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

[commenter]

And then, to leave that lifelong commitment, because you never got what you were never promised in the first place? Woo…

Millions of Catholics, and non Catholics, made vows in marriage in recent decades that ended up in divorce court. There is a larger societal trend here.

 

[Gorgias]

Millions of Catholics, and non Catholics, made vows in marriage in recent decades that ended up in divorce court.

Very true. Yet, in these cases, this is a dynamic between two people. Sometimes, one spouse bears a greater share of the responsibility. In the case of a priest or religious abandoning their vows – especially when they’re abandoning them in order to marry – there’s only one person who bears the responsibility. So, it’s a different dynamic here.

There is a larger societal trend here.

Agreed, but Catholics who marry only receive a little bit of prep: a pre-Cana seminar, perhaps, and an interview with a priest or deacon. On the other hand, priests and religious receive years of formation and discernment before they are ordained or profess perpetual vows. That kinda raises the bar, doesn’t it?

(I’ve heard some commentators on Catholic radio make the claim that, if couples received the extent of formation regarding marriage as priests / deacons / religious do for their vocation, we’d likely have fewer marriages and far fewer divorces. That’s neither here nor there, but it does point to the general notion here.)

 

[commenter]

There is a larger societal trend here.

Agreed, but Catholics who marry only receive a little bit of prep: a pre-Cana seminar, perhaps, and an interview with a priest or deacon. On the other hand, priests and religious receive years of formation and discernment before they are ordained or profess perpetual vows. That kinda raises the bar, doesn’t it?"
End post
My parents didn’t even get that minimal marriage prep in 1947, our diocese began marriage prep in the 1950s.
But in that earlier era the whole society prepared you for keeping commitments of all kinds.

 

[jack63]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) jack63:

Honestly, I genuinely believe they should really try pulling international priests out of the United States and Europe, and sending them to back to their regions in Africa, Asia, or South America

Oh…I don’t believe actually confronting this issue will be easy at all! The thing is that what Pope Francis has said here is one of most significant things Pope Francis has said. It is quite a stinging rebuke, and it really needed to be said…

It is noteworthy that, in some countries of the Amazon Basin, more missionaries go to Europe or the United States than remain to assist their own Vicariates in the Amazon region.

If this trend continues, it will be a significant part of the justification to allow older married men as Catholic priests in a few years…

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I agree with Pope Francis taking it slowly. Unfortunately there is a lot of stress on married clergy of other faiths and sometimes it results in very bad outcomes. If we are going to have married clergy then we need to make sure we have the support structures in place that they will need to succeed and to look after their families. I realize we do have some married clergy now and they seem to be doing all right and the sky has not fallen, but helping a small group of married priests is probably easier to handle on a case-by-case basis when it’s a small number of “special cases” than it would be if married priests made up a large percentage of clergy.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Why is it weird that this one has also been relaxed?

It is not weird. I am just pointing out it happened. I have no problem with East relaxing the rule, but Protestant notion that Early Church had married Priest in such sense is not correct yet held even among Catholics. Change is not bad, but recognizing what and how was changed is important.

We’ve gone pretty soft.

Indeed we have… I can not even imagine living up to standard of Early Church- however great that would be.

 

[jack63]

What I’ve never understood is how someone could enter a lifelong commitment to celibacy under the presumption that it would soon change. That just seems irresponsible and unreasonable to me.

Part of the issue was minor or junior seminaries. 50 years ago these were popular as I understand. The thing is that for the vast majority of young men who are ~15-20 you have no concept of who they are on so many levels, yet if they are coming from a minor seminary they’d be set on a path to be a priest in a few years. Most men don’t develop this way…I certainly didn’t. It is not fair to them.

 

[Gorgias]

Most men don’t develop this way…I certainly didn’t. It is not fair to them.

Sure. But still… promises, presumptions, and broken vows.

 

[otjm]

Well, that is likely due to the fact that neither of us were ordained before Vatican 2.

That is was more than a couple of priests who thought that the Church might be moving in the direction of allowing priests to marry should be clear from the evidence of how many left to get married. There was a significant number, at least nation wide (and this may also have been occurring in Europe) who did leave indicates that it wasn’t something that was just randomly occurring.

As to “broken vows”, that would occur if a priest left and got married without being laicized. The circumstances I am familiar with is that they were laicized, then married, so no vows were “broken”.

And as a technical point, diocesan priests do not take a vow, which is more formal; they make a promise - which is binding, but again, not a vow.

I don’t know if anything has been written about what occurred, and if anything was, I don’t know if it simply reflects your thoughts,or if it was done in an historical perspective. I have never looked for information on the matter; I just lived through those times. Certainly the issue of celibacy possibly being waived was a topic of discussion, at least indirectly, while I was in seminary during college, during Vatican 2.

I can’t say i “get it” either, but I also know I did not walk “in their moccasins”.

 

[otjm]

Not to make too fine a point of it, but in addition to married priests we also have 18,000+ deacons, many of whom are married.

And prior to and after the permanent deaconate was put in place, similar comments were made concerning fears of many divorces and what that would do to faith.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Deacons are not dependent on the Church for their bread and butter. They have their own day jobs or are retired from jobs, their wives often work also, and many of them did not enter the diaconate until they were older men whose children were adults or teens. They work part time, they are not on call for the Church at all hours. Also, married permanent deacons are pretty much the norm since they were instituted by the Church. I don’t think I’ve ever met an unmarried deacon, other than one or two older widowers.

By contrast, being a priest is a full-time job, it’s unclear what priest’s wives would be expected to do (could they realistically have a career or would they be expected to help with parish work? if so would they be able to hold a paid job with a parish? would it be proper for a priest’s wife to be putting the kids in daycare? etc), it’s more likely that priests might have younger children, and the Church has traditionally provided support and housing for priests,which is not the case for permanent deacons. Plus, the married priests, if not in the Ordinariate, would be coming into a situation where the vast majority of priests are single and living in communal rectories. It’s a much, much bigger adjustment.

 

[Gorgias]

if so would they be able to hold a paid job with a parish?

That would probably be the worst idea ever, IMHO. Ask any of our Eastern Catholic friends if there have ever been negative experiences with respect to the Pani Matka of the parish. Having her as an employee of the parish? Oh boy…

 

[OddBird]

I’m (currently) a pastor married to another pastor, and us working for the same parish would be a recipe for disaster. At the same time, I know pastoral couples who excel at doing that, to the benefit of their community. Whether it’s a good idea or not really depends on individuals and a particular marriage’s dynamics.

 

[Gorgias]

At the same time, I know pastoral couples who excel at doing that, to the benefit of their community. Whether it’s a good idea or not really depends on individuals and a particular marriage’s dynamics.

When it’s good, it can be very good. When it’s not, though? Oh boy. (And even if the pastor’s wife doesn’t work for the parish, she tends to have an implied authority that can often be problematic and resented by other parishioners.)

 

[OddBird]

When it’s good, it can be very good . When it’s not, though? Oh boy.

Agreed. This is why such situations, imo, call for careful discernment rather than blanket rules.

And even if the pastor’s wife doesn’t work for the parish, she tends to have an implied authority that can often be problematic and resented by other parishioners.

In my own case, this sentence should read “she tends to have an implied authority that can be resented by her husband”… ahem

The authority of a pastor’s wife is a complex topic. Who confers it ? The simple fact she married a guy who was ordained ? Her husband ? Her husband’s parishioners who decide she is a better listener/community meals’ cook/teacher/kids’ entertainer/whatever than her husband ? To me, that’s one of the things that need clarifying, if a pastor’s wife is going to play a role, or to be expected to play a role, in his community.

FWIW, until recently in my Reformed church, it was clear that a pastors’ wife shared her husband’s responsibilities to the parish simply because she’d married him. Now it’s gotten more complex, with all these pastor’s wives wanting careers of their own

 

[Tis_Bearself]

At least in Protestant churches, where there’s a tradition of having married ministers for a long time, there are a lot of role models and married pastoral couples to observe and talk to. The Catholic Church currently doesn’t have many such models. The permanent diaconate doesn’t really provide them because the deacon’s wives are pretty much regular members of the parish, and aren’t placed in any special position or spotlight by being Mrs. Deacon. They can do what they want and many of them aren’t really involved in their husband’s ministry; they might not even be that involved with the parish other than going to church. I’m not sure if it would be possible for a priest’s wife to be so disengaged.

 

[OddBird]

At least in Protestant churches, where there’s a tradition of having married ministers for a long time, there are a lot of role models and married pastoral couples to observe and talk to.

That’s true. Even if, to be honest, sometimes we don’t really know ourselves what we’re doing. But it is maybe interesting to see that even so, somehow it mostly works

I’m not sure if it would be possible for a priest’s wife to be so disengaged.

In my experience here, it depends on the parish. Some are clear they expect not a pastor, but a pastoral couple, in which case a pastor whose wife has a job of her own likely wouldn’t apply. Others are mostly fine with whatever the wife chooses. The biggest potential issue is Sunday attendance, which is generally really expected (but sometimes the wife has a parish of her own, or is a Catholic with a Sunday obligation, or is non-religious…all of which potentially cause tensions).

Interestingly, in my own church, the same expectations are made about Mrs Deacon than about Mrs Pastor. (And, even if that is of little importance for Catholics, generally nothing at all is expected from the Mr Deacons and Mr Pastors.)

 

[dochawk]

(in fact, his brother is a married priest across town, with his kid in our parish school).

correction: Bishop Milan Lach’s brother is Fr. Miron Lach, not Fr. Milan Kasperek.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Agreed, but Catholics who marry only receive a little bit of prep: a pre-Cana seminar, perhaps, and an interview with a priest or deacon. On the other hand, priests and religious receive years of formation and discernment before they are ordained or profess perpetual vows. That kinda raises the bar, doesn’t it?

(I’ve heard some commentators on Catholic radio make the claim that, if couples received the extent of formation regarding marriage as priests / deacons / religious do for their vocation, we’d likely have fewer marriages and far fewer divorces. That’s neither here nor there, but it does point to the general notion here.)

I’ve been saying for almost 6 years that if the prospective bride & groom have time to find the best wedding dress, best tuxedo, DJ, caterer, etc then - in addition to Pre-Cana - they should be able to meet with the priest at least once a month (ideally every week) to learn what the Church teaches re marriage and the family. You can’t expect a couple to learn 2000 years’ worth of Catholic teaching in one weekend.

Example: The prospective bride and groom are both Catholic. They haven’t had any catechetical formation since their teens when they received Confirmation (or if not confirmed, since their First Holy Communion). So that’s at least a 5-10 year gap.

In the Eastern Catholic Churches, we get confirmed when we’re babies. So there probably hasn’t been any catechetical formation since preparing for First Confession and/or First Holy Communion, which would make at least a 10-15 year gap (presuming both are in their 20s when they want to get married).

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Metropolia (Archeparchy of Philadelphia and the Eparchies of Stamford, Chicago, and St. Josaphat in Parma) is getting serious about adult catechetical formation but I still haven’t seen anything re UGCC marriage preparation. There’s only one weekend a year for Pre-Cana in the Archeparchy of Philadelphia. Imo, it should be offered at least twice a year (but then again, I’m single so I guess I’m not qualified to give an opinion).