Married Priests

[Hesychios]

Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with married priests but I wonder how many would feel forced to get married (earlier) once allowance is made to do so. Wouldn’t there be an increase to run to the altar prior to entering the seminary? I’m strictly talking about the psychology here not Church law. With the exception of the single vocation, the choice today is priesthood or marriage.

I cannot speak for the eastern Catholics, but in the Orthodox churches I have found that an ordination is delayed until the candidate has married, so graduation from seminary and ordination to the diaconate can be separated by a number of years. That is of course, unless the candidate has already taken a vow of celibacy (such as monastics who are asked to take on holy orders). Such a man will take on other work until he is ready for ordination.

Another interesting aspect to this is that seminarians can date, just like any other college student. Some women (and their parents) think of these young men as quite a catch!

Some men do not decide on the vocation until after college and marriage, so they have often already begun a career. Hopefully for them it is the kind of thing one can do while going back to school, because a young married couple will need cash, but it is amazing what kind of sacrifices people will make to ultimately serve the Lord.

 

[JReducation]

No. As is the case with most Eastern and Oriental Churches (*), the ordination of married men to the secular priesthood is not, and has never been, prohibited in the Maronite Church, at least not in the Patriarchal Territories.

There was a restriction imposed by Rome on the ordination of married men in the US (and elsewhere in the diaspora) that applied to all Eastern and Oriental Churches, but that restriction had a “sunset clause” and was finally allowed to expire. While it is true that only celibate Maronite priests serve in the US today, that is due strictly to the diocesan bishops.

(*) NB: The Syro-Malabar Church may be the one Oriental Church that does not have a tradition of ordaining married men. I’m not an expert in that Church’s tradition and practices, but that discipline may be based on local custom and may predate the 1599 reunion. I’m not sure if the Syro-Malankara Church follows the same discipline.

Thank you for the correction. I did not know that’s how it happened in the Maronite Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

JR, do you by any chance have the statistics of married and unmarried priests in those Eastern Churches?

Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with married priests but I wonder how many would feel forced to get married (earlier) once allowance is made to do so. Wouldn’t there be an increase to run to the altar prior to entering the seminary? I’m strictly talking about the psychology here not Church law. With the exception of the single vocation, the choice today is priesthood or marriage. Except for the temporary solution of filling much needed priestly positions, what would be the reasons the Latin Rite Church would want to set a new precedence and allow both?

I’m assuming that you’re asking about the Eastern Churches. I don’t know the numbers. But from what I have met, the number of married deacons and priests is greater than the number of celibate. Most of the celibate deacons and priests are religious. They don’t count, since celibacy is constitutional to religious life. No celibacy = no religious life.

They get ordained older than our men do, that I know.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

I’m assuming that you’re asking about the Eastern Churches. I don’t know the numbers. But from what I have met, the number of married deacons and priests is greater than the number of celibate. Most of the celibate deacons and priests are religious. They don’t count, since celibacy is constitutional to religious life. No celibacy = no religious life.

They get ordained older than our men do, that I know.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Good to know. Thanks, JR.

 

[JW55]

In the Roman Catholic Church, celebicy is a “disciple” and is not doctrine. Therefore it is subiect to change and adjustments for special situations. There can be both many positives and negatives resasons for a priest being married or celibate. A good argument can be made for either side. I think theere are a number on fine individuals who would have made good priests but were unable to because they were married. IThe situation that exists in the Eastern Catholic Churches and EO, could worked equally as well in the Roman Catholic Church, and should serve as an example. This is particularily true in a time when we have such a shortage of priests. There is a strong possibility of having to close some smaller churches in smaller dioceses and consolidate them with other parishes. This may provide accesibilty problems to some older or handicapped individuals who can not get to a distant parish.

 

[ProVobis]

This is particularily true in a time when we have such a shortage of priests.

I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but the other side to that argument is that trying to resolve a short-term problem with long-range solutions may backfire down the road once a precedent has been set. Just some food for thought.

 

[JRKH]

In the Roman Catholic Church, celebicy is a “disciple” and is not doctrine. Therefore it is subiect to change and adjustments for special situations. There can be both many positives and negatives resasons for a priest being married or celibate. A good argument can be made for either side. I think theere are a number on fine individuals who would have made good priests but were unable to because they were married. IThe situation that exists in the Eastern Catholic Churches and EO, could worked equally as well in the Roman Catholic Church, and should serve as an example. This is particularily true in a time when we have such a shortage of priests. There is a strong possibility of having to close some smaller churches in smaller dioceses and consolidate them with other parishes. This may provide accesibilty problems to some older or handicapped individuals who can not get to a distant parish.

I assume you mean that celebacy is a “discipline” not “disciple”.

Peace
James

 

[tee_eff_em]

There have been cases of married “cradle” Catholics who have been ordained, but all cases are exceptional. An example is a widower whose children are grown (therefore, he has no more earthly responsibility). Even then, he must have dispensation from Canon Law from Rome.

Why would a dispensation be required?

Since my interlocutor has not returned, let me just state for the record: I know of no impediment that would require a dispensation for a widower to become ordained.

tee

 

[SonCatcher]

Since my interlocutor has not returned, let me just state for the record: I know of no impediment that would require a dispensation for a widower to become ordained.

tee

You need not be so brusque.

Other posters discussed the need for dispensation. I likely was incorrect in my particular stated scenario (due to the fact that death dissolves a marriage) but Canon Law does require a dispensation for a married man.

 

[notredame_999]

What I don’t understand is that in the early church if a married man was ordained, they would agree to live with his wife as “brother and sister.” Are there any sexual restrictions placed on these new Anglican converts? For example, I believe Orthodox priests refrain from relations on Saturday night?

Another question- Am I a heretic if I believe in the eastern interpretation of celibacy? Can I still receive communion?

 

[ProVobis]

Another question- Am I a heretic if I believe in the eastern interpretation of celibacy? Can I still receive communion?

It’s not doctrine. I wish you were more specific but if that’s your only obstacle, then I’d say you can receive. You are the final judge of that, however.

 

[notredame_999]

It’s not doctrine. I wish you were more specific but if that’s your only obstacle, then I’d say you can receive. You are the final judge of that, however.

More specific being I agree with Patriarch Maximos who wrote that 1. celibacy is a higher state than marriage, but 2. celibacy should not be a requirement to the diocesan priesthood but rather to religious communities (monks) and bishops.

melkite.org/xCouncil/Council-8.htm

 

[ProVobis]

More specific being I agree with Patriarch Maximos who wrote that 1. celibacy is a higher state than marriage, but 2. celibacy should not be a requirement to the diocesan priesthood but rather to religious communities (monks) and bishops.

melkite.org/xCouncil/Council-8.htm

The first one doesn’t sound right. State of what? The second one sounds okay for the eastern Church but I could be wrong.

 

[JW55]

I assume you mean that celebacy is a “discipline” not “disciple”.

Peace
James

Trying to write a response at 5:00am in the morning, minutes before rushing off to the office is not always a good idea. Sometimes it results in a grammatically incorrect narrative with several typing errors.

I have some very long days, so my opportunity to post on the forum is very often limited to a few moments in the early morning hours. My apologies. You are correct. The spelling should be “celebacy” and “discipline”. Hopefully, the intent of my post was not misunderstood.

 

[notredame_999]

higher state meaning a gift to God.

“The difference between the Latin church and the Eastern Churches is that in the former celibacy is obligatory, whereas in the Eastern churches it is optional, but recommended and held in special honor.”

Furthermore…

1. The East clearly distinguishes between priesthood and monasticism. A man can be called to the one without being called to the other. This distinction opens up new perspectives. Celibacy is the specific vocation of the monk-religious, but it is not necessarily the specific vocation of the priest, in his capacity as a minister of the Church. The priesthood is a function before being a state of life. It is linked not to a personal striving toward perfection such as celibacy for the sake of God, but to the usefulness to the Church. Therefore celibacy can disappear if the usefulness for the ministry of the Church requires it. The mystery of the redemption, perpetuated in the priesthood, is not subject by obligation to any accidental form. In case of need, it is not the priesthood that must be sacrificed to celibacy, but celibacy to the priesthood.
2. In addition, there are many individuals who experience an immense desire to serve the Church and souls, but who are incapable of maintaining perfect chastity. This is particularly true in certain areas where physical and moral isolation constitutes a serious danger for an average celibate priest.
3. Finally, I shall add that there is no need to fear that the freedom provided by Eastern discipline to choose between celibacy and marriage may gradually cause ecclesiastical celibacy to disappear. There are now and there always will be in the Church many souls called in a special way, to whom flesh and blood are foreign, and who, while they are free to marry, will remain virgins in order to give themselves more totally to God. We have proofs of this in the Eastern Churches, whether Catholic or Orthodox, in which the two categories of priests have rubbed elbows for centuries, each developing fully according to his state and in his own special perfection. With this freedom of choice and of consecration, we have on the contrary fewer downfalls to deplore and more virtues to admire.

While justifying the Eastern tradition, I cannot but admire the lofty morality of the parallel tradition of the West. But perhaps the time has come when, through the will of the Church, and wherever it may chose, the Eastern tradition might be useful to the universal Church.
I fully agree that a public debate in the council chamber would have produced more scandal than concrete results, especially when the press and passions are involved. Yet I am absolutely convinced that in spite of the applause that welcomed the directives on this subject, the problem troubles the conscience of more than one bishop. We are constantly receiving confidences from priests who are indeed known for their piety and their zeal, begging us to raise our voice, to break the silence. Alarming statistics are offered. Too many candidates for the priesthood are turned away because of the increasing difficulties of celibacy. Others are pushed into the celibacy of the priesthood and accepted thoughtlessly. A host of married men could serve the Church in the priesthood.

Celibacy will always remain the ideal of an elite that God chooses for Himself, and it will never die out. But celibacy should not therefore be imposed as an indispensable condition for the priesthood. Considering that secular priests are not forced to assume monk-like poverty, which is easier to practice, why impose on them celibacy, which certainly requires a very special vocation, and very special aptitudes?

**The Catholic West does not yet seem disposed to make such a radical change in discipline, but one will go slowly with all the necessary prudence, after the experience of the married deacons authorized by the Council. **
All that I ask of Your Holiness, in order to obey a serious imperative of my conscience, is that the door not be systematically and irreversibly closed.

With this trust, I humbly kiss Your hands, imploring Your paternal and apostolic blessing.

------The mention of married deacons shifting the debate is interesting considering the rise in deacons in the US. Does celibacy contribute to this?

 

[JW55]

I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but the other side to that argument is that trying to resolve a short-term problem with long-range solutions may backfire down the road once a precedent has been set. Just some food for thought.

What problems do you foresee? Married priests seem to work in the Eastern Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox. I am sure there are some issues that are present with a married priest that would not be present with an unmarried priest. However, the inverse statement could also apply. We occasionally see a priest leave the priesthood to marry. He may not have ever actually been called to the priesthood, but perhaps he was a quality priest but not suited toward an unmarried lifestyle. In years past when Catholic families were typically quite large, a priest might have 7 or 8 brothers and sisters which would lend itself to a large number of nieces and nephews. This allowed the priest to still be part of a family unit. With the nuclear families of today, a priest might be an only child or have only one sibling who might not even live near him. His opportunity for a sense of family are considerably less. Many parishes, particularily on holidays sometimes forget to include the local priest in family celebrations. Even monasteries have a sense of family, as they live with their spiritual brothers and share a sense of human bonding. Many priest today, are the only priest at their parish. Years ago their were typically more than one priest at most parishes, so they at least had someone to share their thoughts. That opportunity is much more limited today. I am very thankful for the priests we do have and it is a very special calling. However, in the future I think we will see fewer and fewer men enter the priesthood. I think not being allowed to marry is one of the deciding factor for many.

 

[CDNowak]

What problems do you foresee?

Pastor’s kids. Parishioners unwilling to support the parish priest’s 12 kids. (Both happened to families in our homeschooling group). Divorce.

The wife of the family friend I mentioned earlier wrote an article on “Why A Married Priesthood Won’t Remedy the Priest Shortage” mentioning the practical issues in more detail, both for the parish and the family.

 

[JReducation]

What I don’t understand is that in the early church if a married man was ordained, they would agree to live with his wife as “brother and sister.” Are there any sexual restrictions placed on these new Anglican converts? For example, I believe Orthodox priests refrain from relations on Saturday night?

Another question- Am I a heretic if I believe in the eastern interpretation of celibacy? Can I still receive communion?

This is a myth that has been promulgated by manny. The Church does not have the authority to forbid the marriage act when there is a valid marriage, valid either by sacrament or nature. Validity is validity. The Church would be imposing a law that violates the right of the wife. Spouses have a right to each others’ botdies in the marriage act.

What has often happened, not only among couples where one is a priest, but many couples, is that they will voluntarilly live celibate lives. There is nothing wrong there. It is their choice to do so. This was more common in the early Church than it is today.

It would be both an act against justice and a violation of the sacrament to demand that a deacon or priest abstain from sex with the wife before celebrating any liturgy. Marriage is a sacrament. Therefore, the sexual act between spouses is the same as the unitive act between Christ and the soul, hence the term spiritual nuptuals.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JW55]

Pastor’s kids. Parishioners unwilling to support the parish priest’s 12 kids. (Both happened to families in our homeschooling group). Divorce.

The wife of the family friend I mentioned earlier wrote an article on “Why A Married Priesthood Won’t Remedy the Priest Shortage” mentioning the practical issues in more detail, both for the parish and the family.

It could be a possibility, but I would think it a remote one. Out of curiosity, are any posters on this thread of the Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic Churches aware of such a situation?

I read the article and the concerns mentioned, but I don’t see any of them as being something that would be unique to the RC church. Don’t most Protestant Churches already face this issue and survive?

 

[notredame_999]

It could be a possibility, but I would think it a remote one. Out of curiosity, are any posters on this thread of the Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic Churches aware of such a situation?

I read the article and the concerns mentioned, but I don’t see any of them as being something that would be unique to the RC church. Don’t most Protestant Churches already face this issue and survive?

The issue of a married priesthood and the church’s ban on artificial contraception would definetly be effected. If a priest and his wife are setting a christian example by not using the pill, there is a real possibility they could 7,8,9, 10 children. Certainly this is a financial hinderance, but I think it could be solved with modest living (perhaps a residence on the church property) as well as more tithing from the surrounding congregation.