging it out… There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to bring that up when discussing the pros and cons of ordaining married men; celibate as well as non-celibate men have been ordained since Christ. And if the church decides to extend the number of married men who may be ordained, that most definitely will not cause an end to celibacy. You are dragging in a red herring to the conversation.

You are not even a defender of the status quo - though it appears you may think you are - as the status quo changed when the Church started ordaining married men, specifically Protestant pastors who converted.

As to your final question - it is not “eliminating” normative mandatory celibacy" as we currently are ordaining married men. There is no reason to presume that priests will be allowed to marry and continue to actively minister as that fits nowhere in the history of the Church, with the very minor exception of remarriage when the wife has died, and the priest has young children. (continued)

 

[otjm]

(continued)

You may wish to wax eloquent as to “mandatory”; it is my position that even f the Pope should open priesthood as something more than the current exceptions in place and proposed (Brazil’s request) that the majority to the greater majority of men ordained in the future would continue to be celibate.If that, to you means that the norm will be mandatory celibacy, then I would agree. And if the Pope allows exceptions beyond the current ones, to include priests in Brazil, I would continue to agree.

I am not particularly familiar with Eastern rites, but have been told that the norm is married clergy and celibate monks. I will let someone else answer that one.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

As I understand, they must be already married THEN they can seek and be considered for, the Eastern rites priesthood. A single priest can’t then seek marriage, even in the Eastern rites

Priests who are celibate, even in the Eastern churches, are not permitted to marry.

as in unmarried, ?

That’s how I understand it as well.

AND as I also understand

married priests, if widowed, may not remarry.

 

[RyanBlack]

as in unmarried , ?

That’s how I understand it as well.

AND as I also understand

married priests, if widowed, may not remarry.

Yes, by celibate, I meant unmarried, not continent, although celibate priest should, of course, be continent. Widowed priests may not marry either.