Married Priests

[Cowfold]

So hateful.

.

And how did you arrive at that??

 

[JohnT58]

It’s not really that simple. Let’s take it in smaller pieces. Celibacy is actually older than Christianity…

The ordination of the converts is an exception, not a willy nilly decision. It is really an act of mercy on the part of the Church. The Church understands that these men have been called to holiness within very unique circumstances. The Church is going to facilitate the on-going relationship with Christ, by allowing them to remain in their married and clerical state. …

I’ll admit ‘willy nilly’ was a crass way of phrasing it, but I still don’t find your arguments convincing. There are plenty of ex-Protestant ministers who converted to Catholicism, without feeling the need to be ordained, you see them on EWTN all the time.
Those who do wish to be ordained do have the diaconate open to them, as do all others who were born into the Latin Rite. There really is no need to make exceptions for those who still wish to fullfil some sort of clerical function, and an ability to preach.

The argument that this would increase the number of priests will not fly, because we do not ordain men to maintain the numbers. In other words there is no rule that says that we must have X number of priests. The rule is that we must have priests.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I’m not necessarily arguing for married priests, and I certainly wouldn’t hold it up as a solution to a vocations crisis. I just don’t think the Church can convincingly argue the case for unmarried priests only, especially when theres wide latitude given to ordaining married men to the priesthood.

 

[spn82756]

Hope this isn’t derailing the topic again, but heres what I think:

The Latin Rite of the Church, as I understand it, demands celibacy of its priests, the other, Eastern Rites of the Church don’t have this demand.

Protestant ministers who converted to the Latin Rite, were for some reason ordained, when other men, baptized, confirmed, and married in the Latin Rite are refused ordination to the priesthood. Smacks of a double standard to me. Can they not accept their call to the life of a married lay man, or indeed a married deacon within the church?

When in was decided carte blanche to allow Anglicans into the Church , I got the notion, for some reason, that they would be getting their own rite, akin to the Eastern Rites of the Church, with their own Anglican Use liturgies and mass, their own clergy etc… but that seems not be the case. They are still Latin Rite…just with huge exceptions being made for a single group within the Church. Would the Vatican, for arguments sake, allow the Jesuits, for example, to marry?

I do not see how the Vatican can justly, consistentlty, and effectively argue the case for a celebate priesthood, when, lets face it, it chooses willy nilly, who to apply these demands to, and who not to.

We are in total agreement.

 

[Cominghome89]

I think reading seems to be your problem as you seem ‘hung up’ on what I have highlighted.
Try reading my initial comment again …‘slowly’ …in the right context…and you may savour the real meaning.

I think Brother read your comments quite well before commenting. He wasn’t disagreeing with your overall point, he was commenting on the fact that you had used the word “celibacy” when the context of what you said clearly shows that you meant “chastity”. There is definitely a great strain on a parish priest especially, ministering in public, surely among many beautiful women as well as secular viewpoints. However, the strain is not on his celibacy. Celibacy is but the choice to remain unmarried. What the priest struggles with wouldn’t be the desire to get married, but the sexual temptations that hit us all. They are simply harder on a lifelong celibate. What he is struggling with is chastity, not celibacy.

Now this seems to me like a clear distinction. Your point was not wrong, but your choice of that one word was. I think Brother very fairly corrected you. Whether you are upset that you were corrected, or you feel that “the strain of celibacy” was the correct term, there was no need to be so disrespectful. That’s an awful way to treat someone who is simply trying to help educate the good people on this forum. If you had a problem with his correction, you could have kindly said what your disagreement was, rather than being so derogatory.

In Christ and Our Blessed Mother,
Frank

 

[JReducation]

I’ll admit ‘willy nilly’ was a crass way of phrasing it, but I still don’t find your arguments convincing. There are plenty of ex-Protestant ministers who converted to Catholicism, without feeling the need to be ordained, you see them on EWTN all the time.
Those who do wish to be ordained do have the diaconate open to them, as do all others who were born into the Latin Rite. There really is no need to make exceptions for those who still wish to fullfil some sort of clerical function, and an ability to preach.

I’m not necessarily arguing for married priests, and I certainly wouldn’t hold it up as a solution to a vocations crisis. I just don’t think the Church can convincingly argue the case for unmarried priests only, especially when theres wide latitude given to ordaining married men to the priesthood.

I hear what you’re saying, but there are two things that we must remember, maybe three. Let’s begin with the most important one, because the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not a right but a privilege that the Church grants to some, the Church does not really have to justify why it chooses to ordain some married men and not open ordination to all married applicants. The Sacrament of Holy Orders has been given to the Church for her to administer at her discretion. I’m going to disagree with the term “justify”. I’m always humbled by what our Holy Father Francis wrote into our admonitions. We were never to demand or ask for explanations from the Church on matters of governance, only on matters of faith. His posiiton was very clear that he understood there was a certain power and authority that belonged to the Holy Father that he could use at his discretion without having to explain it. It all goes back to the form of government tha tthe Church has. It’s both a theocracy and divine autocracy. But very far from a democracy.

There is also another point. The ordination of married converts to the priesthood is done only for those whose salvation would be in peril if they were not ordained. Not every former Protestant clergyman is entitled to ask for Holy Orders. The Church determines who is in need of this mercy and who is not. To the observer this looks arbitrary. To the theologian this makes sense, because it was always done this way. The bishop or a religiuos superior have always been the ones who have decided whom Christ has called to Holy Orders. The individual postulates himself. But if you are a secular, it falls on the bishop to decide if you have been called by Christ. If you are a religious, it falls on the superior to decide. The reason for this is that there are two commitments to which Christ calls only through a bishop or a religious superior of an order: Holy Orders and Solemn Vows. None of the Apostolic Churches hold that Christ calls to either the priesthood or religious life through any other way than through Ordinary authority. It is quite acceptable for the Ordinary authority to decide that a man’s soul is best served by conferring Holy Orders and to make use of the pastoral provision.

But we must remember that the pastoral provision remains an exception, not the rule. And the exception is only available to converts, not to those born in the Roman Rite. The Church, explicitly the Holy Father, has the authority to make exceptions. He has made it for one particular group and only some members of that group, not every one… As you said, there are now lay Catholic theologians who were once Protestant ministers.

There is also another condition in the pastoral provision. The only married converts who may ask for Holy Orders are those who come from a tradition that has an ordained clergy. Many traditions have a clergy, but do not have orders. The Lutherans and the Anglican/Episcopal have orders. The other traditions have ministry, but not orders. The provision is not as broad as people believe.

I don’t know if that clarifies the provision and how it is applied. But the key point is that the Church has the authority to have such a discipline and make exceptions without having to justify, because there is nothing to justify. What can a pope say other than, “I’m the Vicar of Jesus Christ and the Prince of the Apostles and this is my rightful role and authority as revealed in scripture, tradition and through the Magisterium.” Popes have acutally said this on other questions. Gregory IX said this when he waved the beatification of St. Francis. The Cardinals wanted an explanation why there was no inquiry, no beatification, and no prior notice of a canonization. He just did it. Those were his words. In other words, I have this authority and I have a good reason. But he never shared his reason.

This happens and we know that it is legitimate for popes to use their authority and to have their reasons. We accept that as part of our faith and tradition. If someone is abusing their authority then we can ask for justification. But this is not a case of abuse of authority. In this case what would have to be justified is not the celibacy requirement. That has been in place for a long time. It would have to be the exceptions. But the Holy Fathers have already said what they’re going to say on this issue. I wouldn’t ask for further explanations. I would just let it go and move on.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mark_a]

Protestant ministers who converted to the Latin Rite, were for some reason ordained, when other men, baptized, confirmed, and married in the Latin Rite are refused ordination to the priesthood. Smacks of a double standard to me. Can they not accept their call to the life of a married lay man, or indeed a married deacon within the church?

I see your point here, but from a different angle comparing married Protestant ministers who convert to Catholicism to somehow allowing for a married priesthood is like comparing apple to oranges.

When one takes into account the Catholic teaching on ABC and that married Catholic priests would likely have eight, ten, or fourteen kids, priestly celebacy is the responsible approach to take.

I have read here that the lack of vocations to the priesthood is nothing more than a symptom of the contraceptive mentality of our culture. Families with the average 2.2 children are just plain reluctant to have their only son not pass on the family name.

I think it makes sense.

 

[JReducation]

I see your point here, but from a different angle comparing married Protestant ministers who convert to Catholicism to somehow allowing for a married priesthood is like comparing apple to oranges.

When one takes into account the Catholic teaching on ABC and that married Catholic priests would likely have eight, ten, or fourteen kids, priestly celebacy is the responsible approach to take.

I have read here that the lack of vocations to the priesthood is nothing more than a symptom of the contraceptive mentality of our culture. Families with the average 2.2 children are just plain reluctant to have their only son not pass on the family name.

I think it makes sense.

The shortage of Catholic men is going to create a shortage of Catholics priests. So the numbers of children is an important factor.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[joandarc2008]

God please guide my words:

1. Be nice
2. I believe if the Strain of Celibacy/Chastity is going to be an issue for someone it will be an issue whether single or married. We all have our seven deadlies that tempt us and make us human. It is that temptation that leads to the sacrifice of the Vow of Celibacy and shows the gifts that Priests give to be honored with that level of Ordination.
3. I do not advocate married Priests. I myself as a woman would feel funny sitting there being counseled on lust by a man behind a closed door who may go back to his wife that night. - Not trying to be rude or degrading towards these priests that are married, but they are men first.
4. I wonder how those woman married to these priests would feel about splitting their time with every woman in the Parish. I know jealousy is a sin - but again see my point at #2. Sooner or later there is going to be one with a crush and God forbid one of the children sees it before the wife does. There is too much room for scandal, gossip, and resentment.

These are my opinions and thank you all for sharing.

 

[Cominghome89]

God please guide my words:

1. Be nice
2. I believe if the Strain of Celibacy/Chastity is going to be an issue for someone it will be an issue whether single or married. We all have our seven deadlies that tempt us and make us human. It is that temptation that leads to the sacrifice of the Vow of Celibacy and shows the gifts that Priests give to be honored with that level of Ordination.
3. I do not advocate married Priests. I myself as a woman would feel funny sitting there being counseled on lust by a man behind a closed door who may go back to his wife that night. - Not trying to be rude or degrading towards these priests that are married, but they are men first.
4. I wonder how those woman married to these priests would feel about splitting their time with every woman in the Parish. I know jealousy is a sin - but again see my point at #2. Sooner or later there is going to be one with a crush and God forbid one of the children sees it before the wife does. There is too much room for scandal, gossip, and resentment.

These are my opinions and thank you all for sharing.

These possibilities for scandal are a very good point, especially within the family. There is enough problem with infidelity within Catholic marriages, can you imagine the controversy that would erupt when adultery took place within the priesthood? As if the media doesn’t have enough to say about Catholic clergy who are subject to human weakness…Imagine the headlines…

And critics say married priests would END scandal within the priesthood? Very doubtful.

Good post!

In Christ and Our Blessed Mother,
Frank

 

[JReducation]

These possibilities for scandal are a very good point, especially within the family. There is enough problem with infidelity within Catholic marriages, can you imagine the controversy that would erupt when adultery took place within the priesthood? As if the media doesn’t have enough to say about Catholic clergy who are subject to human weakness…Imagine the headlines…

And critics say married priests would END scandal within the priesthood? Very doubtful.

Good post!

In Christ and Our Blessed Mother,
Frank

But the fact is that we have had married deacons and priests since the first century. We have not had them in the Roman Rite for about 1000 years, but we have had them in every other Catholic Church. These things have naver been an issue.

I think they may feel uncomfortable to those who have not been exposed to the other Catholic Churches. But once you are used to it, you stop thinkiing about it. There are a number of married priests in the Roman Church now.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Cominghome89]

I personally have never encountered any married Latin Rite priests, but I am familiar with the Eastern Rites, and am also a convert, so “married priest” isn’t exactly a culture shock to me. I know much of Church history saw married Catholic priests, and that the issues were often with property rights, not infidelity. I’m not saying married priests would CAUSE scandal, per se, simply that it is ridiculous that people bring this up as if it would eliminate scandal. It seems that there are just as many, if not more, opportunities for scandal with a married priesthood.

In Christ and Our Blessed Mother,
Frank

 

[joandarc2008]

I understand the history of this but if he want to go even further back we had St Peter who left his wife and mother-in-law to follow Christ. Would we expect the same of our young men now?

 

[Cominghome89]

I understand the history of this but if he want to go even further back we had St Peter who left his wife and mother-in-law to follow Christ. Would we expect the same of our young men now?

Is there any evidence to suggest that Peter’s wife was not with him after he began to follow Christ? I’m curious, because I’ve never heard that before.

Even so, from a practical standpoint, Christ was building the foundation of the Church at this time. Today, we have a very structured Church. In particular, there are three main established vocations: the lay vocation (either single or married), the priesthood, and religious life. If you are a married man, you already have your vocation. Can you still feel called by Christ to ministry? Of course! You could be called to the permanent Diaconate, a third order, CCD teaching, or a million other ways of service.

Did God call Peter away from his vocation of marriage to follow Christ? Maybe for a brief time, I’ve never heard this talked about before. Does God call people to leave their marriages today for celibate priesthood? No. What God has brought together, no man shall separate. Leaving family for the sake of the kingdom means putting everything in one’s life, no matter how important, second to God.

In Christ and Our Blessed Mother,
Frank

 

[joandarc2008]

Simon and those who were with him pursued him and on finding him said, “Everyone is looking for you.” He told them, “Let us go on to the nearby villages that I may preach there also. For this purpose have I come.” So he went into their synagogues, preaching and driving out demons throughout the whole of Galilee.

You know - you may be on to something there - this is the last we read of Peter’s family and any images we have are of him alone…But no, it does not actually say… ByzCath?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Is there any evidence to suggest that Peter’s wife was not with him after he began to follow Christ? I’m curious, because I’ve never heard that before.

Even so, from a practical standpoint, Christ was building the foundation of the Church at this time. Today, we have a very structured Church. In particular, there are three main established vocations: the lay vocation (either single or married), the priesthood, and religious life. If you are a married man, you already have your vocation. Can you still feel called by Christ to ministry? Of course! You could be called to the permanent Diaconate, a third order, CCD teaching, or a million other ways of service.

Did God call Peter away from his vocation of marriage to follow Christ? Maybe for a brief time, I’ve never heard this talked about before. Does God call people to leave their marriages today for celibate priesthood? No. What God has brought together, no man shall separate. Leaving family for the sake of the kingdom means putting everything in one’s life, no matter how important, second to God.

In Christ and Our Blessed Mother,
Frank

What of the Eastern Churches that do ordain married men to the priesthood?

You say a married man has his vocation yet he can also be a Deacon in the Latin Church. A Deacon shares in Holy Orders as does a priest and bishop.

What of a religious male? Does he have his vocation too and should not be a priest?

It is not a clear as you make it out to be.

 

[JohnT58]

I see your point here, but from a different angle comparing married Protestant ministers who convert to Catholicism to somehow allowing for a married priesthood is like comparing apple to oranges.

Like I said, I’m not necessarily arguing in favour of married priests.

When one takes into account the Catholic teaching on ABC and that married Catholic priests would likely have eight, ten, or fourteen kids, priestly celebacy is the responsible approach to take.

So we shouldn’t have married priests because they’re likely to have children? That doesn’t sound like the best argument against married clergy. Do other catholic men have 14 children in their families. Obviously not all do, though I came from a family of 8 children:thumbsup:

I have read here that the lack of vocations to the priesthood is nothing more than a symptom of the contraceptive mentality of our culture. Families with the average 2.2 children are just plain reluctant to have their only son not pass on the family name.

I think it makes sense.

Absolutely makes sense.

Let’s begin with the most important one, because the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not a right but a privilege that the Church grants to some,… at her discretion. … It’s both a theocracy and divine autocracy. But very far from a democracy.

But I’m sure you can see the dichotomy of some of your statements. Later you say

Not every former Protestant clergyman is entitled to ask for Holy Orders.

Implying that some are entitled…

There is also another point. The ordination of married converts to the priesthood is done only for those whose salvation would be in peril if they were not ordained.

I find it **very **hard to believe, that God would reject a convert to Catholicism, who would be condemned to hell, simply because he did not become a married priest. After all this is not required of married men? This is hardly a cogent argument either…

The Church determines who is in need of this mercy and who is not. To the observer this looks arbitrary. To the theologian this makes sense, because it was always done this way. The bishop or a religiuos superior have always been the ones who have decided whom Christ has called to Holy Orders.

Just not from the ranks of married men, not for hundreds of years, and not for Roman Catholics at the present moment.

But we must remember that the pastoral provision remains an exception, not the rule. And the exception is only available to converts, not to those born in the Roman Rite.
…converts who may ask for Holy Orders are those who come from a tradition that has an **ordained **clergy. Many traditions have a clergy, but do not have orders. The Lutherans and the Anglican/Episcopal have orders. The other traditions have ministry, but not orders. The provision is not as broad as people believe.

Does the Roman Catholic Church consider the ordinations of the Anglican Churches as valid?

I don’t know if that clarifies the provision and how it is applied.

This is pretty much what I thought is happening, and loosely what I have said, I think?

But the Holy Fathers have already said what they’re going to say on this issue. I wouldn’t ask for further explanations. I would just let it go and move on.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I can move on, but don’t expect others to do so. They can, and rightly so, question this. Its just that the best answer they’ll get at the moments is ‘this is just the way it is, live with it!’

Peace and God Bless.:hug3:

 

[joandarc2008]

I am probably about to get myself in a whole pot of boiling water with some of the Eastern Orthodox on here so I will apologize in advance and let you know that I mean no disrespect but:

1373 “Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us,” is present in many ways to his Church:197 in his word, in his Church’s prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"199 in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,199 in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."200

1410 It is Christ himself, the eternal high priest of the New Covenant who, acting through the ministry of the priests, offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. And it is the same Christ, really present under the species of bread and wine, who is the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

So here we go - for the same reason women cannot be Priests - because God came as Christ in the form of a man that we should also examine why priests should maintain vows of celibacy. Yes, they wash away their iniquity - but to me iniquity only means that of venial sin. (Granted if married sex is not a sin, but can lead to opening the door on a higher temptation of lust) Christ was sinless - he was a virgin with no wife and no children and personally I believe that the Priest acting in that place during the Liturgy of the Eucharist should also be without a wife and children and sexual sin. This would also be along the same lines of why deacons cannot be the main celebrant at the Liturgy of the Eucharist. I know I have committed some wording faux-pas but I hope I have gotten my point across wihtout being offensive - can someone help me here?

 

[Cominghome89]

What of the Eastern Churches that do ordain married men to the priesthood?

You say a married man has his vocation yet he can also be a Deacon in the Latin Church. A Deacon shares in Holy Orders as does a priest and bishop.

What of a religious male? Does he have his vocation too and should not be a priest?

It is not a clear as you make it out to be.

My post was addressing the question of whether God would call someone to leave their wife to be a disciple of Christ. Since marriage is a life-long vocation towards growth in holiness, I do not believe God can call someone AWAY from marriage, as leaving a marriage is not possible.

However, I should have been clearer in my words. You are right, of course marriage does not necessarily mean that one is not called to the vocation of the priesthood, just as the religious vows do not mean a person is not called to the priesthood. What I meant to say is that one would not be called to priesthood by leaving a marriage. In the Eastern Churches, a man may certainly be married and called to the priesthood, but he may not be married, and decide to leave his wife and children for the celibate priesthood. This is the distinction I failed to make. My apologies.

In Christ and Our Blessed Mother,
Frank

 

[JReducation]

I can’t speak to all of your points, because it would require a thesis. But some points I can explain in brief.

Like I said, I’m not necessarily arguing in favour of married priests.

So we shouldn’t have married priests because they’re likely to have children? That doesn’t sound like the best argument against married clergy. Do other catholic men have 14 children in their families. Obviously not all do, though I came from a family of 8 children:thumbsup:

Ordaining married men just to procreate is not logical or even a valid reason to ordain. You are right in your assessment.

But I’m sure you can see the dichotomy of some of your statements. Later you say Implying that some are entitled…

They are entitled because the Church has granted them the right to ask to be ordained, where she does not grant it to anyone else. I’m using entitled that way. The Church entitles you to ask for this. It does not mean that you will get it.

I find it **very **hard to believe, that God would reject a convert to Catholicism, who would be condemned to hell, simply because he did not become a married priest. After all this is not required of married men? This is hardly a cogent argument either…

Actually this is contained in the pastoral provision. It is also used as a prerequisite for the ordination of those men who are born into the Roman Church and the profession of vows of the same. You must write a statement, without your own hand (no computer) that you are requesting Holy Orders or religious vows because you believe it is how God has called you to save your immortal soul. If the bishop or the major religious superior agree with you, then you may be received to either Holy Orders or religious vows. The Church actually believes that those men whom she admits to Holy Orders or to religious vows are called to save their souls this way. She speaks for the person of Christ in confirming this belief.

Just not from the ranks of married men, not for hundreds of years, and not for Roman Catholics at the present moment.

But pope reserve the right to dispense with the rules even after hundreds of years, because these are not dogmas or doctrines.

Does the Roman Catholic Church consider the ordinations of the Anglican Churches as valid?

That has been a question to this day that cannot be answered. The Church believes that there are many Anglicans who are validly ordained. The problem is who? Because so many of their bishops were not validly ordained, but others have been. What the Church does when ordaining an Anglican convert is to ordain conditionally. The bishop uses the words, "If you are not ordained . . . " and then continues with the ritual as usual.

I can move on, but don’t expect others to do so. They can, and rightly so, question this. Its just that the best answer they’ll get at the moments is ‘this is just the way it is, live with it!’

I agree that the best answer we’ll get is “Rome has spoken.” That’s why on this issue and many others I simply don’t bother asking. It’s always good to know why or how. But once you know the rationale that a pope has applied, to try to find the other side of the coin is almost futile. Unless it’s something that is causing harm, popes don’t back down that easily. You see what I mean?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JohnT58]

They are entitled because the Church has granted them the right to ask to be ordained, where she does not grant it to anyone else. I’m using entitled that way. The Church entitles you to ask for this. It does not mean that you will get it.

As is the case for Catholics. I do not expect many Anglican priestesses, or married gay clergy to be converting, but they would be refused ordination, one assumes…

Actually this is contained in the pastoral provision. It is also used as a prerequisite for the ordination of those men who are born into the Roman Church and the profession of vows of the same. You must write a statement, without your own hand (no computer) that you are requesting Holy Orders or religious vows because you believe it is how God has called you to save your immortal soul.

Yet you admit, even if you sincerely believe this to be the case, the Church may still refuse to admit you to the priesthood…in short, you don’t make the detrmination and certainly couldn’t begin to ask if you are married.

The Church actually believes that those men whom she admits to Holy Orders or to religious vows are called to save their souls this way. She speaks for the person of Christ in confirming this belief.

It ssems to me rather, and many others, that the Church has acquiesced to a demand by Anglicans in return for their conversion. I suspect, but may be proven wrong, that ordinarily converts wouldn’t be permitted to place ultimatums on their conversion

The difference is a Catholic wouldn’t be saying, ‘if you don’t make me a priest, I’m leaving the Church,’ and I suspect the Church would not respond to such a threat.

But pope reserve the right to dispense with the rules even after hundreds of years, because these are not dogmas…

…and perhaps this is a rule whose time has passed, and Anglican conversions only serve to highlight that case.

I agree that the best answer we’ll get is “Rome has spoken.”

Yet I wonder if we would hear the same answers of acts of mercy, genuine belief in vocation and calling, if a few thousand married men converted to the Eastern Rites and Orthodoxy. Moreover, what would the response of the Eastern Rites and Orthodoxy be to a conversion movement placing demands on their Churches. Just a thought.
What if the shoe were on the other foot, so to speak?