Married Priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter Oneofthewomen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
This is so true! My husband (Ruthenian) was baptized and chrismated by a priest who was, himself, the son of a priest.
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.
I have a strong feeling that - if married priests had not been prohibited in the US at the time - my husband would have become a priest in his Eastern (Ruthenian) Church. What you point out about Eastern Catholic parishes was just what I observed in dh’s parish in New England (though by the time I was introduced to the parish, the priest was unmarried.)

I, for one, am delighted to see some Eastern Catholic churches reclaiming their rightful tradition with regard to married priests, at least on a case-by-case basis.
 
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!”
I apologize for the use of the phrase “family business”. It was meant to be humorous, not to point to nepotism. My point was simply that the sons very often followed in the footsteps of their fathers. Among Eastern Catholics and Orthodox, many saints were the sons of priests who went on to become priests themselves. Very often the sons would become priests because they knew how to navigate through the volumes of liturgical books used for any of the Byzantine liturgical services. Since seminaries in rural Ukraine, Trans-Carpathia, the Middle East, etc. were very rare “back in the day”, one’s seminary training consisted in learning how to use the liturgical books, and some basics in moral theology. Sons of priests were obviously the most likely candidates for ordination as they were up at the altar, day in and day out, serving for their fathers. So the situation in the East was somewhat different from that of the Roman West and its struggle against nepotism.
 
I think that today also is a tough time for a married priest. I’m not sure about other religions or even for Eastern Catholics, but Roman Catholic priests don’t get paid much to begin with. So supporting a family will be very difficult from a financial standpoint. I know the reason why not much is asked from Permanent Deacons is because the Church knows it cannot pay enough to support for the family of the Deacon, so he is then expected to have a full time job on top of his commitments to the diocese.

Its easy to keep your life simple if you are alone. But when you have a family, there are things that you really need to spend on. I think that is a major issue today as well.
 
This is so true! My husband (Ruthenian) was baptized and chrismated by a priest who was, himself, the son of a priest.

I have a strong feeling that - if married priests had not been prohibited in the US at the time - my husband would have become a priest in his Eastern (Ruthenian) Church. What you point out about Eastern Catholic parishes was just what I observed in dh’s parish in New England (though by the time I was introduced to the parish, the priest was unmarried.)

I, for one, am delighted to see some Eastern Catholic churches reclaiming their rightful tradition with regard to married priests, at least on a case-by-case basis.
The case-by-case basis only applies for the Ruthenians, for whatever historical reasons. The Romanians, Melkites and Ukrainians all ordain married men unimpeded and without having to seek the permission of Rome. In fact, a married man with a young family in my parish is now on his way to ordination. I believe he will be ordained to the sub-diaconate within the next few weeks.

Fr. Tom Loya (often well known among Roman Catholics thanks to his online radio program “Light of the East”) is from a family of priests. I don’t know that he himself was the son of a priest, but I do know that he and some of his cousins all became priests, I believe following the example of the grandfather.

What’s to stop your husband seeking ordination from your Ruthenian bishop now? So long as you consent the bishop will probably at least consider your situation and the possibility of ordaining your husband. God knows all of the Catholic churches (Eastern and Western) need new and many vocations (be they “late” or otherwise).

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip
 
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’.
Cradle Catholics are raised with the discipline, and if some fail to discern their vocation, how is that the fault of the Church?
I think it is a combination of the Church failing to provide the tools, and men failing to even ask for them. Plenty of blame to go around, but in the end we need to focus going forward.
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?
Interesting that the word “discipline” was used in these posts.

Discipline seems to have become a moldy old concept, except when applied to athletes.
The reason discipline has only survived in the world of sports is that the fundamentally masculine nature of discipline has been exiled wherever possible. Allowing men to be men and boys to be boys is very important in restoring the culture of commitment and vocation (to married life, religious life, and to the diocesan priesthood).
 
Fr. Tom Loya (often well known among Roman Catholics thanks to his online radio program “Light of the East”) is from a family of priests. I don’t know that he himself was the son of a priest, but I do know that he and some of his cousins all became priests, I believe following the example of the grandfather.
I have met father Tom’s dad some years ago, and he is not a priest. But you are right, there are a few in the family, including a cousin in the Augustinian order.

He also has a cousin who was married to an Orthodox priest (father Raphael, eternal Memory!). This is far more typical of the old world than north America, although the tradition is reviving.
 
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
Well said…AMEN!
 
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.
Couldn’t agree with you more.
 
What’s to stop your husband seeking ordination from your Ruthenian bishop now? So long as you consent the bishop will probably at least consider your situation and the possibility of ordaining your husband. God knows all of the Catholic churches (Eastern and Western) need new and many vocations (be they “late” or otherwise).

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip
Wonderful about the young man in your parish!!!

I’m afraid the ordination ship has long since sailed; we live in a part of the country where there are no Ruthenian parishes within 6 hours, and the seminary is about 1200 miles away. Add to the mix an employment contract, family obligations, housing market…simply not feasible, not to mention the fact that it is not something that dh has even considered for decades. He gave serious thought during high school, we met in college (theology class!), and that was that.

He does love his annual pilgrimage to Mt. St. Macrina in Uniontown, coming up shortly, however.

God bless.
 
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.
The recent moto proprio allows Anglican Use Catholics to retain the ordination of married clergy. We’ll see more married men entering seminaries.

Oh, and a few married Eastern Catholic priests are granted Roman Faculties to be able to cover some of those gaps caused by the lack of Roman Vocations.
 
In my humble opinion there are many husbands who would make great priest. I see it this way, why can’t the diocesis allow an outstanding member of the community who has proven to have education, knowledge and other qualities be allowed to be ordained? This would really help out the parish priest with the sacraments and celebrating Mass. I know my parish priest has to celebrate 3 masses on Sunday and the parish is currently considering opening up another time slot for another mass, and he is the only priest for our parish. I see it has the “reserves” why not have a few good men who are married become priest to atleast celebrate mass and also do the sacraments, I think this would be a great help on our “full-time” priest.
 
The recent moto proprio allows Anglican Use Catholics to retain the ordination of married clergy. We’ll see more married men entering seminaries.
As it stands only the Anglican/Episcopalian ministers converting will have the opportunity (on a case by case basis) to seek ordination. Currently there is doubt that their married seminarians will be able to continue.
In my humble opinion there are many husbands who would make great priest. I see it this way, why can’t the diocesis allow an outstanding member of the community who has proven to have education, knowledge and other qualities be allowed to be ordained? This would really help out the parish priest with the sacraments and celebrating Mass. I know my parish priest has to celebrate 3 masses on Sunday and the parish is currently considering opening up another time slot for another mass, and he is the only priest for our parish. I see it has the “reserves” why not have a few good men who are married become priest to atleast celebrate mass and also do the sacraments, I think this would be a great help on our “full-time” priest.
We have enough “part-time priests” as it is, thanks. Starting some time in the early 1900’s (perhaps earlier) the idea that the priesthood was a career or job started to take root rather deeply (as seen in Bing’s portrayal of Fr O’Malley in “Going My Way”). This weakening of the theology and culture of the priesthood led the vocations boom and bust of the 1960-1970s.

There is a great need to rediscover the depth of the theology and spirituality of the priesthood before considering any sweeping changes in the discipline of celibacy.
 
No priest can get married, ever.
Technically that’s not true. Once ordained a priest, a man is a priest forever. If he chooses to leave active ministry and the Holy Father releases him from his promise of celibacy he is a priest who is free to marry within the Church.
 
First:

The only authority who can decide if one is called to the diaconate, priesthood or the bishopric is the Church. The individual does not determine that he is called. He can say that he believes that he is called. However, the confirmation must come from the local bishop, if the man is a secular or from his brothers, if the man is a member of a religious order. If there is no such confirmation, then there is no call. This has been the rule of the Church since its foundation. To have a vocation to the priesthood, one must be called by the Church. An attraction to the priesthood or the presence of holiness and skills is not a call. We have many men in religious orders who have presented themselves to their superiors asking to be ordained and have been turned down for ordination. Nonetheless, the law mandates that they remain in religious life once they have made perpetual vows. Through the superior and the brotherhood, Christ communicates that the man is called to the consecrated life, but not to the priesthood. The same is true of the man who is married. The bishop deems that a man is called to the sacrament of marriage, but not to Holy Orders. Christ speaks through the bishop or the major superior.

Second:

The Roman Church has an ancient tradition of celibacy for the ordained. However, that tradition is not a doctrine. It is a discipline that dates back to Saints Peter and Paul. During the early days of the Roman Church, we ordained married men and celibate men. But as time passed, the number of celibate men increased. Celibacy gradually became one of the several disciplines required of Roman and Maronite Catholic priests. This phenomenon did not take place in the other Catholic Churches. Therefore, the discipline is does not exist in those Churches.

Third:

Because celibacy is a discipline, the Church has the power and authority to dispense from it. There are some conditions that must be understood. First, the Church may never dispense from it for a man who is called to the consecrated life. Celibacy is not a discipline for the consecrated life, it is essential. Therefore, a man who is called to be a Jesuit, must be celibate. Along with the call to be a priest, he has also received a call to the consecrated life as a Jesuit religious. The Church does not have the authority to allow someone to be a Jesuit without being celibate. Religious life is its own doctrine, in which celibacy is essential. Second, a man who is called to be a priest, but remain a secular man, must conform to the disciplines in place for the ordination of secular men. These men usually join a diocese and are known as diocesan priests. Some may join a society, such as the SSPX, Maryknoll, Missionhurst, FSSF, Christ the King and a few others that are for secular priests. They must conform to the discipline of the Church. Third, a dispensation is does not mean that the discipline is not in effect. It means that the person cannot fulfill the requirements of the discipline for good reason. The Church, in her mercy, grants the dispensation for the salvation of the person’s soul. She is not granting the dispensation for the sake of getting more priests.

Fourth:

The Church may dispense an ordained man to marry, but there is a trade. Even if a man is a secular deacon, secular priest, or secular bishop, he cannot marry, if he wishes to remain in ministry. Therefore, if you are single at the time that you are ordained a deacon, you must first make the promise of celibacy, before the bishop can ordain you. If you are married, you must promise to remain celibate, should you get divorced or become a widower. You then proceed to the other Orders within the sacrament, as allowed by the local bishop and canon law. However, if you are dispensed from the promise of celibacy and released from the ministry, you remain a deacon, priest or bishop, but you may return to live AS IF you were a layman and you can validly marry. This is also known as laicization. You never become a layman. The term is actually misleading. You live AS IF you were a layman.

Although there is no doctrine on the matter, all of the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches agree that no married priest may ever be ordained a bishop. This discipline entered the Church during the early centuries (I can’t recall when) when the bishops were selected from among the monks. Because the monks were consecrated religious, they had vows of celibate chastity. Therefore, the bishops were celibate. This too can be changed by the proper authorities.

Fifth:

The Pastoral Provision is licit because the Apostolic See has the authority to lift the requirement when necessary. In the case of men who convert from another Christian faith and have been clergymen in that other faith, the provision states that the canons do not retroactively apply to these men. It would be unfair to say to them that they had to choose between marriage and priesthood, because at the time that they chose to marry, they were not Catholic. Ministry and marriage were available to them. This choice was not applicable to them.

The Church has to deal with these men in their condition when they enter the Church, unlike the person who was born into the Catholic faith. In other words, the canons are applicable only from the day that you become a Catholic and only those canons that can be applied. Laws are never applied retroactively and some laws do not apply at all to certain people. An excellent example of this is marriage. Two Baptists who become Catholic are validly married, even though they never married in the Catholic Church. The requirement to marry in the Catholic faith for validity is not applicable retroactively. You cannot say that now that they are Catholic, their marriage is invalid. It remains very valid.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Celibacy gradually became one of the several disciplines required of Roman and Maronite Catholic priests. This phenomenon did not take place in the other Catholic Churches. Therefore, the discipline is does not exist in those Churches.
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.
 
As it stands only the Anglican/Episcopalian ministers converting will have the opportunity (on a case by case basis) to seek ordination. Currently there is doubt that their married seminarians will be able to continue.

We have enough “part-time priests” as it is, thanks. Starting some time in the early 1900’s (perhaps earlier) the idea that the priesthood was a career or job started to take root rather deeply (as seen in Bing’s portrayal of Fr O’Malley in “Going My Way”). This weakening of the theology and culture of the priesthood led the vocations boom and bust of the 1960-1970s.

There is a great need to rediscover the depth of the theology and spirituality of the priesthood before considering any sweeping changes in the discipline of celibacy.
I think you got my statement totally incorrect. I wasn’'t talking about priest who took the life of a priest and only do it hald their “job” I never said or see the priesthood as a career. But as one poster stated that many of us are products of our times and where celebicy was pushed to a side and sexuality was embraced, it is difficult for many of us to accept a life like celibacy. As I stated before I am sure there are many married men who would make great priest even better than some out there. Do I feel the celibacy requirement is wrong? Perhaps to a certain degree I do, but does not make me a bad Catholic. But I do agree with you that there is a great need to rediscover the true theology and spirituality of the priesthood, but what I dislike that any talk of married clergy is quickly pushed to a side as a “taboo” instead of exploring and reaserching the pro and con.
 
I think you got my statement totally incorrect. I wasn’'t talking about priest who took the life of a priest and only do it hald their “job” I never said or see the priesthood as a career. But as one poster stated that many of us are products of our times and where celebicy was pushed to a side and sexuality was embraced, it is difficult for many of us to accept a life like celibacy. As I stated before I am sure there are many married men who would make great priest even better than some out there. Do I feel the celibacy requirement is wrong? Perhaps to a certain degree I do, but does not make me a bad Catholic. But I do agree with you that there is a great need to rediscover the true theology and spirituality of the priesthood, but what I dislike that any talk of married clergy is quickly pushed to a side as a “taboo” instead of exploring and reaserching the pro and con.
I didn’t say you were a bad Catholic.

The focus on sexuality in the Greco-Roman world was perhaps as pervasive as it is today, yet it didn’t stop the hermits and monastics. To blame “missed” vocations wholesale on the sexual revolution is, in my honest opinion, complete nonsense. There is something much deeper underlying the vocations crisis, as the fluctuation began before the sexual revolt.

By alluding to potential married priests as “part-time priests” you do refer to the priesthood as external to the priest, defined by action not being. That is on par with saying one can be a Catholic on Sunday at Mass, but do your own thing the rest of the week. This is why I compared your “part time priests” with the priests who act as though they are priests part-of-the-time.

Given the disruptive nature such changes would have we need to understand the spirituality and theology *before *we can look at changes. We have to understand the charism of celibacy before we opt to abandon it, which is why the 2005 Synod said that: " Some people have referred to the “viri probati” but this hypothesis was evaluated as a way to not go."
 
Brother JR,

Thank you!!

I was hoping that you would pop into this thread and share your wisdom!😃

Peace be with you!
 
The Roman Church has an ancient tradition of celibacy for the ordained. However, that tradition is not a doctrine. It is a discipline that dates back to Saints Peter and Paul. During the early days of the Roman Church, we ordained married men and celibate men. But as time passed, the number of celibate men increased. Celibacy gradually became one of the several disciplines required of Roman and Maronite Catholic priests. This phenomenon did not take place in the other Catholic Churches. Therefore, the discipline is does not exist in those Churches.
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?
 
One should note as well that a dispensation to remarry and remain in ministry can be granted to widowered priests. The Byzantine Rite has a long standing tradition of doing so if there are small children. Such dispensations are a patriarchal function, in those churches with patriarchs.

I know also of a Roman Rite deacon who was permitted to remarry after his wife’s death, and continues in Ministry. His remarriage was approved by Pope John Paul II. There were school age children.

Such remarriage by widower clerics is seen as an economia; an accommodation to human frailty that, by bending a rule, prevents them from falling into mortal sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top