Married Priests

[JohnT58]

Just to make it clear, I do stongly support, and believe in the priesthood as it currently is, that is unmarried and celebate. The arguments in favour of this are many, and too long to repeat here.
However, the admission of some married men as an exception makes it all the harder, for myself and others to present the arguments in favour of a celebate priesthood. Especially, when others can point to ‘real world’ examples of married priests, and not something theoretical like ‘this is just a rule that can be done away with’.

 

[cyberwolf001]

On the “strain of celibacy” issue. I’d say there is indeed a strain, felt by celibates of all faiths.

You see married couples and one might long for what could have been. Also especially for diocesan priests the calling can be insanely lonely. That has to be a strain no matter how you slice it.

 

[Cowfold]

On the “strain of celibacy” issue. I’d say there is indeed a strain, felt by celibates of all faiths.

You see married couples and one might long for what could have been. Also especially for diocesan priests the calling can be insanely lonely. That has to be a strain no matter how you slice it.

The first correct interpretation of my post.
It was a long time coming!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

On the “strain of celibacy” issue. I’d say there is indeed a strain, felt by celibates of all faiths.

You see married couples and one might long for what could have been. Also especially for diocesan priests the calling can be insanely lonely. That has to be a strain no matter how you slice it.

Still I do not see a “strain of celibacy” here.

There is no rule again intimate relationships, just no marriage and one must live chaste.

Actually celibacy opens one up to more intimate relationships than a married couple could ever hope to have.

 

[JReducation]

This is an extremely important statement. Roman Catholics are often very ignorant of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church consists of many Churches, not all Roman Catholic, but all of them are truly Catholic and in full communion with Rome. These other Churches do not have a tradition of celibacy. They have both married and celibate clergy.

We, Roman Catholics, have a tradition of a celibate clergy that dates back to the times of the Apostles. But our Church has a very strong Pauline and Petrine influence. The other Churches were founded by other Apostles and God did not lead them down the road of celibacy.

By the time that celibacy becomes a law in the Roman Church, it has already been in practice for almost 1,000 years. In other words, there were very few married deacons and priests. None of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches ever had married bishops after the death of the last married Apostle. I was going to say the last Apostle, but I remembered that John was celibate. This was not the case in the other Catholic Churches. For the most part, the only celibate men that they had were monks.

Roman Catholics really need to learn more about the other Catholic Churches. They are truly Churches. The term rite applies to the manner in which they celebrate the mass and the Divine Office. These Churches are bigger than their rites. Their rites are certainly central to their faith as our rites are central to our faith. But just as we have traditions, history, laws and governance, so do they.

If anyone is wondering, anyone of the Eastern Catholic Churches can also be elected a pope. In fact, there have been some popes from the Eastern Catholic Churches. Their Patriarchs and Metropolitans often have the same status as a cardinal in the Roman Church. Therefore, they belong to the College of Cardinals and they vote.

Let us not confuse the Eastern Catholics with the Orthodox Christians. That’s another thread. But I will say this, the Eastern Catholics are much closer to the Orthodox Christians than they are to Roman Catholics, even though they are in full communion with Rome.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[cyberwolf001]

Still I do not see a “strain of celibacy” here.

There is no rule again intimate relationships, just no marriage and one must live chaste.

Actually celibacy opens one up to more intimate relationships than a married couple could ever hope to have.

B.C. are you saying a married couple can not have close intimate friends outside the marriage?

You must have a very bleak view of the institution.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

B.C. are you saying a married couple can not have close intimate friends outside the marriage?

You must have a very bleak view of the institution.

No, I am not, but usually the intimacy that they share as a couple is reserved for the couple in marriage as marriage is a special thing that is different.

Also the intimacy that is within marriage goes along with a sexual component that many find it hard to separate from so when they do find such intimacy outside of marriage they also end up mixing in sex outside of their marriage. It is not an easy thing.

Then there is the possibility of jealousy by one of the spouses when the other has a deeply intimate (without sex) relationship outside of the marriage.

Marriage makes one body, I do not believe that they should be making such intimate relationships outside of their marriage, they should be working on the marriage.

I believe this is why many marriages break up. Many will say that they “fell out of love” with their spouse and “in love” with someone else, this is because they did not work on their relationship with their spouse and spent time working on the same type of relationship with someone outside of the marriage.

 

[cyberwolf001]

No, I am not, but usually the intimacy that they share as a couple is reserved for the couple in marriage as marriage is a special thing that is different.

Also the intimacy that is within marriage goes along with a sexual component that many find it hard to separate from so when they do find such intimacy outside of marriage they also end up mixing in sex outside of their marriage. It is not an easy thing.

Then there is the possibility of jealousy by one of the spouses when the other has a deeply intimate (without sex) relationship outside of the marriage.

Marriage makes one body, I do not believe that they should be making such intimate relationships outside of their marriage, they should be working on the marriage.

I believe this is why many marriages break up. Many will say that they “fell out of love” with their spouse and “in love” with someone else, this is because they did not work on their relationship with their spouse and spent time working on the same type of relationship with someone outside of the marriage.

WOW you really do have a bad view of marriage…

 

[joandarc2008]

No, I am not, but usually the intimacy that they share as a couple is reserved for the couple in marriage as marriage is a special thing that is different.

Also the intimacy that is within marriage goes along with a sexual component that many find it hard to separate from so when they do find such intimacy outside of marriage they also end up mixing in sex outside of their marriage. It is not an easy thing.

Then there is the possibility of jealousy by one of the spouses when the other has a deeply intimate (without sex) relationship outside of the marriage.

Marriage makes one body, I do not believe that they should be making such intimate relationships outside of their marriage, they should be working on the marriage.

I believe this is why many marriages break up. Many will say that they “fell out of love” with their spouse and “in love” with someone else, this is because they did not work on their relationship with their spouse and spent time working on the same type of relationship with someone outside of the marriage.

That sounds about right - while I may have intimate (non-sexual just to make sure I am not misunderstood) relationships with friends of the same gender having a friend with that deep level of intimacy of the opposite gender other than my dh could cause many issues. I belive personally it is a near occasion of sin.

I know this probably a pretty literal interpretation but:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matthew 5:27-28

Lust does not have just have to be physical. Anytime you put someone of the opposite sex before a spouse for a feeling of “intimacy” I would say one has cheated. I am sure in every marriage there are ups and downs - being married I know this for a fact as this is my vocation. However, the beauty is that in a true sacramental marriage there is always forgiveness through Grace.

Now, I would also as an addition that those couple that fall “out of love” or “in love with someone else” probably either a- did not have that Sacramental Grace to start or b- did not nurture that Grace through mass attendance, fasting, tithing, prayer, Eucharist, and Reconcilliation.

God bless you.

 

[curlycool89]

Still I do not see a “strain of celibacy” here.

There is no rule again intimate relationships, just no marriage and one must live chaste.

Actually celibacy opens one up to more intimate relationships than a married couple could ever hope to have.

I’ve actually head this from a religious priest before. I believe he said something like “he isn’t just called to love 1 person, but to be able to love many people” or something.

I agree with the assessment above, married people having very close yet non-sexual relationships with someone other than their spouse could still lead to instability in the marriage. They are called to get closer to God through their marriage to each other, and if they’re very close with other people, it could be to the point of neglecting their spouse. It is their obligation to put their spouse first (after God obviously).

A celibate person does not have that obligation and if sort-off “free-er” to be close to many people (with God still first of course). It’s a little harder to juggle when it’s God, spouse, kids, everyone else.

 

[joandarc2008]

Also there has been contention here of a dubious nature about the feeling that the Eucharist would not be properly sancified if the Mass was conducted by a married priest. A married priest from one of the Eastern rite adminstering Communion would possess neither more or less authority than a Latin rite priest doing the same thing.

I want to address this first. It is not a contention that the Eucharist would not be properly sanctified - it is a logical statement very similar to the one made for not ordaining women. Jesus himself is celibate and if the Christ is to be Sanctifying the Eucharist using the Priest (as we know the Priest himself does not actually do this God does) that the Priest should be as close to Christ-like as he can be. This is (not rather well stated mind you I am sure someone else can do better) close to the same reason that women should not be ordained, why I would not want to attend a Parish run by a serial adulterer, or for that matter a married priest. Just because I do not think that Priests should be married does not mean I am ignorant to the fact that some Rites have married Priests- it means I as a practicing Roman Catholic feel, think, and believe that certain Rites have become far too liberal in their accepting of vocations by accepting married men. What is next - women, openly gay? It is a slippery slope I would rather not approach.

I also want to bring the marriage argument back in. A Priest basically has the Vocation to help many people get into Heaven.(hopefully) A married person has the vocation to help their spouse (first and foremost.) Granted some laity may help their spouse and then if their spouse is supportive (I know in my archdiocese spouses have to approve in writing I do not about others) of the choice they may begin to help others secondarily to that first vocation. Yes, ministry becomes an avocation to us - not a vocation. That is why most of you religious are much better at it then most of us laity. (Experience) However, I would never dare say that either one of us was generally more or less devout or made more or less of a sacrifice.

 

[curlycool89]

it means I as a practicing Roman Catholic feel, think, and believe that certain Rites have become far too liberal in their accepting of vocations by accepting married men. What is next - women, openly gay? It is a slippery slope I would rather not approach.

The Eastern Churches, including both Orthodox and Catholic, both have a long tradition of married priests. You can’t exactly say that they’ve become “too liberal” when this is how they’ve practiced for centuries. You mine as well say that Catholics have become too liberals because we’ve decided that the Bishop doesn’t have to preside at every single mass.

Women are different. They’re not men, and Holy Orders requires a man (attempting to ordain a woman would be invalid as well as being highly illicit). As for openly gay priests, that would definitely fall within the Bishop’s duty to ensure that the people he’s ordaining are faithful and obedient Catholics (if it were to happen, assuming everything else was done right it would be valid though).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

WOW you really do have a bad view of marriage…

Not at all, no where did I say any such thing.

You are judging and assuming something that you have neither the right to nor the facts to do.

But I find that this is par for the course here at CAF lately.

Personal attacks rather than commenting on what was actually said.

This is usually done because there is the user really can not refute what was said so they attack the person in an attempt to discredit their argument which they can not discredit in any other way.

 

[JReducation]

I believe that those of us who are Roman Catholic have to be very careful when we speak about the other Catholic Churches, otherwise we run the risk of looking very ignorant and uneducated.

For example, the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches did not become liberal. They have had married clergy since the time of the Apostles. The Apostles founded them that way and wanted them to keep up that tradition. Their tradition is 2,000 years old.

The Roman Catholic tradition of a celibate clergy also goes back to the Apostles, but not the same Apostles. Our tradition goes back to Peter and Paul. In Peter’s writings he speaks about the duties that husbands and wives have toward each other. But it is very interesting that he does not include in those duties any form of ministry outside of the marriage. Paul, on the other hand, goes over and over the value of celibacy several times in his writings. The early Church of Rome had a very different vision of Marriage and Holy Orders, a vision that was not shared with the other Churches founded by the Apostles. It was not shared, because there was no need to share it. Celibacy is not a dogma. There was no reason for the Churches to agree on this point.

Because of the influence of Peter and Paul, from its early days the Roman Church had celibate clerics and the numbers continued to grow. A thousand years later, give or take a century, depending in what diocese you were in, when celibacy becomes a law, there were few married deacons and priests in the Roman Church. By the way, don’t go looking for the word celibacy in the ancient writings. They did not use this word. They called it continence, if you were secular.

Members of religious orders always had a vow of chastity or were bound to chastity by their rule, even if they did not actually vow to it, such as the Franciscans and Benedictines. We don’t actually vow to be chaste. We vow obedience and that includes chastity and poverty, because the rule says so. But the vow of chastity has other implications that celibacy does not. That’s why the Church is able to lift the requirement for permanent deacons and certain converts. Lifting celibacy from Holy Orders does not change anything. However, lifting chastity from a religious order, dismantles the order.

Again, let’s be careful what we say about married clergy. We have always had married clergy. It’s just that in the Roman Church we have not had them for hundreds of years. But the rest of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox have had them from the time of the Apostles.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[joandarc2008]

Again, let’s be careful what we say about married clergy. We have always had married clergy. It’s just that in the Roman Church we have not had them for hundreds of years. But the rest of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox have had them from the time of the Apostles.

OK, so some Rites of the Catholic Church have had married priests for years - it does not make it right. After all - there are sects of Judaism that deny Christ as the Son of God and have been doing so for millenia but that doesn’t make them right. Time does not make something right especially if it is not dogma - which is what you have already stated. So as I said before please excuse me for not getting my words completely right but based on belief and Faith I don’t believe it’s right. There is not disrespect intended - it is just my opinon based on reading and study of why things are the way they are in the Roman Rite.

 

[JReducation]

OK, so some Rites of the Catholic Church have had married priests for years - it does not make it right. After all - there are sects of Judaism that deny Christ as the Son of God and have been doing so for millenia but that doesn’t make them right. Time does not make something right especially if it is not dogma - which is what you have already stated. So as I said before please excuse me for not getting my words completely right but based on belief and Faith I don’t believe it’s right. There is not disrespect intended - it is just my opinon based on reading and study of why things are the way they are in the Roman Rite.

Let me see if I can help you here. Let’s begin with the Eastern Churches. They are Churches, not rites. Rite is the way that the celebrate liturgy. Church includes their rite, their laws, history, traditions, prayers, saints, holy days and so forth. When we say Eastern Rite, we’re talking about the form of the liturgy used by an Eastern Church. Every Church has its own rite. Some of them you would not even know that it’s Catholic, because it’s so different from anything that we have ever seen or heard. In one Church even the words of consecration are said differently. But that’s a topic for another day.

Now let’s get to the next point. The Eastern and Orthodox Churches have not had married men for years, they have been doing it since Christ ascended into heaven. In other words, they were taught this by the Apostles who went to their countries.

Why does the Catholic Church say that it is right for them to ordain married men? Because the Apostles did not teach heresy. Anything that they did in violation of the sacraments would have been heresy. If they had violated the sacrament of marriage and the sacrament of Holy Orders by ordaining married men, they would have been in heresy and would have excommunicated themselves from the Church of Peter. But that was not the case. Peter approved, even though in his Church in Rome, Paul was teaching celibacy, which Peter also approved.

Both celibacy in the Roman Church and a married clergy in the Eastern and Orthodox Churches wee approved by Peter, were esablished by the Apostles who could not teach heresy or desecrate any of the sacraments. Therefore, it is not wrong.

As I said, we don’t have this tradition, because we grew alway from it. But all of the other Catholic Churches and all the Orthodox Churches still have both married and celibate clergy. The Church of Rome does not have this custom, but the Pope can dispense with the law any time that he wishes for any reason that he wishes and for anyone that he wishes and he is not in error. There is no dogma that says that married men cannot be deacons or priests.

An excellent example are the married deacons. Deacons are clergymen. They are not lay men. They are clerics. They receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders. For approximately 900 years deacons were celibate. The Pope lifted the restriction and allowed married men to be ordained deacons. They have to be permanent deacons, because we don’t ordain married men to the priesthood without a good reason. But do you see how the pope can abolish the law.

The law was rewritten. Instead of saying that all clerics must be celibate. It now says that those who are married may be ordained to the order of deacon. However, it does not say that a deacon may get married. If a deacon is single, divorced or widower, he cannot get married. The marraige must come before ordination. The Church of Rome adopted the law from the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox. They have had this law in place since the time of the Apostles. It was we, the Church of Rome that did not have these laws in place. We were evolving toward a celibate clergy and the Church authorities allowed it to happen, because they did not want to interfere with the work of the Spirit. The Spirit gives to each of the Churches what they need for their sanctification.

To conclude, we have always had the ordination of married men, just not in the Roman Church. Yes, the Eastern Churches are fully Catholic. The other group of Eastern Churches are called Orthodox, but they too have valid ordiantions and we Catholics are obliged to show respect for their deacons, priests and bishops, just as we do for our own. That example has been set by the popes. Pope Benedict always calls the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Churches, Your Holiness. We have been given an example of respect by many popes and saints.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

We must always remember that the Church of Rome is one of several Churches that make up the Catholic Church. In addition, the Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox Christians. The Eastern Catholics celebrate the liturgy as the Orthodox do. They use the same languages and come from the same countries. But they are in full communion with the Church of Rome.

This does not mean that we can be disrespectful or dismissive of the Orthodox. They are truly Apostolic, with valid sacraments and legal sacraments. The Catholic Church recognizes their right to celebrate the sacraments, unlike some of our own who do not have a canonical place in the Church yet. Because the Orthodox have broken no rules, they have a right to celebrate the sacraments validly and licitly, despite the schism. Because they are not the schismatics, their anscestors were. Today’s Orthodox priests and bishops are respected just as we respect our Eastern and Roman clergy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :J)

 

[JReducation]

I hope that I have offered a more promising outlook.

As to the hateful comments that people make toward each other here, does not happen in the real world. There is anonymity on a forum. Besides, when you’re with someone who is a relative, friend, coleague, classmate, neighbor, whatever, you are looking at a person. Unless you’re really dubm, you can tell when you’re saying something that hurts them. Good people don’t set out to hurt other people.

My own family is predominantly Jewish. When the Catholics and the Jews get together, we don’t throw stones at each other. In fact, my Jewish relatives attended my profession mass when I made vows. My Catholic relatives attend Bar Mitvahs. Occasionally we will have a heated discussion about some point of religion. But no one says anything hateful. If you watch people’s faces you can read when you’re doing harm instead of good. I can tell when someone wants to hear more or when they are uncomfortable and they want to leave the room. I’m no rocket scientist.

Unfortunately, on a forum you can’t see faces. I believe it is even more pressing to be as gentle and polite as possible, because you can’t see the face that you hurt.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KyivAndrew]

OK, so some Rites of the Catholic Church have had married priests for years - it does not make it right. After all - there are sects of Judaism that deny Christ as the Son of God and have been doing so for millenia but that doesn’t make them right. Time does not make something right especially if it is not dogma - which is what you have already stated.

I come from possibly the largest Eastern Catholic Church, the Ukrainian, and I believe one should be very careful in attempting to argue the Eastern Catholic Churches are “not right” on this. The present Pope Benedict and the one before him JP2 and before would find your opinion joandarc not right. When you say it’s (married priests) not right, the Head of Our Church, the Pope, disagrees with you. There is a cannon law for the Eastern Catholic Churches put out by the Vatican. It always helps to learn more of the Catholic and Christian world.

Priestly celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church is a DISCIPLINE which can be changed, it is NOT DOGMA. That’s why our’s (Eastern Catholics’) is a discipline different from the Roman but fully acceptable in the historic Ukrainian Catholic Church and in the Vatican. Priestly celibacy is not dogma.

I humbly suggest you misunderstand other churches and religions if you are comparing Eastern Catholic Churches to “sects of Judaism” with respect to views on God or something you were trying to get across. I don’t see the connection and I think you’re a little confused at what you’re trying to say, and my apologies if I have offended you. The Ukrainian Catholic Church is a fully Catholic Church, which the last two popes have vigorously encouraged to go back and edify their traditions. Our Eucharist is just as Catholic as yours, even with a married priest celebrating.

Here is a recent article from the New York Times on a Ukrainian Catholic priest and his family though it may get a bit of the NYT angle: nytimes.com/2010/03/23/world/europe/23ukraine.html?hp

The late venerable Pope JP2 in a visit to Ukraine in 2001 in which he spoke in perfect Ukrainian beatified some 27 martyrs of the Catholic Faith from the Ukrainian Catholic Church (one of them may have been a martyred married priest I think) who perished at the hands of the communists.

I also agree with Jharek that the Orthodox in Russia, Ukraine, etc. suffered terribly under Communism, and I appreciate his defense of Eastern Catholicism.

 

[JReducation]

I too am having difficulty with the fact that some people don’t know that the Catholic Church is made up of many smaller Churches, which are autonomous in the disciplines, laws and liturgies, but have full communion with the Church of Rome. The priests of the Eastern Churches, married and celibate, are just as Catholic as those of the Roman Church. It has been this way for 2,000 years.

We have to add that despite the schism, the priests of the Orthodox Churches are also valid priests and have suffered a great deal of persecution, especially under communism.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF