More married priests into RCC?

[JReducation]

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

I’m not sure what I said to merit this response. If you go back, please read the post to which I was responding. The poster was calling into question the fact that the Latin Church does not do this for its faithful. She was not asking a question.

Asking a question, as you say, is very legitimate.

Discussing why we do or don’t do something is equally legitimate.

Calling authority into question, when the authority has been legitimately exercised, is inappropriate or displays a lack of understanding of authority.

 

[Inhimthroughher]

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

His subjective experience does not change objective reality.

The quotes are meant to speak to the fact that only the Catholic has the true faith and it’s true ministers. This must be believe by Catholics-because it is true.

Those who have leadership positions in other religions are usually not required, I have never heard of them being required, to enter a Catholic Seminary and take all of the same classes that would be that would regularly be taken.- They are usually given abbreviated courses, if any at all, especially if they have a family to support.

Brothers are very different than wives and children. Caring for an adults is very different than caring for children. I do admit there are some additional responsibilities for religious that run parishes-though very different in kind than those of a husband and a father–which is why it is not the norm for them to run parishes.

No one is saying they are a lesser priest but the duties they are able to fulfill are different. You can’t reduce a responsibility or duty simply to ontology,it is much more than that. A blind man is still a man but I don’t want him driving a car.

A priest needs to be free to give himself to the Church as Christ did. A Parish priest is to give Himself to the Church through the Parish, a wife and kids would restrict that freedom. Marriage and the Priesthood are not meant to be competing for the same man’s time and energy.

 

[Sarcelle]

What about it troubles you? I have no problems with a married priesthood. It’s an ancient practice and I think alot of good can come of it

I agree. The Church needs good priests, married or not.

 

[JReducation]

A priest needs to be free to give himself to the Church as Christ did. A Parish priest is to give Himself to the Church through the Parish, a wife and kids would restrict that freedom. Marriage and the Priesthood are not meant to be competing for the same man’s time and energy.

Marriage and priesthood do not compete anymore than religious life and priesthood. There are many priests who are religious. The duties of spouses are different from those of religious, but the two are equally demanding in terms of time and energy. I’ve been and both settings and can tell you that the amount of energy and time required of a religious and that of a dad are exactly the same. The difference is in that which is being required.

Secondly, a priest is a priest. Parish priest is his assignment, not his vocation. He can be a parish priest, a teaching priest, an administrator or a janitor. In fact, we have a priest in my community who is a janitor and we have another who runs a pregnancy center. Neither are married, because both are religious.

Finally, we have a tradition of married parish priests in the Catholic Church, just not in the Latin Church. The other 22 Catholic Churches have married parish priests. The issue at hand is that this is new to the Latin Church. The Roman Catholics have to get used to it and tweak some things here and there, just as the Eastern Catholics do. It’s not a big deal to do. As I said, we do it for religious.

My priests help out at parishes on Saturdays and Sundays. However, they know that at a certain time, they have to leave the confessional and return to the community house for community recreation. If there is a line, they apologize and ask people to return the following week or to make an appointment during the week to see the diocesan priest at the parish. The people are so used to this that non one gets upset. At first, they thought it was strange, because they thought that priests had to sit in the confessional until the line was over. The diocesan pastor of the parish explained that this is not the case, even for a diocesan priest. He hears confession from 4:00 to 5:00. At 5:00 he gets up and leaves, regardless of however many there are outside. He has a 5:30 mass.

My point is that there are always going to be conflicts in demands and schedules, etc. We adapt and make changes wherever we can do so. It’s not easy to change from what we are familiar to what is new, but it’s not as impossible as we think.

 

[Melchior_1]

His subjective experience does not change objective reality.

The objective reality, and in the eyes of the Church, is that joining the religious you become a member of a family. They are brothers in every sense except genetic. That’s where the word Friar comes from.

The quotes are meant to speak to the fact that only the Catholic has the true faith and it’s true ministers. This must be believe by Catholics-because it is true.

Yes, Catholicism has the fullness of Truth. However other ministers to partake in some elements of Truth, such as the one Baptism for the remission of sins.

Those who have leadership positions in other religions are usually not required, I have never heard of them being required, to enter a Catholic Seminary and take all of the same classes that would be that would regularly be taken.- They are usually given abbreviated courses, if any at all, especially if they have a family to support

Speaking of subjective, I bolded the subjective part of your statement.

Brothers are very different than wives and children. Caring for an adults is very different than caring for children. I do admit there are some additional responsibilities for religious that run parishes-though very different in kind than those of a husband and a father–which is why it is not the norm for them to run parishes.

Different, but still important. Again, these are siblings. This isn’t a symbolic thing, in the eyes of the Church they are family. There’s a reason why Franciscan priests are still called Brother.

No one is saying they are a lesser priest but the duties they are able to fulfill are different. You can’t reduce a responsibility or duty simply to ontology,it is much more than that. A blind man is still a man but I don’t want him driving a car.

Terrible analogy, because marriage doesn’t make a priest less of a priest. He can still perform all the Sacraments licitly and validly. Using your analogy the Eastern Church is going to be wrapping their cars around hydro poles.

But they aren’t, because being married isn’t like a blind man driving.

A priest needs to be free to give himself to the Church as Christ did. A Parish priest is to give Himself to the Church through the Parish, a wife and kids would restrict that freedom. Marriage and the Priesthood are not meant to be competing for the same man’s time and energy.

There’s a lot of things that compete for a priest’s time and attention. A wife and family isn’t the worse thing in the world, and can possibly motivate a priest to tend his flock better.

 

[GEddie]

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.

I agree with you that the case is closed; but come on, the faithful are not bad children to be stood in the corner, we have minds and it is only natural to use them.

If we were to take everything the Vatican said silently, there would be essentially no Catholic press.

I am reminded of an old Dr. Laura episode where she said (to a child): “Sure, tell your parents how you feel. Then do as they say.”

ICXC NIKA

 

[JReducation]

I agree with you that the case is closed; but come on, the faithful are not bad children to be stood in the corner, we have minds and it is only natural to use them.

If we were to take everything the Vatican said silently, there would be essentially no Catholic press.

I am reminded of an old Dr. Laura episode where she said (to a child): “Sure, tell your parents how you feel. Then do as they say.”

ICXC NIKA

I’ve never heard Dr. Laura; but I hear she’s quite a character.

In the case of the Church things can be a little different. There are times when the Holy See wants to hear from us what we feel and there are times when it does not.

If we pay close attention, there are several subjects on which the Holy See is not interested in hearing from us:

1. Abortion
2. Vatican II
3. Jews
4. Women’s ordination
5. Celibacy

I put them in order of gravity as far as the Holy See is concerned.

It’s always interesting, because we (religious men and priests) are always getting these marching orders from the Holy See on what we have to encourage the laity to do and what we should discourage. But the Holy See does not always understand that the laity hates us. The more we say, “Do this and don’t do that” the more the laity does the opposite.

I once told a cardinal that “either they hate us or they’re testing to see how long it will take for us to crack.” He just laughed and said, “Don’t worry about it. The laity has always hated the clergy and religious. It’s part of tradition.”

I never thought of it as part of tradition. But looking back, I guess it is. There has been this back and forth battle for almost 2,000 years and we’re still here. Go figure.

 

[epan]

Please share with us your evidence to support the claim that it “cannot be debated.”

Oops, I think you just started a debate on that.

 

[epan]

I’ve never heard Dr. Laura; but I hear she’s quite a character.

Of course, she is not actually a doctor, in any field. Just a person who likes to say that she is.

 

[GEddie]

Of course, she is not actually a doctor, in any field. Just a person who likes to say that she is.

Not even in psychology?

 

[Sarcelle]

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.

Another scenario is that a priest and his devoted wife could have children that are grown-up and independent.

 

[JReducation]

She has a PhD in psych from Columbia University and is a licensed therapist. That much I know from Who’s Who In American Mental Health, published by the Library of Congress.

But getting back to the topic. The only issue with ordaining married converts may be the subtle differences in saying things. What most people don’t know is that they go through a very rigorous academic testing period before they’re ordained. The don’t just walk in the door and get ordained. Many of them go through this as they’re in the process of transition. In other words, it’s part of the transition.

The Holy See finds very little difference between the TAC and the Latin Catholic priest. Just to clarify, Catholic priests need not have degrees in theology to be ordained. Most do not. Most have an M. Div. That’s not a theology degree. There is a very heavy dose of theology through the four years; however, it’s a practical or applied degree. They are not theologians/scholars.

To be a theologian one must have an MA and PhD or a STL or STD. Then you still have to get a letter from the local bishop that qualifies you as a theologian. The doctorate is like the MD. An person who graduates from Medical School is a Doctor of Medicine, but he’s not a physician until he completes his residency and passes his boards.

The priests coming over from the Anglicans and Episcopalians must pass an evaluation on their knowledge of the Catholic faith. They don’t have to be theologians anymore than a Catholic priest needs to be a theologian.

They must know the Catholic faith, profess it, have experience in pastoral care and meet the canonical requirements.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

. But the Holy See does not always understand that the laity hates us.

If by laity you mean non-Catholic pop culture, then true. If by laity you mean the non-religious/secular priest Catholics, then not true.

 

[JReducation]

What I see in this thread, is people concerned about how much these priests can give to the parish. In other words, no one has the guts to say, “I’m concerned about what I can get from these priests, because I can’t compete with their wives and children.”

Instead, people disguise the concern and make it look altruistic. They do such a good job that they convince themselves that they’re concerned about the good of the Church. Not even God can change what they have chosen to think.

The fact is that we have failed to address the fact that “a priest is a priest” regardless of how much or how little he does in a parish. We should be happy that God calls men to the ministerial priesthood.

No one has addressed the fact that these men have been called by Christ. We have danced around the subject that the Church has chosen to ordain these men who are not even cradle Catholics. How dare the Church do this to us?

Let’s forget that Christ calls them. Let’s forget that they have been chosen and focus on what they can’t give us, because they have to give it to their wives. Go figure out how does this mindset reflect real faith and a real understanding of vocation. The focus seems to be on the doing and not on being called.

Christ does the calling, not us. The Church is Christ’s voice. That simple.

 

[JReducation]

If by laity you mean non-Catholic pop culture, then true. If by laity you mean the non-religious/secular priest Catholics, then not true.

I mean non-ordained secular Catholics. I use hate not as in wish us evil, though some people would like to see us slip on a banana peal. We can’t say that every single Catholic throughout history has felt this way. We can certainly see that the norm throughout history has been for the laity to resist the religious and the clergy.

It’s a rather interesting relationship. I have a good friend who wrote his doctoral dissertation on “Why Catholics Love to Hate Priests and Religious” After reading it, I found some common threads in the relationship between laity and clergy/religious that can be found in marriage. Some couples love to fight. If they don’t fight, they’re not happy. They’ll argue about the color of butter. But it seems to keep them together.

I think that the laity wants to be engaged with the clergy and religious in a more intimate way. The laity does not like the distance. Unfortunately there have been two movements that have hurt people. One is clericalism, which puts such a distance between the two that opportunities to work together and share the faith are often lost.

The other movement is blending. The laity, clergy and religious all look like the same thing. The particular gifts of each group are not easily identifiable, if they’re present at all.

There has to be a moderate distance, to maintain identity. At the same time, there has to be fraternity to maintain the sense of unity. Since the first century, there has been a resistance on the part of the consecrated to too much closeness and an attempt on the part of the layman to want more contact.

When that does not happen, then conflict erupts. We have seen this conflict go on for centuries. You know what happens? When one does something for so long, it’s easy to forget how it all began. The struggle that that laity has with the clergy and religious is so old, that no one remembers that it began when the first consecrated men left the urban Church and went to the desert to seek silence and solitude. The urban Church interpreted it as rejection. It was taken so personally that it created resentment, while at the same time there was a fascination with this “new” way of life. It has been so long that we no longer remember how it began. Today, it’s just fashionable to resist the clergy and the religious, unless they conform to our idea of what they should be.

This is the problem that people are having with the acceptance of married converts to the priesthood. This does not conform to our image of what a priest should be. Rather than examine our image, we examine what Christ has done as if we had the right to question Christ’s choices.

 

[Eufrosnia]

What I see in this thread, is people concerned about how much these priests can give to the parish. In other words, no one has the guts to say, “I’m concerned about what I can get from these priests, because I can’t compete with their wives and children.”

Instead, people disguise the concern and make it look altruistic. They do such a good job that they convince themselves that they’re concerned about the good of the Church. Not even God can change what they have chosen to think.

The fact is that we have failed to address the fact that “a priest is a priest” regardless of how much or how little he does in a parish. We should be happy that God calls men to the ministerial priesthood.

No one has addressed the fact that these men have been called by Christ. We have danced around the subject that the Church has chosen to ordain these men who are not even cradle Catholics. How dare the Church do this to us?

Let’s forget that Christ calls them. Let’s forget that they have been chosen and focus on what they can’t give us, because they have to give it to their wives. Go figure out how does this mindset reflect real faith and a real understanding of vocation. The focus seems to be on the doing and not on being called.

Christ does the calling, not us. The Church is Christ’s voice. That simple.

Well I did bring up the idea of having to compete for time with their families and said that the fact that we as lay persons lose out on something was beyond dispute

Now as for the issue of recognizing that God has called them, my problem is with why not recognize that there might be people INSIDE the Roman Catholic Church who have been called in this way too? Such individuals inside the Church could surely do a better job than the converts because after all, they are more in-tune with and are aware of Roman Catholic devotions, sensibilities etc. So why are we so certain that there are none inside the Church? It seems like the same reasons that lead us to think there are those in the groups that convert should make us think there are ones inside the flock. Or if you want to insist on stressing the idea of “being called”, is there some doctrine that say that only those who are outside the Catholic Church get called in this very convenient way?

P.S. To tell you a story, I had a Catholic friend who wanted to change rites to a Byzantine rite (so that he can marry) and then change later on back to the Latin rite and be a married priest. I have lost touch with him so I have no idea if he is in the process of carrying it out but I think his case highlights an issue today. The Church’s current stance seems to say that those converts may have a calling to a married priesthood but those inside the Church certainly do not. If not for anything else, at least the stance it communicates seems to cause confusion/suspicion, yes?

EDIT: Only thing I can think of as an answer is that the Church believes the following. Those inside the Church, if called, would have answered the call and entered (or will enter) the celibate priesthood. The ones outside, out of no fault of their own, didn’t know that and entered marriage. So since we cannot dissolve the marriage now we should recognize their other vocation as well.

The issue with this line of reasoning is that it still acts on the idea that there are those who are called to both. Why? Because it is impossible that if someone will end up in a valid marriage even though they are not called (I mean called in the sense of providentially assigned) to marriage. It will undermine divine providence. So given that there are those who are called to both, why can’t there be any Roman Catholics who are called to both? Are we to postulate that simply being born Roman Catholic is God’s providential way of saying "you weren’t meant for two vocations?

But I guess that is still logically consistent and might indeed be the case. Because even if a Latin rite priest wanted to celebrate the liturgy like an Eastern rite, he cannot do so because the Latin rite liturgy is defined a certain way and he has been bound by Canon law to obey. So he was never meant by God to celebrate the Eastern rite liturgy though that liturgy is equally valid.

Now that I think more about it, if this is indeed the position of the Church (God in his Divine Providence has made sure that no Roman Catholic is called to two vocations while those outside are called in this way), I think I can actually accept that

 

[Melchior_1]

It’s almost like doctors who come from other countries, then enter North America. They are not allowed to practice medicine here until they get brought up to speed and the standards of the county’s medicine rules, regulations, and disciplines.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I think hate is too strong a word, except perhaps for the far left and far right (religiously not politically, necessarily) laity.

Maybe it’s who I hang out with, but I honestly don’t know any Catholics that “hate” priests/religious. I/we get a bit frustrated when they aren’t consistent. ( Obamacare slams laity? Silence [pretty much]. It slams the Church, 100% of bishops speak out against it. It appears self serving.). But “my crowd” are thankful for what they do (most supremely the Eucharist) and yes, who they are (their witness)

 

[clem456]

It’s interesting to look at priests and to appreciate the differences in their personalities and lifestyles.
We have a priest Father F who is very sociable, attends many weddings, graduations, has friends over to the house etc…the people he bonds with enrich his life and the parish, make it more vibrant, bring people to the Church. But he is not available for confessions and marriage appointments as easily due to his schedule. That’s who he is. It’s just who he is. I don’t want him to be someone else, even though I think he should jump when the RCIA team wants something for instance. I want him to be real, to be faithful to who he is in God’s eyes.

We have another guy Father M who is a real stick in the mud socially. He speaks to everyone and is kind and courteous, he just doesn’t warm up to people very easily. He’s not out having breakfast or going to people’s houses as much. But if I really have to go to confession I will grab Father M, cause he is all about being available for typical “priestly” things. People know not to be offended if Father M does not show up at the party,he might be at prayer.
It really is almost as if one priest is married and the other is not.

Both nourish the parish using the gifts they have. Both are who they are. If one of them serves the parish in ways that are not directly visible or discernable, but is really enriching the flock, why should I worry about that?

Same for me at work. If I was not married I would be a work machine. I could get so much more done. I would also be impoverished, and that would show itself very quickly. The enterprise would suffer for all the wrong spiritual reasons.

 

[QuestingKnight]

I would say it’s people’s demons that cause them to hate priests and religious. Also, a celibate priest in uniform is a living rebuke to sinners. Like the kid who’s ‘different’ in school, you’re gonna get a few whacks and you must be prepared to bash back!

I get the sense some Catholics really want married RC clergy because they think it would be ‘nice’, like how they imagine Anglican clergy are.

I take the view that family adds complication and that celibacy is an offering to God.

Also, we should revisist why celibate clergy were introduced in the first place and see if
those reasons still hold true. And take the trouble to work out what would happen if we
re-introduced them today.

I think the 60’s sex revolution has addled people minds about marriage; if you’re not in a
‘relationship’, you gonna die! You gots ta get married!