Of 'viri probati' to alleviate the shortage of priests

[otjm]

You must have missed my words “……reserved not for all, but for those specially and mystically committed to a unique way of life.”

I’m quite familiar with the picture of a newly ordained Catholic priest offering Mass while his wife and 5 children sit in the front pew. Happened regularly in a former parish.

I just believe and the Church strongly affirms the benefits of celibate life. I will, however, not be in the least surprised if this discipline, like countless others before it, becomes null and void. Love this article:

Ah yes - Crisis Magazine - aptly named for its ability to turn anything it doesn’t like into a crisis.

There is no reason to presume, other than the hysteria of certain groups, that celibacy would ever be done away with. It certainly hasn’t in the Eastern Rite Churches, which have both married and celibate clergy and have had since the time of Christ.

Frankly, I don’t really care what the radicals of the '60’s have it about; as has been noted more than once, if you go to one of their meetings, it is a sea of bald heads and grey hair, as they are not recruiting anyone much under the age of 55.

The Church can strongly affirm the benefits of a celibate life; and I would submit, it can do so with more strength than currently, when the only option for someone in the Roman Rite, who feels strongly that they are called to the priesthood, is to be celibate.

Celibacy needs to stand on its own two legs - and it is eminently capable of doing so. It is a vocation, separate and distinct from priesthood. Making one the only path to the other never has made sense to me. I always thought the Eastern Churches had it right. Both/and, not “one or not”.

 

[boar2roar]

First of all, Orders aren’t inherited, and benefices have gone the way of the dodo, so I really don’t understand the inheritance issue. And I would argue that it is the current system that if anything has established in effect a “priestly caste” “separate from regular people;” read anything about clericalism. A married clergy resident in the community and not isolated in a rectory, living a work/life/ministry/family balance far more resembles “regular people” than does the current arrangement in the West. I wouldn’t say that Protestant clergy, who live in this model, in any way have become a “ministerial caste.” And the whole idea of viri probati as I understand it is that such men would supplement traditional celibate Latin Rite clergy, not become the norm.

The church is far more hierarchal and institutional than any protestant sect so it is very different situation that married priests would live in then the others. Its more of a historical issues when churches directly controlled more land and property sure but there still are problems … to have a caste you kind of have to have children that inherit your position which is impossible since clergy don’t have kids.

Would bishops be allowed to marry? If not I already see a huge problem with the leaders of the church not being the most holy and worthy but rather a minority that made a non required life choice. It wouldn’t make sense to have the church reduce their leadership role applicants like that. If bishops and even popes are allowed that could have a whole sort of problems. Corruption would instantly come into play. What if bishops nominated their sons to high positions, what if bishop positions started to be inherited by sons in a lot of diocese. There might be insider church families some of them becoming scandalously wealthy. Bishops getting annulments and looking hypocritical

Priests can’t dedicate themselves fully to their flocks if they have families. I’ve heard priests say at sermons that family life would take away time from god and that they couldn’t devote themselves as much to god. Where would the families live Would they travel with the priest? Who would accommodate them, the church doesn’t have the infrastructure to house every single priests family. I think its a very good thing that priests don’t have side jobs because their were so many scandalous of businessmen masquerading as part time clergy, I don’t think that should be tested again.

Not the norm? I would believe it if it were true but the history of things tell me that anything even vaguely implied will be abused to the maximum. Personal ordinates are one thing but letting this slide will demand answers for how this isn’t unfair. A lot of african priests have expressed the desire to get married too.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Would bishops be allowed to marry? If not I already see a huge problem with the leaders of the church not being the most holy and worthy but rather a minority that made a non required life choice.

Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians have bishops come from the celibate ranks even though they allow married priests. What problems do you see them having in this area?

Priests can’t dedicate themselves fully to their flocks if they have families.

Again, how do you see this problem playing out among Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians? Or among married Roman Catholic clergy (converts from Anglicanism, for example)? What is the problem they have that we don’t due to our celibacy discipline?

I’ve heard priests say at sermons that family life would take away time from god and that they couldn’t devote themselves as much to god.

As an aside, I always capitalize God.

And on topic, do you think that there may be different classes of people:

• those called to celibacy, whether ordained or not
• those called to ordination, whether celibate or not

Would they travel with the priest? Who would accommodate them, the church doesn’t have the infrastructure to house every single priests family.

If we’re talking about “viri probati,” they are already members of the community so they presumably have homes they are already living in. They wouldn’t have to travel if they already lived in the area.

A lot of african priests have expressed the desire to get married too.

Just to note that there is a difference between ordaining people who are already married versus allowing marriage among those who are already ordained. This is talking about ordaining married men as priests, not allowing those already ordained to get married. (Similar to the way things work for permanent deacons – those already married are ordained to the diaconate while those who are ordained cannot marry.)

It seems like married deacons may be something of a model here:

• they have families
• they have paid employment or are retired
• they provide ministry in various ways but not necessarily as a full-time job

 

[Seraphim73]

Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians have bishops come from the celibate ranks even though they allow married priests. What problems do you see them having in this area?

Again, how do you see this problem playing out among Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians? Or among married Roman Catholic clergy (converts from Anglicanism, for example)? What is the problem they have that we don’t due to our celibacy discipline?

As an aside, I always capitalize God.

And on topic, do you think that there may be different classes of people:

• those called to celibacy, whether ordained or not
• those called to ordination, whether celibate or not

If we’re talking about “viri probati,” they are already members of the community so they presumably have homes they are already living in. They wouldn’t have to travel if they already lived in the area.

Just to note that there is a difference between ordaining people who are already married versus allowing marriage among those who are already ordained. This is talking about ordaining married men as priests, not allowing those already ordained to get married. (Similar to the way things work for permanent deacons – those already married are ordained to the diaconate while those who are ordained cannot marry.)

It seems like married deacons may be something of a model here:

• they have families
• they have paid employment or are retired
• they provide ministry in various ways but not necessarily as a full-time job

I will say I agree with your line of thinking. People talk about what might happen or could happen if married priests are allowed as though it is some kind of theoretical question. But it’s not theory. Married priests have been the norm in Orthodox parishes for over 1,000 years and the potential problems some Catholics bring up simply don’t happen.

 

[otjm]

The church is far more hierarchal and institutional than any protestant sect so it is very different situation that married priests would live in then the others. Its more of a historical issues when churches directly controlled more land and property sure but there still are problems … to have a caste you kind of have to have children that inherit your position which is impossible since clergy don’t have kids.

I think you meant to say, when the priests and the bishops owned the land. Today, the land is owned by corporations. In our Archdiocese, it was owned by the Archdiocese through a civil corporation; some of that changed due to the bankruptcy, but still, priests do not own land which belongs to the Church - if they have sufficient funds, they can buy property but many do not have the funds, and it would be no different than you or I buying a house. It would be privately owned, not church property.

Would bishops be allowed to marry?

Given a 2000 year history on the matter, most likely not.

If not I already see a huge problem with the leaders of the church not being the most holy and worthy but rather a minority that made a non required life choice. It wouldn’t make sense to have the church reduce their leadership role applicants like that.

Given the fact now that those who think or act like they are applicants to be bishop are the least likely to be chosen, there is no reason to presume it would be any different. The same has been said of choosing the next Pope: he who goes in to be Pope comes out a Cardinal. The Church really isn’t stupid or naïve.

Priests can’t dedicate themselves fully to their flocks if they have families. I’ve heard priests say at sermons that family life would take away time from god and that they couldn’t devote themselves as much to god.

Likely the only priests you have heard say that are parish priests. And you are presuming that all would be assigned to a parish. What you are forgetting are all the priests who do not have a parish as an assignment - those who work in positions within the Church other than parishes, and those who work teaching or in other positions. They come into a parish and say Mass and leave; they may give an evening retreat or class at a parish, or help out in other forms. There is no requirement that one who is ordained needs to be in a parish. We may be short of priests for parishes; but often much of parish work could be conducted by a deacon, and in some instances, as is currently done, by a lay person.

Where would the families live

In a house. They might already own one (being married before being ordained); or they may rent one, or the parish or diocese rent one for them.

Would they travel with the priest?

That might depend on where he is going. The same for a family where the man is not ordained.

I think its a very good thing that priests don’t have side jobs because their were so many scandalous of businessmen masquerading as part time clergy, I don’t think that should be tested again.

Any number of priests already have day jobs - you just are not aware of them.

Not the norm? I would believe it if it were true but the history of things tell me that anything even vaguely implied will be abused to the maximum. Personal ordinates are one thing but letting this slide will demand answers for how this isn’t unfair. A lot of african priests have expressed the desire to get married too.

Perhaps you are reading the wrong history books - challenges also call out the best in people. Deacons are not going out there running hog wild. No reason to presume priests will.

And as deacons in the Roman rite, and priests in the Eastern rites are already required - they must be married before being ordained. There is no reason to presume it would be any different. A lot of Roman Catholic priests thought that priests would be allowed to marry - that was part of the cause of the great exodus of priests to be laicized (and sadly, sometimes not) who left, and subsequently got married.

 

[PJD1987]

How hard would it be to maintain your Christian faith at all – or to avoid getting drawn away to a Protestant community – when you can receive the sacraments only twice a year?

If you were a bishop with this problem, what other solutions do you see?

This was exactly the case in the early United States. The first settlers in colonial Maryland were served by a grand total of 2 Jesuit priests. At the time of the Revolution there were barely 25 priests to serve a a dispersed community of Catholics in the United States. Here’s a few tidbits on how our colonial predecessors handled the continuation of the faith in those times:

“Jesuits of the era wrote home about the difficulties of their circuit rides that covered up to a thirty mile radius and required patience and perseverance from the*** laity who only saw a priest once a month if they lived close enough, and once a year for the more distant regions***. The shortage of priests led to the laity’s responsibility in the administration of Sacraments which priests gave instruction on in their*** monthly or yearly visits***, often through the distribution of Bishop Richard Challoner’s handbook for the laity named The Garden of the Soul. Baptisms took place without priests due to their absence, along with funerals, and official marriages took place only when priests came to town. Due to frequent priest absences, the laity took responsibility to catechize their children and converts, and often built separate prayer rooms in their household to read the Mass prayers, personal devotion, and spiritual reading on Holy Days, such as Sundays and Feast Days and for the use of priests for Confessions and Mass they made their visits.”

and more…

“Recent studies have shed light on the early Catholic community in colonial Maryland that allow the identification of patterns of behavior and ritualistic practice. Jesuit plantations, of which there were five, helped finance Maryland and see to the spiritual needs of citizens. They built 8 freestanding chapels and engaged in proselytizing Protestants, both of which were illegal in England. In two separate rebellions in the early years, the Jesuits fled the colony, some were captured and sent to England to face trial for treason. In 1704, parliament passed the “Act to Prevent the Growth of Popery within this Province”. Catholics responded by developing ‘manor house Catholicism’ by building chapels in their homes and opening them to the larger community. To avoid running afoul of Protestant authorities, decoration was kept very plain, even sacred vessels. Religious art was absent from the colonies except for several pieces owned by the Jesuits who displayed them during Mass. Neighborhoods would assign one house as a Mass house which they traveled to, sometimes over 10 miles to attend Mass. Mass was sometimes held outside to accommodate larger crowds. Jesuits traveled circuits of up to 30 miles to attend to the needs of the people, staying up to a week with the host family. This happened once a month for the close areas, and once a year for outlying areas. Most Sundays were observed by the laity without priests. When priests were available confessions were heard til 11 AM, followed by midday Mass, and a sermon. Prayers and hymns, along with the gospel were sung in both Latin and the vernacular. Musical accompaniment is still a question as only wood and string instruments were in common use before the Revolution. One tradition started in the colonial period was the recitation of the Litany of Loreto to begin services. When there was no priest, families carried on by private devotion, reciting the prayers of the Mass, spiritual reading, and catechism in a specially designated room in their household, encouraged by the Jesuits to provide a sense of the sacred in an environment lacking formal religious sites. Jesuits and priests relied heavily on families to bring up their children with proper catechesis to foster an educated and disciplined laity. Baptisms were frequently carried out by the laity. Marriages were sometimes conducted in private homes. Catholics married almost exclusively other Catholics except in places where they were outnumbered. Extreme Unction was also performed by the laity in the absence of a priest, and burials on family land took place when the Jesuits lost their churches, though those who lived close enough buried them on the Jesuit manors. Taking consecrated ground back to one’s home to place on the grave of loved ones was a common practice. Communion was encouraged frequently, but required once a year at Easter. The centrality of the family and the network of Catholic Mass Houses provided by Catholics of means was integral to the development of the Catholic Maryland tradition. The unique circumstances understood and accepted by the Catholics of Maryland and their Jesuit priests enabled the possibility for the continuance of their faith in the penal years.”

The point of my sharing this information is simply that, where there is a will…there is a way. When the faith is strong, people will not let it die out, and how is it kept strong? By the acceptance of more responsibility for its continuation. Maybe this is a structure that could be useful in today’s world. Of course, we’re all so used to regular reception of Holy Communion, and that is all well and good, but the Church has survived severe persecution, lack of priests, and faced the need for clandestine faith even, in ancient and not so ancient times.

(continued…)

 

[PJD1987]

(continued…)

The faith is given to us, but the gift many times is taken for granted, maybe its not such a bad thing that we be put in a position to own our faith and fight for it as the colonial Marylanders did? Maybe the remoteness of Brazilian Catholic communities and the lack of priests can learn a thing or two from the above situation.

I think today we immediately run to the easiest solution, “Oh we MUST have married priests to alleviate this problem!!” when in fact, we see that similar problems have been faced in the not-so-distant past, even in our own country, without such a drastic measure being taken, or even thought of to begin with! Maybe we should strenghten our faith and stay firm to our roots and traditions rather than abandon all hope and start introducing strange and newfangled practices into the faith.

Just some food for thought…

 

[otjm]

(continued…)

The faith is given to us, but the gift many times is taken for granted, maybe its not such a bad thing that we be put in a position to own our faith and fight for it as the colonial Marylanders did? Maybe the remoteness of Brazilian Catholic communities and the lack of priests can learn a thing or two from the above situation.

I think today we immediately run to the easiest solution, “Oh we MUST have married priests to alleviate this problem!!” when in fact, we see that similar problems have been faced in the not-so-distant past, even in our own country, without such a drastic measure being taken, or even thought of to begin with! Maybe we should strenghten our faith and stay firm to our roots and traditions rather than abandon all hope and start introducing strange and newfangled practices into the faith.

Just some food for thought…

Given that if someone today were to apply as a married man to be ordained; he and the diocese would be looking at a minimum of 5 to 6 years or more before ordination; and the very real possibility that the individual would withdraw before ordination.

And a married clergy is hardly a drastic idea. The Church has had married clergy for 2000 years, and the Roman rite has married clergy right here and now. Having a married clergy would not be any sort of automatic solution; not only would there have to be men called to being ordained, but the Church, as it does with married deacons, would have to have that man strongly supported by the wife. None of that is a given, and none of that, should it be granted on January one this next year, be any panacea; it would simply provide some more priests eventually. But drastic? It is more likely that having permanent deacons was more drastic; not to mention tht there were going to be married ones. That caused a good kerfuffle for some time, but more and more parishes and dioceses are seeing the value they bring.

So the short of it is that there is nothing “strange and newfangled” about it; it is just that a whole lot of people are not aware of what is going on, beyond the boundaries of their own parish.

 

[PJD1987]

So the short of it is that there is nothing “strange and newfangled” about it; it is just that a whole lot of people are not aware of what is going on, beyond the boundaries of their own parish.

Married clergy exist and they are a great good, yet it truly is not the norm for Latin Rite Catholicism, and a celibate priesthood has its virtues and spiritual and other advantages as well. I did not mean to give the impression that I thought married priests would necessarily be a terrible thing, but taken in context of the long history of the faith I do believe it is well outside the norm of how priest shortages have been handled in the past in Latin Rite Catholicism. That was the point I was attempting to make; there are noble and good ways of dealing with these situations in the past that served to strengthen the community of faith, i.e. the greater responsibility of the laity. Why implement those first, in keeping with the way our ancestors in the faith did them, before moving on to the more ‘modern’ answer of allowing married priests? The way things have been done in the past may yield some good fruit.

I think there may be something to the idea of strengthening catechesis and vocation response through responsibility given to the laity in accordance with the way the issue was dealt with in the past, I don’t think it’s so off base to draw the parallel.

 

[otjm]

Married clergy exist and they are a great good, yet it truly is not the norm for Latin Rite Catholicism, and a celibate priesthood has its virtues and spiritual and other advantages as well. I did not mean to give the impression that I thought married priests would necessarily be a terrible thing, but taken in context of the long history of the faith I do believe it is well outside the norm of how priest shortages have been handled in the past in Latin Rite Catholicism. That was the point I was attempting to make; there are noble and good ways of dealing with these situations in the past that served to strengthen the community of faith, i.e. the greater responsibility of the laity. Why implement those first, in keeping with the way our ancestors in the faith did them, before moving on to the more ‘modern’ answer of allowing married priests? The way things have been done in the past may yield some good fruit.

I think there may be something to the idea of strengthening catechesis and vocation response through responsibility given to the laity in accordance with the way the issue was dealt with in the past, I don’t think it’s so off base to draw the parallel.

The method of handling the shortage of priests in the US when the US was new is not exactly applicable to the current situation for several reasons.

The first is that there was not particularly a shortage of priests in Europe, when the US was new; the priests who came to the US were primarily from the countries which had been the source of the Catholics in the first place. As Brazil is primarily a Portuguese speaking country (and granted that many in the outer areas may speak a native dialect and not Portuguese), Portugal is highly unlikely to provide priests. Neither, for that matter, is the US, as currently there is an average of a little more than 1 priest per parish - I think the number I saw was about 1.1 priests per parish.

And while Africa is experiencing a positive vocation boom, it is far more likely that priests from there are going to have English as a second language rather than Portuguese; thus immediately, Brazil is faced with a possible influx of priests who are not conversant with the population. Further, given the size of Brazil and the extreme lack of priests (see the original post), it is reasonably questionable whether or not Africa has the ability to make a significant, long term commitment to staffing.

So from two directions, the deaconate has been a significant change of tradition - establishing something that has been gone for well more than 1,000 years, and establishing clergy who are married.

And the cross-over from Protestant to Catholic of a number of married men has effectively changed the issue of married priests; it is not like this is either brand new, or something that doesn’t exist. Granted their numbers are small, but the fact is, a change has been made.

And it is not like the issue in Brazil got to this point in the last decade or so; this has been a long gradual issue; in part, I would not be the least bit surprised, to a decline in missionary work over the last 50 years, which would coincide with the reduction in the number of priests in both the USD and in Europe.

Another way of saying it is that two norms have been broken; the greater - or at least, longer norm of a permanent deaconate (coupled with anyone of any sort of clergy rank being married) is the most obvious. It could have been reinstated with only celibate men, as celibacy seems to be the major issue. But it was not, and any number of people have suggested that it was a way, in gradual terms, of introducing the matter/idea/concept of married clergy to the people in the pews.

And the second norm, while not broken as to cradle Catholics, is broken as to the actual ordination of married men. I will be quick to grant that it has been repeated by Rome more than once or twice that this is an exception to the rule; but it is and remains a discipline that only celibate men may be ordained, and factually, that barrier has been broken; again, allowing for a gradual further opening to ordaining other married men.

I have heard that elsewhere, most married clergy are effectively “hidden from view” in that many, if not most are given positions in chanceries and elsewhere as opposed to parishes; in Oregon that appears to be a bit different as we had one (a previous Presbyterian) who was pastor of a parish, and another who is currently an assistant pastor in another city.

I would not be the least bit surprised if the Church were to return to the earlier practice (within the Roman rite) of ordaining married men, and the Brazil need would be a likely starting place. One can postulate all one wishes to concerning what has been done or not done, and how the situation was handled 200 years ago. That was then and this is now, and the need then was reasonably responded to. It is debatable if the current need can be responded to in any adequate manner. North America is just starting to see increases gradually in the number of men ordained, and certainly not in sufficient numbers as to answer Brazil’s crisis. I have not heard anything to indicate that South or Central
America is ordaining in sufficient numbers to answer the need. And while Africa, and perhaps to some extent Asia might be ordaining sufficient numbers as to send a few into missionary work, with Africa more than a few, Brazil is not the only country in need (although perhaps the most needy) and language is an issue not easily addressed by a large surge from Africa.

Then, again, it would not surprise me to hear Rome say “No soap”. It has been said many times before, so the words come easily.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

PJD (or anyone else),

It seems to me that one difference between colonial America and present-day Brazil is the presence of evangelizing Protestants. People today readily move from Catholicism to Protestantism.

I read a couple of articles about the decline in the number of Catholics in Brazil and corresponding rise in the number of Protestants. The articles don’t specify if this is primarily happening in cities – where I assume priests are more readily available – or in the rural areas that see a priest only occasionally. But I’m guessing that the bishops are aware of this trend and are looking for a way to combat it.

See:
Brazil: Protestant numbers rise as Catholic numbers drop
Brazil’s Changing Religious Landscape

 

[PJD1987]

But I’m guessing that the bishops are aware of this trend and are looking for a way to combat it.

To be sure, there are obvious differences, and otjm spoke to many of them. I just think there is an interesting parallel between the issues and the possible solutions to the shortage of priests lie within the strengthening of the faith from home. There will never be a surplus of priests if family life first does not introduce the faith and vocation as a viable option. This is not done because the faith at home is weak, and why is it weak? Failures on the part of the Church to be sure, I do not want to miss that aspect of it. However, there definitely is a component of the laity, us, everyone in general, to own their faith, to live it, to love it, and cherish it. In times of persecution or in times when priests are not available and the laity may need to pick up the slack…I think it is an opportunity for the strengthening of the faith.

Maybe I haven’t articulated that well, but that is what I am trying to get at.

 

[SWolf]

This is not done because the faith at home is weak, and why is it weak? Failures on the part of the Church to be sure, I do not want to miss that aspect of it. However, there definitely is a component of the laity, us, everyone in general, to own their faith, to live it, to love it, and cherish it. In times of persecution or in times when priests are not available and the laity may need to pick up the slack…I think it is an opportunity for the strengthening of the faith.

Maybe I haven’t articulated that well, but that is what I am trying to get at.

Very true. Also, Catholic families are not nearly as large, so there’s less of a push for children to go into religious vocations.

Jesus recommended celibacy. Paul recommended celibacy. Therefore, his priests on Earth should ideally be celibate. Not always the case, the ideal though.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Jesus recommended celibacy. Paul recommended celibacy. Therefore, his priests on Earth should ideally be celibate. Not always the case, the ideal though.

Do you see Eastern Catholic and Orthodox priests as somehow less ideal than Roman Catholic priests? Could you explain more about why? Do you think it’s possible that a call to ministry and a call to celibacy can be separate callings?

 

[PJD1987]

Also, Catholic families are not nearly as large, so there’s less of a push for children to go into religious vocations.

Another aspect of Catholic laity not holding up their end of the bargain and living out their faith to the fullest. Obviously there are practical concerns, but are they more so now than in the past when we had large families? Or are they just different? I suspect they are just different, and in any case, the answer is never to shut down on being open to life, downsize the family and stop having children. That only increases the problem as we see here. Catholics, both laity and religious, need a metanoyah to realign themselves with the will of God in all these matters. I suspect if that happens, these other problems of priest shortages and everything else will sort themselves out.

 

[SWolf]

Do you see Eastern Catholic and Orthodox priests as somehow less ideal than Roman Catholic priests? Could you explain more about why? Do you think it’s possible that a call to ministry and a call to celibacy can be separate callings?

Paul and Jesus think those who can accept celibacy should for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. They also both state it is not a requirement. I would consider that an ideal that not all are necessarily fit for.

Everyone is called to ministry. Ministry is not necessarily the Priesthood.

1 Corinthians:
32** I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided**. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

Matthew 19:
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Another aspect of Catholic laity not holding up their end of the bargain and living out their faith to the fullest.

I don’t have any statistics on family size in rural Brazil. Do we know that their families are small?

I guess I just have trouble imagining maintaining my Catholicism in a situation where a priest is only available for Mass a few times a year and there’s – perhaps – a Protestant church with a resident minister who offers some kind of regular prayer services.

Paul and Jesus think those who can accept celibacy should for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. They also both state it is not a requirement. I would consider that an ideal that not all are necessarily fit for.

Everyone is called to ministry. Ministry is not necessarily the Priesthood.

I should have been more precise and referred to “ordained ministry.” So I’ll repeat my question: do you think it’s possible that a call to ordained ministry and a call to celibacy can be separate callings?

I could see adopting the model of the Eastern Churches with a secular priesthood that allows marriage and a religious priesthood that does not. We already view callings to the secular priesthood and religious life as different, this would merely extend it one step further.

Keep in mind, too, that the Brazilian bishops are talking about “viri probati” – older men already established in the community. This is different from the 20-somethings and 30-somethings we typically think of as candidates for the priesthood.

 

[philipl]

Some issues that have to be considered when ordaining married men with families.

1. Will these men be able to retain their secular employment to provide for their family?
   2.Will the extreme shortage of priests force these newly ordained into excess work that separates them from their families for certain length of time
   3.If these married men are unable to retain their current secular jobs then who is to support their family?
   4,Does the wife work outside the home and would this be sufficient to support them
   5.Should the local diocese provide them with a salary adequate to support the family

I have for years advocated that married men who are deacons are want to be deacons can study and with OJT become priest when they retire from their jobs. At the age of 62 to 65 many men would be able to provide needed services to a parish.

Now they cant and should not be in charge of the parish.

Imagine a parish with not 1 or 2 Priest but 10 to 15 of them. They could even travel to other parishes to help out.

One of the requirements will be these men have to be financially secure to enter the program. So money wont be and issue.

If enough men complete the program, then you can spread the amount of work around and as we all know many hands make light work.

 

[SWolf]

I don’t have any statistics on family size in rural Brazil. Do we know that their families are small?

I guess I just have trouble imagining maintaining my Catholicism in a situation where a priest is only available for Mass a few times a year and there’s – perhaps – a Protestant church with a resident minister who offers some kind of regular prayer services.

I should have been more precise and referred to “ordained ministry.” So I’ll repeat my question: do you think it’s possible that a call to ordained ministry and a call to celibacy can be separate callings?

I could see adopting the model of the Eastern Churches with a secular priesthood that allows marriage and a religious priesthood that does not. We already view callings to the secular priesthood and religious life as different, this would merely extend it one step further.

Keep in mind, too, that the Brazilian bishops are talking about “viri probati” – older men already established in the community. This is different from the 20-somethings and 30-somethings we typically think of as candidates for the priesthood.

Thanks for the clarification.

Some ninety percent of Orthodox priests are married. This is much too high, as I believe clerical celibacy should be the accepted norm. For allowing married men in the ordained Priesthood, I can accept limited amounts of married priests that follow the traditional guidelines (abstaining from marital relations a day before administering the Eucharist).

My main issue is allowing a married priesthood is a quick fix to major systemic issues in the Church. The lack of vocations isn’t just a canary in a coalmine, it’s an earthquake. A married priesthood would be a short-sighted solution.

In short:
Married priests as a solution to the priest shortage: No.
Married Priests in principle: Yes, but limited.

 

[PJD1987]

I don’t have any statistics on family size in rural Brazil. Do we know that their families are small?

I guess I just have trouble imagining maintaining my Catholicism in a situation where a priest is only available for Mass a few times a year and there’s – perhaps – a Protestant church with a resident minister who offers some kind of regular prayer services.

I don’t have the statistics on family size in Brazil, I was only replying to what SWolf mentioned about Catholic family sizes being smaller, and I certainly know it is a trend in Western Civilization with the birth rate being so low.

I definitely am not saying that it is easy to thrive in a situation where priests are unavailable for the majority of the time, it most certainly is not. Yet we see in American history and I’m sure in other places throughout the ages that this situation was actually the norm rather than the exception for a large part of the time, and it was done, and the faith survived. I just view it, as I said, as an opportunity for the Catholic faithful to recommit themselves to their faith in harsh times. Of course it’s easy for me to say that sitting here, and I recognize that.