More married priests into RCC?

[dixieagle]

We should all take a step back and laugh at ourselves on this one. I’ll tell you why.

First: This sounds like the argument between Peter and Paul about the Gentiles. It’s OK for them to convert to Catholicism, but it’s not OK for them to have the same rights as we have.

Second: The Catholic Church is a Church of converts. Mary and the Apostles were converts. They were born Jews. The first generation of Church Fathers were converts. They were born Roman and Greek pagans.

Through the centuries, we have had many priests and religious who were converts. I’m a Hebrew Catholic. Not all converts ask to be ordained. I’m trying to remember the name of the popular apologist who was an Anglican priest, converted to Catholicism but did not become a Catholic priest. He wrote the book, The Crucified Rabbi.

Scott Hahn and Marcus Grodi are former Protestant ministers. Hahn is now a lay theologian and Grodi a lay evangelist.

As for the wife and kids, it’s been my experience that the wife and kids take up no more time than does a religious community. I was the Director of Pastoral Care for a ministry in a large diocese. I had many priests under me. About 60% were diocesan and 40% were regular. Among the diocesan there were three married priests who had come in from the Episcopal Church. The regular priests were less available than the married priests.

A married priest can tell his wife that he’s late for dinner because he had to spend an extra 15 minutes in the confessional. She may be upset, because supper gets cold, but she gets over it. When a regular priest tells his religious superior that he had to stay 15 minutes later in the confessional and asks to be excused for being late for dinner, he gets an “OK” the first time. The second time, he gets “Again?” The third time, he may get order, “You will leave that confessional and report for diner on time.”

I could send my married priests across the country without a problem. I could not send my regular priests without their superior’s permission. The permission was not always granted, even for the sake of the ministry. If the superior felt that there was not a good enough reason to travel away from the community, that man did not go. Even though the ministry paid the religious community a stipend for that man’s services. The contract made it clear that the superior had the last word and go the check. That’s not the usual case with married clergy.

Finally, we just have to learn from the Eastern Catholics. They have lived with married clergy for ccenturies. Many of those priests are former Orthodox priests who convert to Catholicism. It’s the same thing.

When we lose the sense of human dignity, we begin to evaluate people by what they do and not by what they are. Their value becomes proportionate to the benefit that we derive from them. That’s very dangerous. That’s how the culture of death stays alive. Doing is more important than being.

As always, best post in the thread.

 

[GEddie]

Where are we going to get the money to pay the salaries to these celibate priests whom we want to work for us 24/7?

And adding a wife and children to this economic equation helps how?

 

[dixieagle]

And adding a wife and children to this economic equation helps how?

Very often the wives of married priests have jobs as well. For example, the wife of a long-time local former Episcopal/now Catholic priest is a physician.

 

[JReducation]

Agree completely. I’m just wondering why you think that they have more priestly vocations? Maybe it’s a Latin thing (as in Latin peoples vs Anglo-Saxon)?

And adding a wife and children to this economic equation helps how?

It’s no different than having a religious order running your parish. Normally, a parish is identified as an X number of men parish. Let’s say a two man parish.

The bishop invites the Pallotines to take over the parish. He tells them that it’s a two man parish. This means that the parish will pay for salary and upkeep of two men. However, the Pallotines have a rule that says no less than three men can live together. The superior assigns four men to the house. They have to take the two salaries, send a percentage to the Mother House, which is used for the care of the older Pallotines, the education of the younger ones, and the maintenance of the Mother House, which does not generate income. It only spends money. So now you have four men living on 1.75 salary.

The Pallotines can do this, because they have vowed poverty. They can share a car, hae only one telephone line, no have their individual TVs and cable services, as well as individual internet services.

But that’s not the case with secular priests.

They have to get enough money for each of them to have a car, pay insurance, pay taxes, pay social security, pay their cell phone, have their own cable TV, internet, computer and TV. They don’t make a vow of chastity. Therefore, they have no obligations to live in community and to share everything. They are secular men. They have a right to own property and a right to have the comforts that other secular men in their culture enjoy. They also don’t have anywhere to go when they retire. They have to pay for that. Each diocese has a retirement fund, but that’s a small monthly pension. If the priest cannot afford to purchase his home, he can go to a Catholic nursing home where they will charge him very little, but who wants to do that if they’re healthy?

If we’re not going to provide for those needs, then we don’t have a right to demand that level of service either. We have to accept what these men can give us.

 

[choliks]

It’s no different than having a religious order running your parish. Normally, a parish is identified as an X number of men parish. Let’s say a two man parish.

The bishop invites the Pallotines to take over the parish. He tells them that it’s a two man parish. This means that the parish will pay for salary and upkeep of two men. However, the Pallotines have a rule that says no less than three men can live together. The superior assigns four men to the house. They have to take the two salaries, send a percentage to the Mother House, which is used for the care of the older Pallotines, the education of the younger ones, and the maintenance of the Mother House, which does not generate income. It only spends money. So now you have four men living on 1.75 salary.

The Pallotines can do this, because they have vowed poverty. They can share a car, hae only one telephone line, no have their individual TVs and cable services, as well as individual internet services.

But that’s not the case with secular priests.

They have to get enough money for each of them to have a car, pay insurance, pay taxes, pay social security, pay their cell phone, have their own cable TV, internet, computer and TV. They don’t make a vow of chastity. Therefore, they have no obligations to live in community and to share everything. They are secular men. They have a right to own property and a right to have the comforts that other secular men in their culture enjoy. They also don’t have anywhere to go when they retire. They have to pay for that. Each diocese has a retirement fund, but that’s a small monthly pension. If the priest cannot afford to purchase his home, he can go to a Catholic nursing home where they will charge him very little, but who wants to do that if they’re healthy?

If we’re not going to provide for those needs, then we don’t have a right to demand that level of service either. We have to accept what these men can give us.

Did you mean, “poverty”, Brother?

 

[Melchior_1]

It’s no different than having a religious order running your parish. Normally, a parish is identified as an X number of men parish. Let’s say a two man parish.

The bishop invites the Pallotines to take over the parish. He tells them that it’s a two man parish. This means that the parish will pay for salary and upkeep of two men. However, the Pallotines have a rule that says no less than three men can live together. The superior assigns four men to the house. They have to take the two salaries, send a percentage to the Mother House, which is used for the care of the older Pallotines, the education of the younger ones, and the maintenance of the Mother House, which does not generate income. It only spends money. So now you have four men living on 1.75 salary.

The Pallotines can do this, because they have vowed poverty. They can share a car, hae only one telephone line, no have their individual TVs and cable services, as well as individual internet services.

But that’s not the case with secular priests.

They have to get enough money for each of them to have a car, pay insurance, pay taxes, pay social security, pay their cell phone, have their own cable TV, internet, computer and TV. They don’t make a vow of chastity. Therefore, they have no obligations to live in community and to share everything. They are secular men. They have a right to own property and a right to have the comforts that other secular men in their culture enjoy. They also don’t have anywhere to go when they retire. They have to pay for that. Each diocese has a retirement fund, but that’s a small monthly pension. If the priest cannot afford to purchase his home, he can go to a Catholic nursing home where they will charge him very little, but who wants to do that if they’re healthy?

If we’re not going to provide for those needs, then we don’t have a right to demand that level of service either. We have to accept what these men can give us.

To add, some Societies of Apostolic Life have community living within their statutes. The FSSP do, and the Companions of the Cross have at least three people in each of their parishes.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The married priest has to divide that time to take care of his wife and children. The celibate priest has all the time to himself.

You (and others) are assuming that married priests have children to take care of. This certainly does not have to be the case. What if the priest and his devoted post menopausal wife have no children? In that case, it sounds like the Church is getting a two-for-one deal.

I’ve always been of the opinion that it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis for those already Catholic. The celibate situation should be preferred, but if a married Catholic man is a perfect fit for a priest given his particular circumstances, he should not be utterly excluded.

 

[JReducation]

Did you mean, “poverty”, Brother?

No. I mean chastity. Secular clergy do not make a vow of chastity. They promise celibacy. That’s not the same thing. Chastity includes celibacy and community life. Your religious community becomes your family. Celibacy means that you will not marry, but you remain a member of your biological family. Your canonical and legal status does not change.

When you make a vow of chastity, your canonical status changes. You’re no longer a member of the Smith Family. You’re now a member of the Dominican Family, etc.

Your legal status changes, because since you’re no longer a member of the Smith Family, when your parents die, you do not have any right to an inheritance. Whereas a secular priest has a right to his share of the inheritance, because he remains a legal member of his family.

Poverty has to do with ownership of property. Chastity has to do with our relationships.

To add, some Societies of Apostolic Life have community living within their statutes. The FSSP do, and the Companions of the Cross have at least three people in each of their parishes.

In their case, they have what is called “The Common Table”. This means that the income has to be divided equally between them. Since they are secular priests, they are justly entitled to be paid for their services. The society makes a financial agreement with the diocese.

It can be that the diocese will pay for each man. The diocese will pay for 2.5 men and the society places 3 there or the society agrees to take two salaries and divide them by three.

Religious communities don’t have those options.

There is another point here that people don’t often think about when speaking about a parish priest. It’s the issue of justice, which goes beyond financial compensation.

One has to ask himself, is it fair to expect Father A to be available 70 hours a week, because he’s a parish priest, but Father B who teaches at the university has a 24 hour week and makes $80K a year? Then there is Father C who is a Franciscan and works 40 hour weeks, because he has obligations with his religious community.

They’re all priests. Father A had the misfortune of being assigned to your parish when he really wanted to be a lawyer at the tribunal, but there was no opening, so he has to wait. Maybe he had the misfortune of being assigned to your parish where want him to be available on demand, instead of her parish where she’s more accepting of the fact that he’s a human being like everyone else and needs to get away from the office every day.

Marriage is not the major factor here. The determining factors in how much a priest can be available to a parish are too many.

 

[choliks]

No. I mean chastity. Secular clergy do not make a vow of chastity. They promise celibacy. That’s not the same thing. Chastity includes celibacy and community life. Your religious community becomes your family. Celibacy means that you will not marry, but you remain a member of your biological family. Your canonical and legal status does not change.

When you make a vow of chastity, your canonical status changes. You’re no longer a member of the Smith Family. You’re now a member of the Dominican Family, etc.

Your legal status changes, because since you’re no longer a member of the Smith Family, when your parents die, you do not have any right to an inheritance. Whereas a secular priest has a right to his share of the inheritance, because he remains a legal member of his family.

Poverty has to do with ownership of property. Chastity has to do with our relationships.

Got it! A deeper meaning to chastity I didn’t know. Thanks for this brother.

 

[maryjk]

Got it! A deeper meaning to chastity I didn’t know. Thanks for this brother.

I always learn something when he posts.

 

[Eufrosnia]

You (and others) are assuming that married priests have children to take care of. This certainly does not have to be the case. What if the priest and his devoted post menopausal wife have no children? In that case, it sounds like the Church is getting a two-for-one deal.

I’ve always been of the opinion that it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis for those already Catholic. The celibate situation should be preferred, but if a married Catholic man is a perfect fit for a priest given his particular circumstances, he should not be utterly excluded.

The issue I see with the above is that if that is indeed the position we should take, then we should take the same position regarding our own faithful. But we don’t.

 

[LINVS]

I think it’s a positive thing. Converts bring a lot passion to the faith. Priests should be celebate, but these men found the faith later in life and the state of vocations is such that we really need them.

 

[GEddie]

I believe the witness of a celibate priesthood is desperately needed now, and for that reason should be maintained. The world needs to see that there is life beyond sexuality!

However, there is nothing wrong with exceptions for those entering the Church with life achievements it can use. Exceptions do not negate a rule!

ICXC NIKA

 

[JReducation]

The issue I see with the above is that if that is indeed the position we should take, then we should take the same position regarding our own faithful. But we don’t.

But we cannot do that with our men in the Latin Church. Peter has spoken on this matter. The matter is closed unless Peter wishes to reopen it. It’s not even worth discussing it, since it is not in our power to change it and we have no right to disagree.

Pope Paul VI made this very clear. We have a moral duty to submit to the Pope’s decisions and to accept them are binding on us. I don’t really see why Latin Catholics would even want to discuss something that they have no right to discuss. Bl. John Paul II made it very clear that this is not an option for those born into the Roman Catholic Church.

I feel that some people have a need to discuss everything that the popes tell us “Case Closed”. I’m remembering when I was a child. If my mother said, “Case Closed” and we continued to discuss it, my father would come behind and blast you out of your shoes. This was his wife and she had spoken.

I wonder if Christ doesn’t feel the same about us and how we try to ignore his bride or second guess her every step of the way.

 

[JReducation]

I believe the witness of a celibate priesthood is desperately needed now, and for that reason should be maintained. The world needs to see that there is life beyond sexuality!

However, there is nothing wrong with exceptions for those entering the Church with life achievements it can use. Exceptions do not negate a rule!

ICXC NIKA

I agree with you and we also have to remember that we have always had married Catholic priests. This is not new. There are 22 Catholic Churches that still ordain married men. Mandatory celibacy has been revealed for the good of the Latin Church. As you say, there are exceptions, but exceptions do not make the rule. They remain extraordinary.

Even in the Eastern Churches, the married priest is the exception not the norm. They value celibacy very highly. They have a great love and respect for religious. All religious are celibate.

They have the same tradition as the rest of the Church. Only celibate men can be bishops. The fullness of the priesthood is only for celibate men. This is a universal truth of the entire Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches as well.

 

[Saints_Alive]

What happened to the days when Catholics just accepted Catholicism and didn’t question centuries old guidelines ?

 

[BernadetteM]

My only experience with married priests, are from the Anglican/Episcopal church.

Some have parishes that are part of the Anglican Use and have not yet been allowed to enter the Ordinariate, which I find disgraceful, others are part of the US Ordinariate.

Actually, the ones I know are more faithful to the teachings of the Church than many of the priests at “liberal” parishes. One in particular is awaiting the birth of his 8th child. He has a lovely and active parish and they have just purchased an unused Catholic church and remoldold it to conform with a more traditional altar, with an altar rail etc.

I received a news letter from the parish informing people that with Obamacare it has created a moral dilemma for him as a Catholic as he won’t be part of any insurance coverage that offers contraception or abortion. I know the family must struggle and sacrifice greatly, however, his parishioners are 100% behind him.

He upholds the faith very firmly and has done a wonderful job of taking care of and growing his parish.

I think it doesn’t matter so much if one is celibate or married, it depends on the individual priest.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[JRKH]

But we cannot do that with our men in the Latin Church. Peter has spoken on this matter. The matter is closed unless Peter wishes to reopen it. It’s not even worth discussing it, since it is not in our power to change it and we have no right to disagree.

Pope Paul VI made this very clear. We have a moral duty to submit to the Pope’s decisions and to accept them are binding on us. I don’t really see why Latin Catholics would even want to discuss something that they have no right to discuss. Bl. John Paul II made it very clear that this is not an option for those born into the Roman Catholic Church.

I feel that some people have a need to discuss everything that the popes tell us “Case Closed”. I’m remembering when I was a child. If my mother said, “Case Closed” and we continued to discuss it, my father would come behind and blast you out of your shoes. This was his wife and she had spoken.

I wonder if Christ doesn’t feel the same about us and how we try to ignore his bride or second guess her every step of the way.

JR,
While I fundamentally agree with what you say above, I think that there are valid variations within it.
First - Yes Peter has spoken on the matter and that is binding. However - Peter can speak in different ways to something…In this case the matter is seen as one of discipline not dogma and, as you say, Peter can choose to re-open it.

Secondly - I was raised in a similar environment as you……yet, depending on what the matter was, it would still be discussed among us kids and the subject possibly reopened with mom and dad later if and when circumstances seemed to have changed…
The same can be true within the Church body.

Third and related to the second - Discussion within the Church body on such matters, if done respectfully, can be healthy and educational. If one asks, “Why the Church does this or that”, such questions and followup discussion and debate is good - - So long as we remain submissive to Peter and speak charitably - even in debate.

The problem comes in when people stop asking questions and start making declarative statements that the Church wrong. I have not seen that on this thread. In fact I have not seen anyone being disrespectful of Peter on this matter. But perhaps I missed something.

Peace
James

 

[Inhimthroughher]

The main issue with “ministers” from other “faiths” coming in is as Priests is that their theology is wrong and is often not corrected. They rarely take more than a few classes and are are not prepared to shepherd souls. It takes a long time to live and study as a Catholic to understand the faith and much longer to teach it.

Saying that a man with a family running a parish is the same as a religious order running it is foolish. A man with a wife is preoccupied with her in a way a priest is not going to be occupied with his brother priests. Having responsibilities to small children is very different than having responsibilities to other adults.This is just speaking practically, the much more important reason is Theological. Christ was single and to better image Him, as Priest, one also should be single.

 

[Melchior_1]

The main issue with “ministers” from other “faiths” coming in is as Priests is that their theology is wrong and is often not corrected. They rarely take more than a few classes and are are not prepared to shepherd souls. It takes a long time to live and study as a Catholic to understand the faith and much longer to teach it.

This is a fairly large generalization, although the quotation marks give away your bias. I’m sure you have quantitative evidence to support this claim?

Saying that a man with a family running a parish is the same as a religious order running it is foolish.

You do know that Brother JR isn’t just a religious, he’s also a widower, right? He’s was married before becoming consecrated. That gives him some solid perspective, and firsthand experience the rest of us don’t have.

A man with a wife is preoccupied with her in a way a priest is not going to be occupied with his brother priests.

The key thing about “brother priests” (keeping in mind that not all the brothers are priests) is the word “brother”. They’re family. So when you have a household of seven brothers with one superior, you have a family with six kids and one parent.

Having responsibilities to small children is very different than having responsibilities to other adults

True, but it’s also very different having responsibilities to adult siblings.

This is just speaking practically, the much more important reason is Theological. Christ was single and to better image Him, as Priest, one also should be single.

I don’t feel comfortable with saying that married priests are lesser priests just because they have a vocation they share with a woman.

What do you call a priest who is married?

A priest.