Married priests

[Andreas_Hofer]

The descriptions of actual situations that work (wife gets paid to be administrator, tuition is free, etc.) are compelling.

But so is the point that we usually forget about our ungrounded assumption that a parish will have only one priest. Many parishes that used to have 3 or 4 priests now have only one. Even restoring them to their full contingent of celibate clergy would cost more, and then adding in families could very well become burdensome.

Of course, if it comes down to making a decision as to allowing married clergy, I don’t think think the money question should come into play. Either it will be spiritually beneficial to the Church or it won’t. If it’s truly something good, we’ll have to come up with the money whether we like it or not.

 

[otm]

and we are all making the assumption that a priest can only be in a parish? And that all he can do is parish administration? Why do we assume that if we had more priests, some of them might not have another job, in addition to their priesthood?

In fact, many do. They work at the Chancery. They teach. Some have medical degrees, others have legal dgrees and are admitted to the bar.

And before you go off the deep end responding negatively, don’t we have a biblical model in Paul? Was he not a priest? And did he not say that he was a tent maker, and practiced that trade specifically so that some of the communities would not have to support him?

And we have deacons who are ordained, and have full time jobs.

So?

 

[agname]

otm:

and we are all making the assumption that a priest can only be in a parish? And that all he can do is parish administration? Why do we assume that if we had more priests, some of them might not have another job, in addition to their priesthood?

In fact, many do. They work at the Chancery. They teach. Some have medical degrees, others have legal dgrees and are admitted to the bar.

And before you go off the deep end responding negatively, don’t we have a biblical model in Paul? Was he not a priest? And did he not say that he was a tent maker, and practiced that trade specifically so that some of the communities would not have to support him?

And we have deacons who are ordained, and have full time jobs.

So?

You’re mixing diocesan with religious orders…there are different vows…you are also mixing up the duties of deacons, etc.

 

[agname]

Finally…not only are there the financial repercussions…but the focus of the priest will no doubt shift away from his priestly duties.

As Paul stated…1 Corinthians 7:7-38:

7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion . . .
20 Every one should remain in the state in which he was called . . . . .
27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage.
28 But if you marry, you do not sin . . . Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . .
32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
33 But the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord . . .
38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

Jesus stated…

“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

 

[agname]

For a good read on celibacy…

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ109.HTM

 

[otm]

agname:

You’re mixing diocesan with religious orders…there are different vows…you are also mixing up the duties of deacons, etc.

No, I am not mixing anything up. We have diocesan priests teaching in our Catholic high school (which, by the way, may have an uncertain future, as the archdiocese has declared bankruptcy, and the school is owned by the diocese purportedly).

 

[otm]

agname:

Finally…not only are there the financial repercussions…but the focus of the priest will no doubt shift away from his priestly duties.

Maybe this comment gets to the jist of the question: what are his priestly duties? His priestly duties are to confect the Sacraments. Beyond that? We assume that much, if not most of what a priest does in terms of day to day running the parish is “priestly duty”, but it is Canon law which dictates that, and Canon law can change. And I’ve heard way too many stories about “priestly counseling”; some of them do far more harm than good.

agname:

As Paul stated…1 Corinthians 7:7-38:

7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion . . .
20 Every one should remain in the state in which he was called . . . . .
27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage.

A close look at these quotes shows their eschatalogical bent. Paul expected Christ to be coming back at any time, literally in his lifetime. It has nothing to do with being a married priest.

agname:

28 But if you marry, you do not sin . . . Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . .
32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
33 But the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,

If you take this to be part of an eschtalogical discourse, then it can make sense; Paul was out to convert the world, and would have everyone evangelizing full time. And since Christ was coming back shortly, there was no further need to concern oneself with marriage, as heaven awaited all. If you don’t accept the eschatalogical language, Paul is demeaning one of the Sacraments. And he is then indicating that marriage acts to pull one away from Christ… and I don’t think that is what he is saying.

And none of the quotes have anything to say about the fact that the Roiman rite in the past had a married clergy, and has them today by dispensation, and that the Eastern rites also have a married clergy.

The defense of celibacy looses its reasoning when it effectively demeans one of the other sacraments. People have different charisms; some marriage, some celibacy; some the priesthood married, some the priesthood celibate.

 

[loyola_rambler]

Andreas Hofer:

The descriptions of actual situations that work (wife gets paid to be administrator, tuition is free, etc.) are compelling.

But so is the point that we usually forget about our ungrounded assumption that a parish will have only one priest. Many parishes that used to have 3 or 4 priests now have only one. Even restoring them to their full contingent of celibate clergy would cost more, and then adding in families could very well become burdensome.

Of course, if it comes down to making a decision as to allowing married clergy, I don’t think think the money question should come into play. Either it will be spiritually beneficial to the Church or it won’t. If it’s truly something good, we’ll have to come up with the money whether we like it or not.

No one’s forgetting that there are huge parishes that need many priests. The point is, though, that there are also thousands of smaller parishes that don’t need a large staff and where a married priest, just like the married deacons, can be a major benefit.

If one married couple takes on a parish in middle America, then the younger, unmarried, celibate priests are freed up to work in the larger parishes. Moreover, for all those young men who’ve passed up their callling to vocations, having a married priest to show that there is a compelling call that needn’t be ignored might draw more and more men into the priesthood.

 

[agname]

otm:

Maybe this comment gets to the jist of the question: what are his priestly duties? His priestly duties are to confect the Sacraments. Beyond that? We assume that much, if not most of what a priest does in terms of day to day running the parish is “priestly duty”, but it is Canon law which dictates that, and Canon law can change. And I’ve heard way too many stories about “priestly counseling”; some of them do far more harm than good.

A close look at these quotes shows their eschatalogical bent. Paul expected Christ to be coming back at any time, literally in his lifetime. It has nothing to do with being a married priest.

If you take this to be part of an eschtalogical discourse, then it can make sense; Paul was out to convert the world, and would have everyone evangelizing full time. And since Christ was coming back shortly, there was no further need to concern oneself with marriage, as heaven awaited all. If you don’t accept the eschatalogical language, Paul is demeaning one of the Sacraments. And he is then indicating that marriage acts to pull one away from Christ… and I don’t think that is what he is saying.

And none of the quotes have anything to say about the fact that the Roiman rite in the past had a married clergy, and has them today by dispensation, and that the Eastern rites also have a married clergy.

The defense of celibacy looses its reasoning when it effectively demeans one of the other sacraments. People have different charisms; some marriage, some celibacy; some the priesthood married, some the priesthood celibate.

Re-read Paul’s and Jesus’s remarks slowly.

Celibacy is a discipline. If you don’t like the rule…don’t become a priest. In certain Eastern Rites…married men can be ordained to both the deaconate and to the priesthood, but not to the episcopacy. Marriage is not allowed after ordination in any of the three positions.

The Syro-Malabar Rite…the Abyssinians…the Syrians…and the Copts all adhere to the Western style of celibacy.

 

[agname]

Interesting…

Recruitment to the priesthood and celibacy do not appear to be linked. In the Church of Scotland, where there is no celibacy rule, the number of applicants to the ministry dropped by 70% between 1992 and 1999.

References
Alapadre Catholic Web Site (www.alapadre.net)

Catechism of the Catholic Church 915, 1579, 1580, 1599, 2349.

 

[agname]

otm:

No, I am not mixing anything up. We have diocesan priests teaching in our Catholic high school (which, by the way, may have an uncertain future, as the archdiocese has declared bankruptcy, and the school is owned by the diocese purportedly).

Yes, you are…there are different vows…responsibilities, etc.

If your Diocese is having financial problems…donate money.

If you need to learn more about celibacy…see:

newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

 

[agname]

Good points made by a Scottish site…expands upon what I’ve already stated.

Jesus Christ lived a celibate life. It is appropriate that priests be likened to Christ in this lifestyle. Celibacy is not a point of doctrine but a church discipline.

Celibacy is a sign of contradiction, as are the other priestly vows of poverty and obedience. In a world which prizes power, wealth and sex above all things, obedience, poverty and chastity (the opposite virtues) are a powerful witness that there is more to life than the pursuit of pleasure, there is another dimension.

Chastity enables a person to serve the whole community; it liberates the priest from the responsibilities of family life and makes him fully available to the Church, able to move from role to role and place to place quickly and without ties.

The practicalities of a priest’s life make it almost impossible to reconcile with family duties. A priest must be available 24 hours a day; share in people’s crises; hear their innermost thoughts, feelings and confessions. In addition priests earn very little, not enough to support children, and often be moved many times in their first 15 years of ministry.

Celibacy is not an imposition, it is a free choice made by a man after seven years of seminary training and discernment. It is chosen by the priest.

To those who say that regular instances of priests breaking the vow of celibacy mean the rule should be abolished, one can reply that even more regular lapses by married men in keeping their vows should mean marriage is abolished.

 

[agname]

CELIBACY ISN’T THE PROBLEM
by Cardinal John J. O’Connor

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/CELIPROB.TXT

 

[agname]

Finally…read…

The Biblical Foundation of Priestly Celibacy
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_bfoun_en.html

Our Apostolic Fathers (Tertullian, Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, Clement of Alexandria, etc.) are quite clear on celibacy.

 

[Dad_of_5]

He’s completely legitimate. There are no issues. Why would I react?

kaygee:

Say the new priest at your Roman parish turned out to be a bi-ritual eastern Catholic or a former protestant minister who converted and was subsequently ordained a Catholic priest. . . and, as such, is a validly married man and a priest-- with children – how would you react to him?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

kaygee:

Say the new priest at your Roman parish turned out to be a bi-ritual eastern Catholic or a former protestant minister who converted and was subsequently ordained a Catholic priest. . . and, as such, is a validly married man and a priest-- with children – how would you react to him?

As a Byzantine Catholic I must comment. Most bi-ritual priest are the other way around. That is they are Latin priests who are bi-ritual with the east. Not a whole lot of eastern priests being bi-ritual with the Latin Church.

That being said. I highly doubt an Eastern Bishop would release a priest to work in a Latin parish as we are hurting just as bad, if not worse, for vocations.

 

[loyola_rambler]

agname:

CELIBACY ISN’T THE PROBLEM
by Cardinal John J. O’Connor

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/CELIPROB.TXT

Frankly, the author of the article is one of the biggest problems with the Church today. The cardinal needs to just go away and we need to clean up his messes and start rebuilding. As long as the taint continues, there’ s no healing at all. No healing==>no rebuilding==>decreased vocations==>continued focus on the scandals==>no positive media on the good side of the priesthood==>more talk about the need to have a married clergy==>the firming of people’s conviction that celibacy is the root cause of the evils in our Church today==>No healing…vicious circle!

 

[otm]

I am curious as to why you think Cardinal O’Connor is a problem to the Church?

 

[loyola_rambler]

otm:

I am curious as to why you think Cardinal O’Connor is a problem to the Church?

He had YEARS to address the pedophilia issues. Instead, he turned a blind eye and obfuscated the situation hoping it would never rear its head in public. When it did become public scandal, he didn’t handle the situation with any skill at all. Instead, he became the center of the scandal and could not control the clergy. It was completely mishandled and there was an excellent example in the AD of Chicago about how it should have been handled and the policies/procedures that should have been implemented. Had he followed the Bernadin procedures, I absolutely believe the scandal wouldn’t have exploded and the confidence in the clergy wouldn’t have disappeared.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

loyola rambler:

He had YEARS to address the pedophilia issues.

This is an error that has been pushed by the media and those who wish to destroy the Church.

I am not making any excuses for the clergy sex scandal but it was no worse than what happens in the rest of the world today. What was bad was that apparant cover up that took place in some of the cases.

That being said, the clergy sex scandal was not pedophilia.

Here is the definition.

pedophilia: psychosexual disorder in which an adult’s arousal and sexual gratification occur primarily through sexual contact with prepubescent children.

As you can see, pedophilia deals with sexual contact with prepubescent children. I have not heard of many of the cases being with children such as this. So it was not pedophilia and no, that does not make it right, but it does make the issue different. It has more to do with homosexual behavior than pedophilia.