Married Priests

[Oneofthewomen]

In the thread titile “Not just another CITH thread…” the topic of married clergy was brought up. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6982402&postcount=814)

I know that provisions have been made for men, who were at one time Protestant ministers to become ordained after they have converted to the Catholic Church.
Fr. Dwight Longernecker is one such priest
(check out his blog www.gkupsidedown.blogspot.com)
In my own Diocese this past spring we ordained to the transitional diaconate, a married, former minister, who will be ordained to the priesthood next year.

I am not really sure how I feel about this.

On one hand, there is a shortage of priests in my area, and we can use all the new, young blood we can get. (more that 1/2 of our priests will be retirement age in the next 5-10 years).

On the other hand, I feel that it is a slap in the face to all “Cradle-Catholic” men who may have thought about the priesthood when they were young, opted instead to be married, only to find out that they still had a calling to the priesthood, and could not fufill that calling. In my mind, it is almost as if we are “punishing” them, saying, “Well you knew the rules, so it’s your own fault…”

Then there are all the questions regarding time, family obligations, compensation and benefits, etc. A married man with a family, priest or not, still must provide for his family, and is that a responsibility that the Church should be taking on, which is a big issue in my diocese where we have closed/merged numerious parishes because of “money issues”.

Thoughts, comments?

 

[Bob_Aliano]

In the thread titile “Not just another CITH thread…” the topic of married clergy was brought up. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6982402&postcount=814)

I know that provisions have been made for men, who were at one time Protestant ministers to become ordained after they have converted to the Catholic Church.
Fr. Dwight Longernecker is one such priest
(check out his blog www.gkupsidedown.blogspot.com)
In my own Diocese this past spring we ordained to the transitional diaconate, a married, former minister, who will be ordained to the priesthood next year.

I am not really sure how I feel about this.

On one hand, there is a shortage of priests in my area, and we can use all the new, young blood we can get. (more that 1/2 of our priests will be retirement age in the next 5-10 years).

On the other hand, I feel that it is a slap in the face to all “Cradle-Catholic” men who may have thought about the priesthood when they were young, opted instead to be married, only to find out that they still had a calling to the priesthood, and could not fufill that calling. In my mind, it is almost as if we are “punishing” them, saying, “Well you knew the rules, so it’s your own fault…”

Then there are all the questions regarding time, family obligations, compensation and benefits, etc. A married man with a family, priest or not, still must provide for his family, and is that a responsibility that the Church should be taking on, which is a big issue in my diocese where we have closed/merged numerious parishes because of “money issues”.

Thoughts, comments?

I feel a rule is a rule. Roman Catholic priests should not be married regardless of whether they are converting, regardless of any other consideration.

 

[ProVobis]

On the other hand, I feel that it is a slap in the face to all “Cradle-Catholic” men who may have thought about the priesthood when they were young, opted instead to be married, only to find out that they still had a calling to the priesthood, and could not fufill that calling. In my mind, it is almost as if we are “punishing” them, saying, “Well you knew the rules, so it’s your own fault…”

This is true. However, one who has lost a wife through death or annulment is still eligible. I’m not sure, though, if we can say we’re punishing him by having him stay married to raise a family though.

 

[SonCatcher]

I think the concession is made because the Church realizes these Anglican priests may have chosen the celibate priesthood, had they been formed within the Catholic Church. (I have yet to hear a case when he wasn’t Anglican as most Protestant ministers have no priestly function.) They have to discern their calling anew after being received into the Church. They aren’t just grandfathered into the Catholic priesthood (I don’t know what will happen with Anglican Use Ordinariates).

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.

 

[Scoobyshme]

In the thread titile “Not just another CITH thread…” the topic of married clergy was brought up. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6982402&postcount=814)

I know that provisions have been made for men, who were at one time Protestant ministers to become ordained after they have converted to the Catholic Church.
Fr. Dwight Longernecker is one such priest
(check out his blog www.gkupsidedown.blogspot.com)
In my own Diocese this past spring we ordained to the transitional diaconate, a married, former minister, who will be ordained to the priesthood next year.

I am not really sure how I feel about this.

On one hand, there is a shortage of priests in my area, and we can use all the new, young blood we can get. (more that 1/2 of our priests will be retirement age in the next 5-10 years).

On the other hand, I feel that it is a slap in the face to all “Cradle-Catholic” men who may have thought about the priesthood when they were young, opted instead to be married, only to find out that they still had a calling to the priesthood, and could not fufill that calling. In my mind, it is almost as if we are “punishing” them, saying, “Well you knew the rules, so it’s your own fault…”

Then there are all the questions regarding time, family obligations, compensation and benefits, etc. A married man with a family, priest or not, still must provide for his family, and is that a responsibility that the Church should be taking on, which is a big issue in my diocese where we have closed/merged numerious parishes because of “money issues”.

Thoughts, comments?

Keep in mind that the priesthood is not a right. Nor is it a “job.” Those in the priesthood are “called.” Some accept, some reject. Christ does the calling, through His Mystical Body, the Church. If an individual cannot obey the rules, whatever they are, on the front end, why would we expect him to do so once he is ordained?

And, a celibate priesthood is not a doctrine. It is a discipline. As such, exceptions can be made when the Church feels it is appropriate. No priest can get married, ever. But there have been married men who can become priests. (There’s a difference.)

 

[JRKH]

It is best in these cases to let The Church deal with the matter. If, in her wisdom, she feels that the rule on married priests be relaxed, then she will do it. If not, pray and trust God that He will provide us with sufficiant priests.

Peace
James

 

[CDNowak]

On the other hand, I feel that it is a slap in the face to all “Cradle-Catholic” men who may have thought about the priesthood when they were young, opted instead to be married, only to find out that they still had a calling to the priesthood, and could not fufill that calling. In my mind, it is almost as if we are “punishing” them, saying, “Well you knew the rules, so it’s your own fault…”

Then there are all the questions regarding time, family obligations, compensation and benefits, etc. A married man with a family, priest or not, still must provide for his family, and is that a responsibility that the Church should be taking on, which is a big issue in my diocese where we have closed/merged numerious parishes because of “money issues”.

Thoughts, comments?

I have an acquaintance (family friend) that was a methodist minister who decided to convert, then convinced his wife to convert. She entered the Church a year before because he had no way to support his family if he left his post. (Our pastor gave him a job as a “Pastoral associate” and he was essentially the DRE for adult formation). His wife wrote one of the primary articles I’ve seen used to argue against the married clergy.

As a young man discerning, I don’t feel the pastoral provision, or the Anglican Ordinariates, are an affront to those discerning because, well, we did know the rules. Now the Ordinariates will help reduce the confusion, as we already have the Eastern Churches with a more generous provision for married priests.

 

[Stylites]

Keep in mind that the priesthood is not a right. Nor is it a “job.” Those in the priesthood are “called.” Some accept, some reject. Christ does the calling, through His Mystical Body, the Church. If an individual cannot obey the rules, whatever they are, on the front end, why would we expect him to do so once he is ordained?

And, a celibate priesthood is not a doctrine. It is a discipline. As such, exceptions can be made when the Church feels it is appropriate. No priest can get married, ever. But there have been married men who can become priests. (There’s a difference.)

Well said.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I think the concession is made because the Church realizes these Anglican priests may have chosen the celibate priesthood, had they been formed within the Catholic Church. ***(I have yet to hear a case when he wasn’t Anglican as most Protestant ministers have no priestly function.) *** They have to discern their calling anew after being received into the Church. They aren’t just grandfathered into the Catholic priesthood (I don’t know what will happen with Anglican Use Ordinariates).

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.

This is the case in my diocese. The man in question, I believe was eithe Presbyterian or Methodist. I know that he was not Anglican. I also knwo that Fr. Longernecker stated out a “Fundimentalist” (graduated from Bob Jones University), then converted to Anglican, and then to Catholicism.

I know that we must defer to the Church on these matters, however, I must wonder why this is not as big of a deal for some as CITH is, for example. I guess that that question would be a whole other thread though!

 

[Corki]

On one hand, there is a shortage of priests in my area, and we can use all the new, young blood we can get. (more that 1/2 of our priests will be retirement age in the next 5-10 years).

On the other hand, I feel that it is a slap in the face to all “Cradle-Catholic” men who may have thought about the priesthood when they were young, opted instead to be married, only to find out that they still had a calling to the priesthood, and could not fufill that calling. In my mind, it is almost as if we are “punishing” them, saying, “Well you knew the rules, so it’s your own fault…”

If a young man felt the call to priesthood and did not engage in a thorough discernment process, it isn’t about opting for marriage, its a failure of a different kind. I am not saying that the fault is the young man’s. We lost a whole generation where the Church did not do a good job of teaching our young men and women what vocation really means and how to discern. The vocabulary turned from ‘vocation’ and ‘calling’ to ‘choices’ and ‘options’.

Our diocese has seen some very large groups of permanent deacons ordained recently. I understand that the call to the diaconate is very different than that to the priesthood. But I can’t help but wonder if the reason there are so many (and so few priests) is that some of these men may have had a call to priesthood when younger but they weren’t given the environment and tools to discern fully.

In any case, I think the presence of ordained, married convert priests is sort of a Beta test for the Church and it’s too soon to know the results of the testing.

 

[Stylites]

On the other hand, I feel that it is a slap in the face to all “Cradle-Catholic” men who may have thought about the priesthood when they were young, opted instead to be married, only to find out that they still had a calling to the priesthood, and could not fufill that calling. In my mind, it is almost as if we are “punishing” them, saying, “Well you knew the rules, so it’s your own fault…”

Then there are all the questions regarding time, family obligations, compensation and benefits, etc. A married man with a family, priest or not, still must provide for his family, and is that a responsibility that the Church should be taking on, which is a big issue in my diocese where we have closed/merged numerious parishes because of “money issues”.

Thoughts, comments?

Reminds me of the parable in Matthew 20 of the laborers hired to work in the vineyard, and receiving the same wages but called to work at different hours. “How was that fair?” they wailed.

Cradle Catholics are raised with the discipline, and if some fail to discern their vocation, how is that the fault of the Church?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Is it possible that a man can be called to both the priesthood and the married life simultaneously? Married priesthood goes back to the earliest days of the Church and is still practiced among Eastern Catholics (at least of the Byzantine tradition). Among the Ukrainian Greek Catholics here in the U.S. some 2/3rds to 3/4s of the priests are married (granted a man is not permitted to [re]marry after he is ordained); the Romanian Greek Catholics, nearly half, and there are also a good number of Melkite and Ruthenian married priests as well. For Eastern Catholics married priesthood is not a concession given by the Papacy to their particular churches, but is a right inherent in the tradition of our particular churches. It is also considered the norm, at least in the Slavic countries (not so sure about the Middle East). Celibacy is seen as being reserved for monks (hence bishops are traditionally chosen from among the monastic ranks).

While I do not believe that a return to the married priesthood is the answer to the vocations crisis in the Latin Church, I do think that it must be recognized that a married clergy is equally as traditional as a celibate clergy and ought to be respected every bit as much.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Reminds me of the parable in Matthew 20 of the laborers hired to work in the vineyard, and receiving the same wages but called to work at different hours. “How was that fair?” they wailed.

Cradle Catholics are raised with the discipline, and if some fail to discern their vocation, how is that the fault of the Church?

A rather big assumption, at least in my diocese. In the 80’s & 90’s and up to 2002, the “vocations director” in my diocese was called the *“vacations director”. * We lost quite a few good men to other dioceses and have only ordained 8 men in the last 10 years, with no ordinations this year or next (except for the man I discussed in my OP, if he decides to seek it), and then none on the pike until at least 2013.

One of the biggest complaints I hear in these forums and in my own area is the lack of any “good” catechesis, so for me, this whole idea of “well they are Catholic, so they know the rules…” seems to be a bit of a “red herring”, at least IMHO.

 

[Katrina5]

There are so many married men who would make good priests, but I see them as “products of the time”.
They grew up during Vatican II or shortly after, and now the pendulum is swinging back.

Our society has trained men to think that celibacy “isn’t cool” and in fact if a man is celibate, that there must be something wrong with him. Our new pastor even used the “not cool” to describe his difficulty in finding altar servers!

How can we change this?

On one hand, for years we had people being ordained who were immature, not intellectually gifted, and had no ability to relate to people, not to mention they lacked the administrative abilities needed to run a parish.

I have said before that I admire Marcus Grodi and his Journey Home network, not just because they are such good stories, but it seems we as a Church are sorting out some of the issues that we are dealing with in this area, by listening to those stories of men who came into the Catholic church.

Recently, his guests were a couple who had “reverted” after being full-time pastor/wife combo in a pentecostal church.
They had four children, and they made it very clear that the children were “neglected” because the parents’ commitment to the church came first. Their children were very involved when they were young, so it was a “family church”, but as they grew up, they grew away.

The man stated that this was a case for retaining priestly celibacy.

So here I am, using the term “we” when I have no power whatsoever in the outcome of any of this. I still have an opinion, though.
And I do think boys can be brought up to listen for that call, ‘cool’ or not.

 

[Katrina5]

Interesting that the word “discipline” was used in these posts.

Discipline seems to have become a moldy old concept, except when applied to athletes.

Discipline was the best gift of a Catholic education when I was growing up, and I DON’T mean being hit with rulers.

We were taught self discipline, in fact it was expected of us.
If you try to teach a child self discipline today, someone will suggest the child needs to be given Ritalin-- it’s easier on the adults.

So if young men are taught, “you won’t be able to control your urges and behavior” why would they even consider becoming a priest?
When life is all about the “self” we’re lost.

 

[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?

tee

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

**Recently, his guests were a couple who had “reverted” after being full-time pastor/wife combo in a pentecostal church.
They had four children, and they made it very clear that the children were “neglected” because the parents’ commitment to the church came first. Their children were very involved when they were young, so it was a “family church”, but as they grew up, they grew away.

The man stated that this was a case for retaining priestly celibacy.

So here I am, using the term “we” when I have no power whatsoever in the outcome of any of this. I still have an opinion, though.
And I do think boys can be brought up to listen for that call, ‘cool’ or not.**

This isn’t really a case for priestly celibacy. Among Eastern Catholics and Orthodox, especially in the Slavic countries, sons very frequently “go into the family trade” and end up becoming priests themselves, sometimes even becoming the pastor in the same parish that his father served and where he grew up.

Within Roman Catholicism, and carrying over into Protestantism, there is the notion that the priest/minister must do all the work in the parish (say Liturgy, preach, hear confessions, do administrative work, keep the financial books, etc.). Obviously this doesn’t work for married ministers and often leads to them neglecting their families. In the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches there is more of a sense of the parish being the responsibility of the entire congregation, not just the pastor. So parishioners are very active in running and maintaining the parish, as well as assisting in keeping the books and finances, making big decisions for the church/parish, etc. This takes a great load off of the parish priest, freeing up time for him to be with his family. Things work out even better when there are multiple priests (married and celibate) and deacons within one parish (a situation that is very frequent in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches). Again, married priesthood is every bit as traditional as celibacy and deserves just as much respect.

 

[JRKH]

I have an acquaintance (family friend) that was a methodist minister who decided to convert, then convinced his wife to convert. She entered the Church a year before because he had no way to support his family if he left his post. (Our pastor gave him a job as a “Pastoral associate” and he was essentially the DRE for adult formation). His wife wrote one of the primary articles I’ve seen used to argue against the married clergy.

As a young man discerning, I don’t feel the pastoral provision, or the Anglican Ordinariates, are an affront to those discerning because, well, we did know the rules. Now the Ordinariates will help reduce the confusion, as we already have the Eastern Churches with a more generous provision for married priests.

CD,
Nice to hear from someone on the path of discernment on this issue.

May God guide you

Peace
James

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I feel a rule is a rule. Roman Catholic priests should not be married regardless of whether they are converting, regardless of any other consideration.

This is called a dispensation, allowing something that is against the rules to occur. I do not see it as a bad thing, after all, other Catholic Churches do allow for the ordination of married men to the priesthood.

This is true. However, one who has lost a wife through death or annulment is still eligible. I’m not sure, though, if we can say we’re punishing him by having him stay married to raise a family though.

Some dioceses will not even consider a man with an annulment due to the posibility of scandal.

 

[Katrina5]

Rolphes,

But “they” don’t listen to what “we” have to say about any of this…that’s the problem.

As for the “family business”, I believe that was the origin of unmarried priesthood to begin with-- it was called “nepotism.” It involved property rights.

I understand your viewpoint. We have a very authoritarian hierarchy. I really wonder if they will ever get a clue.

It reminds me of the medical students who are made to work 48 hour shifts, even though it has been proven to cause many dangerous mistakes in judgement and motor control-- sleep deprivation does that, it is a fact-- but the old time professors say, “We had to do it, we survived, so can you!”