More married priests into RCC?

[Angel_Gabriel]

No, it’s not good, it’s dissidence. A refusal to accept the Church’s authority on the matter.

You are welcome to disagree of course, but it won’t sway Rome

how is liking/being open to the idea of married priests disobeying? The fact that Rome allows for it in some circumstances but not in others is confusing to the vast amount of poorly catechized laity that I’ve encountered.

 

[Saints_Alive]

how is liking/being open to the idea of married priests disobeying? The fact that Rome allows for it in some circumstances but not in others is confusing to the vast amount of poorly catechized laity that I’ve encountered.

As a Roman Catholic, I don’t find it confusing at all. Rome says no, and that is good enough for me. I can see your point about the confusion, but that still doesn’t excuse me, as a Roman Catholic, if I question canon law.

Non-Roman Catholics are doing no wrong by expressing their opinions.

 

[Hasire]

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.

No. No. No. Both married and non-married are the norm, one for non-monastics and one for monastics respectively. Both are equally holy and both are equally good to God.
I once heard an Ukrainian Catholic say that the reason the UGCC doesn’t have sexual abuse cases is because the have married priesthood (Do the math.), so I propose that the Latin Church should return to their ancient custom, the married priesthood.

I wish and pray for reconciliation but these John Irelands make me doubt about it

 

[Eufrosnia]

I dunno.
I would tend to think that he does not see the exclusive element that you may see. The element that precludes a married person from receving God’s graces to live as a priest. That’s the nut of it, isn’t it? It’s God’s to bestow grace as he sees fit. Chapter 84 deals with this aspect a little more.

I do not disagree that married priests exist i.e. God has called them. What I wanted to indicate was that to compare both of them to be equally capable in serving ones congregation or the Church seems wrong in light of the writings of St. Paul.

True there will always be some exceptions. But in general, I feel that the man who has dedicated ones life entirely to the service of the Church will be more successful at it than someone who has to divide priorities.

I feel that the restrictions even in Eastern traditions against married priests holding higher positions might indeed partly be the result of upholding this observation.

 

[JReducation]

Good stuff, there, Brother Jr.

I am also reading here and there in the popular press about religious/clergy/lay associations ‘getting their collars felt’ on these issues. They get leeway to recant and if they don’t, further sanctions occur. It’s pleasing to see. Not their discomfort, but seeing the Church grinding slowly and effectively in due course.

There are many things happening, some that I cannot share, because it’s really up to those involved to decide who should know and who should not. It’s not my call to make.

I will say this. You can put me on your list of superiors who has suspended men for their failure to agree with the Holy Father or the local bishop.

Actually, that was a lie. It is pleasing to see their discomfort.

:tsktsk:

No. No. No. Both married and non-married are the norm, one for non-monastics and one for monastics respectively. Both are equally holy and both are equally good to God.
I once heard an Ukrainian Catholic say that the reason the UGCC doesn’t have sexual abuse cases is because the have married priesthood (Do the math.), so I propose that the Latin Church should return to their ancient custom, the married priesthood.

I wish and pray for reconciliation but these John Irelands make me doubt about it

Thank you for that. Maybe my thinking is skewed because all of my contact with Eastern Catholic priests has been in the West, with the exception of Maronites, and Syro Malankar and Syro Malabar. They’re celibate.

I know that in what we call the Eastern Zone there are married and celibate secular priests and that monks are always celibate That latter is easy to understand. The consecrated life and marriage are mutually exclusive.

Thanks for your feedback.

 

[Formosus]

Thank you for that. Maybe my thinking is skewed because all of my contact with Eastern Catholic priests has been in the West, with the exception of Maronites, and Syro Malankar and Syro Malabar. They’re celibate.

I know that in what we call the Eastern Zone there are married and celibate secular priests and that monks are always celibate That latter is easy to understand. The consecrated life and marriage are mutually exclusive.

Thanks for your feedback.

You ran into married Maronite priests? That is unusual in the West as they are one of the few Eastern Churches to not ordain married men outside of their Patriarchal territories (same goes with the Syro-Malabarese and Malankarans). My Church (Ukrainian Catholic) has a lot of ordained priests in the United States. In fact, all but two of the Ukrainian Catholic priests I’ve met have been celibate (and they were both involved in the seminary, not average parish priests). In any event, married and celibate clergy are the norms for the Eastern Tradition. The lack of married clergy in the West is only due to Roman interference in our affairs.

 

[Formosus]

I do not disagree that married priests exist i.e. God has called them. What I wanted to indicate was that to compare both of them to be equally capable in serving ones congregation or the Church seems wrong in light of the writings of St. Paul.

True there will always be some exceptions. But in general, **I feel **that the man who has dedicated ones life entirely to the service of the Church will be more successful at it than someone who has to divide priorities.

I feel that the restrictions even in Eastern traditions against married priests holding higher positions might indeed partly be the result of upholding this observation.

Paul was not writing about modern parish situations or even specifically to the priesthood. Not to be too critical, but how you feel just does not play out in reality. We have plenty of highly dedicated married priests serving our communities (who can reach very high honorific ranks within the priesthood, they just can not become Bishops which is a separate vocation than the priesthood). There are plenty of celibate Latin priests who do the bare minimum of service to their parishes and plenty of married Eastern priests who go above and beyond the call. It is not celibacy that determines the level of service, but the holiness of the priest, and a married priest is just as capable of holiness and dedication as any celibate priest. Both kinds of priests are needed, but what is not needed are these constant “myths” about married clergy being less dedicated or less able to dedicate themselves to their parishes and flocks.

 

[Aramis]

nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/married-roman-catholic-priests-are-testing-a-tradition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

More and more we see pastors from other Christian churches becoming RC priests due to Vatican II ecumenism. Doesn’t this concern anyone?

My pastor is an unmarried former Lutheran Minister as a Byzantine Catholic priest with biritual faculties for the Roman Mass. Also ecumenism at work.

Faithful priest.

A local roman Pastor is a former Methodist. Nice guy, never heard him preach. Faithful priest.

Dad’s a cradle catholic, but a Roman Deacon (now retired). Excellent preacher, Dominican trained. Have heard many of his sermons over the years, but fled to the Byzantine rite in my 20’s, so not as many as some would expect.

Coming home to Rome is good. Better these men, having come to see the truth, and having a real call to ministry, are allowed to become priests and enrich the church, and save their own souls as well. Ministry is a Vocation - a call from God. Unity with Christ’s church and the person of his vicar, the pope, is also every person’s vocation, whether they know it or not.

Note also - Rome only did away with married priests and deacons in the Roman Rite in the 1200’s, and never demanded the Italo-Albanians nor Maronites stop ordaining them. There have been married priests in the Catholic Church since the beginning.

There is guidance that these former protestants should not be sole pastors in remote areas, due to family obligations and the need for viaticum calls… but in general, there is nothing at all wrong with it. There also is apparently a limit on how many per diocese.

 

[Aramis]

What do you call a priest who is married?

A priest.

Reverend Father, if addressing him or being formal. Father ___ otherwise. Same as for any secular diocesan priest.

But not all priests are addressed properly as Father. And not all Fathers are priests. Monastics in the Eastern Churches are generally addressed as Father. Western monastic and friary superiors are addressed as Father, and properly, priests in their orders are still Brother outside of when serving the liturgies. And Byzantine Deacons are also addressed as Father.

 

[JReducation]

You ran into married Maronite priests? That is unusual in the West as they are one of the few Eastern Churches to not ordain married men outside of their Patriarchal territories (same goes with the Syro-Malabarese and Malankarans). My Church (Ukrainian Catholic) has a lot of ordained priests in the United States. In fact, all but two of the Ukrainian Catholic priests I’ve met have been celibate (and they were both involved in the seminary, not average parish priests). In any event, married and celibate clergy are the norms for the Eastern Tradition. The lack of married clergy in the West is only due to Roman interference in our affairs.

No, no, no. Reread my post. I have not.

**Thank you for that. Maybe my thinking is skewed because all of my contact with Eastern Catholic priests has been in the West, with the exception of Maronites, and Syro Malankar and Syro Malabar. They’re celibate. **

The Maronites and Syro Malankar and Syro Malabar whom I have met are celibate.

 

[Formosus]

No, no, no. Reread my post. I have not.

**Thank you for that. Maybe my thinking is skewed because all of my contact with Eastern Catholic priests has been in the West, with the exception of Maronites, and Syro Malankar and Syro Malabar. They’re celibate. **

The Maronites and Syro Malankar and Syro Malabar whom I have met are celibate.

My mistake brother! Then that would make perfect sense. As I said, all those churches do not ordain married men outside of their home territories.

 

[JReducation]

To deny a clergyman who converts to Catholicism the sacrament of Holy Orders solely on what Paul says is contrary to Paul’s intention when he wrote this. One has to understand Jewish culture and the Jewish faith. To our people, the idea of celibacy is anathema. Paul is redirecting a mistaken way of thinking regarding celibacy. He is not downplaying marriage.

In addition, in Paul’s own words the wife is the Church and the husband is Christ. There is no doubt that he and the Christian community held a mystical appreciation for marriage and celibacy. It had nothing to do with utilitarianism. Paul did not see the priesthood through utilitarian eyes. It is impossible to reconcile Paul’'s statement on celibacy with the idea that all priests were to be celibate, because Paul lived in a Church of married priests.

It is also impossible to equate Paul’s vision of the priesthood with our vision of the parish priest. The Church does not subscribe to this vision. We don’t ordain men to serve in parishes. The ministerial priesthood is more commonly found in parishes, but it is not limited to the parish.

If we place the parish so high in our list of priorities, we run the risk of reducing the priesthood to parochial ministry. This would imply that any priest who is in a cloister, a soup kitchen, a university, in administration, in healthcare, social services or other non parochial ministry is what?

To ordain with a “To Do” list in mind, is to make the priest a commodity. The priesthood does not rise and fall on what it does or does not do for the parish. It is the priesthood of Jesus Christ, not the priesthood of the parish. Whether he’s in a parish or a Trappist monastery, whether he is married or celibate, he shares in the priesthood of Jesus Christ.

Christ does not call a man to the priesthood to serve in parishes, but to share in his priesthood.