Of 'viri probati' to alleviate the shortage of priests

[twf]

It sounds like you’re taking a US-centric view on this.

It’s bishops in Brazil who are talking about possibilities. They are dealing with areas where parishes are not simply merged, but who see a priest only a few times a year. One diocese reports 27 priests for 800 parishes!

What I am imagining – and I admit this is purely speculation on my part – is that someone would be identified in one of these 800 parishes – a faith-filled elder – who would be asked to take on the commitment of becoming a priest. After some period of education and formation he would be ordained to provide the sacraments to those in his local community. He may not have the same theological background as a celibate priest who was ordained in his 30s, and he may not be quite as available as an unencumbered priest due to family and work obligations, but he would be available for Sunday Mass, confessions, baptisms, and weddings. Instead of seeing a priest three or four times a year, people would have a resident priest available regularly.

Exactly. You hear a lot of talk here at CAF about the “priest shortage” in the USA. It always makes me chuckle. Compared to the Church in much of the world, the USA has an incredible, rich abundance of priests. Compared to Brazil, the topic at hand, American Catholics have priests streaming out of their ears… it is a slap to the face of Brazilian Catholics to even try to make a comparison. From what I’ve seen, all of Latin America has a priest shortage, to one degree of another, and it is often much more severe than any American diocese.
In my wife’s home city of Santo Domingo, capital of the DR, there is one priest for every 10 000 Catholics. Compare that to the US capital - one priest for every 800 for so Catholics in Washington DC.

 

[ProVobis]

What I am imagining – and I admit this is purely speculation on my part – is that someone would be identified in one of these 800 parishes – a faith-filled elder – who would be asked to take on the commitment of becoming a priest.

I was under the presumption that it took many years of study and formation to become a priest. And for what, so that he’s only in demand on the weekends? Unless this training came earlier in his life, I don’t see this as a viable venue for an elder. But I could be wrong.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I was under the presumption that it took many years of study and formation to become a priest. And for what, so that he’s only in demand on the weekends? Unless this training came earlier in his life, I don’t see this as a viable venue for an elder. But I could be wrong.

And that’s one of the many issues the Brazilian bishops would have to address. Is it required that this category of priests have years of philosophy and theology under their belts? Could their formation be more akin to what permanent deacons go through here – where they are not required to go to school full time and live in a seminary during their formation? What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a background?

 

[ProVobis]

And that’s one of the many issues the Brazilian bishops would have to address. Is it required that this category of priests have years of philosophy and theology under their belts? Could their formation be more akin to what permanent deacons go through here – where they are not required to go to school full time and live in a seminary during their formation? What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a background?

Those would be good questions going forward, regardless of marital state. Your comparison with the U.S. diaconate is spot-on. There was a reason why this state was restored by Pope Paul VI.

 

[jeanannemarie]

The bishops’ conference of Brazil has formed a commission to study the possibility of ordaining married men as priests. The Google Translate version is here and the original French here.

PrayTell reports that 90% of all communities in the Amazon have no Sunday celebration of Mass. 70% have Mass two or three times a year. Kräutler’s diocese [Xinglu] has 800 communities and 27 priests.

What married men would these be?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

What married men would these be?

We have no details yet, of course. The “viri probati” of the title refers generally to older or “proven” men.

 

[otjm]

The small bit of info provided in the link didn’t specify anything, so I have no idea what the bishops are going to do. Canon law still has to be followed, though. They can’t come up with their own canon law - they have to follow Rome in the matter. Perhaps you could check into it further, and let us know what the bishops thinking is on the matter.

If marriage is not an absolute bar to ordination, why is it that Catholics who are ordained are required profess chastity and celibacy?

No one in this thread has even so much as hinted that the bishops would consider going rogue and ignoring Canon law; so one has to ask why you bring it up. None of us “know” that the bishops would go rogue; but none of the rest of us suspect they would - you appear to, so I have to ask why you would even ask the question.

The reason that “cradle” Catholics (and others who are not coming from a ministerial background in Protestantism but may be converts) are required to be celibate is because in the middle ages, the Church decided to make a rule that they had to be; and there were a number of reasons for that, including but not limited to abuses within married clergy. Times were messy, and the Church determined that in the Roman rite they would be celibate. Prior to that rule being made, the Roman rite had both married and celibate clergy.

Chastity is required of all Catholics; while public discourse will often tie chastity to refraining from all sexual relations, the Church defines it as abstention from unlawful intercourse, and purity in conduct and intention; or has been said elsewhere, a rightly ordered moral response to others in accord with one’s state in life.

The Church requires a married couple to be chaste - that is, to not engage in sexual intercourse in a way that is demeaning to the other.

Keep in mind that there is more than one Canon law; there is one for the Roman rite, and one for the Eastern Churches in unity with Rome; and in the latter, married clergy are permitted, and have been since the time of Christ.

 

[otjm]

Nor is anyone on this thread saying such a thing. What is being said, however, by throngs who have studied this issue (you may do a search) is that a married priesthood does not guarantee the shortage will be alleviated. Why then, should this “jewel” of a sacrificial character be eliminated? Is not the priesthood by its very nature, to be set apart from worldly standards?

"Priestly celibacy has been guarded by the Church for centuries as a brilliant jewel", and retains its value undiminished even in our time when the outlook of men and the state of the world have undergone such profound changes.

And to otjm: Here is definitely “a particularly “Roman Catholic” attitude.”

Tigg! Come on! Who said anything about celibacy being eliminated? That is an absolute red herring. It is not part of the discussion, there is absolutely no reason to presume that it has anything to do with what the Brazilian bishops are considering, is not and never has been part of the history of the Roman rite, or the history of the Eastern Churches. It has no place in a discussion of the issue of relaxing, for specific circumstances, the canonical requirement of celibacy, or for that matter, of removing the requirement.

Removal of the requirement is vastly different than an elimination of a celibate clergy, and I would submit that celibacy shines brightly within the Eastern Churches. In 2,000 years they have not eliminated it.

“Is not the priesthood by its very nature, to be set apart from worldly standards?” you ask. Well, is it besmirched in the Eastern rites?

Is it besmirched by the permitted ordination of married previously Protestant ministers?

As to the issue of “alleviated” - if by that you mean completely done away with, I would guarantee it will not alleviate the shortage by that definition.

But if by “alleviate” you mean will the problem be somewhat lessened, the answer is one more priest is one more person to bring Christ to others; and in a shortage as gross as exists in areas of Brazil, it most definitely will assist in the crisis at hand.

It is better to light one candle, than to sit and curse the darkness. And if the bishops should get permission, I would not presume a vast influx, but I certainly would presume more than one priest would be added to the diocese.

 

[otjm]

this truly is an example of the effects of modernism, due to lack of faith the bishops are willing to go against 2,000 years of infallible teachings to fill the parishes. Truly there needs to be more Traditional Bishops in key positions so the church does not become protestant.

You should read some of the history of the Church concerning this matter. The Roman rite most definitely does not have a history of only celibate clergy for 2000 years. Go read Paul’s Epistle 1 Timothy 3: 2-4.

 

[otjm]

this truly is an example of the effects of modernism, due to lack of faith the bishops are willing to go against 2,000 years of infallible teachings to fill the parishes. Truly there needs to be more Traditional Bishops in key positions so the church does not become protestant.

You should also do some research to find out what Modernism actually was about.

It started with Protestant Scripture scholars in the late 1800’s, who in essence wanted to remove God and miracles from consideration in studying Scripture, and it’s ultimate end was a form of atheism. Not exactly sure how you are going to get from a methodology of Scripture scholarship to the relaxation of a discipline.

 

[otjm]

I was under the presumption that it took many years of study and formation to become a priest. And for what, so that he’s only in demand on the weekends? Unless this training came earlier in his life, I don’t see this as a viable venue for an elder. But I could be wrong.

I was raised around priests who were not assigned to any parish, and others who were assigned to a parish, but had 8 to 5 (well, more than that - they were full time teachers) weekday jobs. Nothing unusual; except for the presumption that all priests must be in a parish 24/7/365.

 

[Denise1957]

No one in this thread has even so much as hinted that the bishops would consider going rogue and ignoring Canon law; so one has to ask why you bring it up. None of us “know” that the bishops would go rogue; but none of the rest of us suspect they would - you appear to, so I have to ask why you would even ask the question.

Why would the bishops even be considering the issue if they have absolutely no plans to change their practice regarding allowing married clergy? Why is this thread even started, if I am not allowed to make this observation? Why is it only your views on the subject are allowed to be discussed?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Why would the bishops even be considering the issue if they have absolutely no plans to change their practice regarding allowing married clergy?

The bishops see a problem and are looking for possible solutions. They are discussing the issue. I’m not sure that means they already have plans to make changes, though saying “we have a problem, now let’s pretend we don’t” doesn’t seem particularly useful. On the other hand, within a discussion,other possible solutions may be found.

But more important, I think, is to assume the best about our bishops. If their possible solution(s) to a problem involves going through channels to get permission or make changes to canon law, why wouldn’t you assume the best – that they will take the necessary steps – instead of assuming the worst – that they will go their own way no matter what the rest of the Church says?

Perhaps you do assume the best about our bishops – that they are faithful stewards of the Church – but that’s not the impression that comes across in your posts.

 

[Denise1957]

The bishops see a problem and are looking for possible solutions. They are discussing the issue. I’m not sure that means they already have plans to make changes, though saying “we have a problem, now let’s pretend we don’t” doesn’t seem particularly useful. On the other hand, within a discussion,other possible solutions may be found.

But more important, I think, is to assume the best about our bishops. If their possible solution(s) to a problem involves going through channels to get permission or make changes to canon law, why wouldn’t you assume the best – that they will take the necessary steps – instead of assuming the worst – that they will go their own way no matter what the rest of the Church says?

Perhaps you do assume the best about our bishops – that they are faithful stewards of the Church – but that’s not the impression that comes across in your posts.

How is it that they will get permission to change canon law on the issue? What precedent has there been in the Roman church for changing canon law specific to a particular diocese or region? (Please be specific).

 

[Scientia_Dei]

Do you consider the Eastern Catholic Churches to be “Protestant”? Perhaps rather than modernism it’s a proposal to return to the same tradition followed by our brothers and sisters in the East.

May i point something out , priests who are married in the eastern churches can not move up the hierarchy past Priest. They can never be bishops. Kinda contradictory don’t you think?, Jesus was not married. Many of the apostles were not married. Peter was married but we can assume he was a widower considering it was his mother in law that served him not his wife. True Apostolic Tradition shows us that Celibacy is the way of the Priest/religious.

1. Priests as Christ figures. Above all else, the Catholic priest is an alter Christus—“another Christ.” This is clearest in the sacrifice of the Mass, when the priest acts in the person of the Christ in offering the Eucharist. Celibacy configures priests more completely to Christ, who lived a perfectly chaste life. Thus they not only “participate in His priestly office” but also share “His very condition of living,” Pope Paul VI writes in the encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus.
2. Marriage to the Church. In Scripture, the Church is often depicted as the Bridegroom of Christ. In celibacy, the priest, as an alter Christus, witnesses through his life to the marriage of Christ to His Church. “In virginity or celibacy, the human being is awaiting, also in a bodily way, the … marriage of Christ with the Church, giving himself or herself completely to the Church in the hope that Christ may give Himself to the Church in the full truth of eternal life. The celibate person thus anticipates in his or her flesh the new world of the future resurrection,” John Paul II writes in his apostolic constitution Familiaris Consortio.
3. Spiritual fatherhood. Through celibacy, priests give themselves over wholly to the service God and His Church. Just as a father is uniquely dedicated to his children, so also the priest should be dedicated to his parishioners. As one Jesuit priest at Georgetown University recently put it in the Washington Post: “I do not have my own biological children, but I have over 6,000 here on Georgetown’s main campus! I have many sons and daughters who call me ‘Father.’” John Paul II describes this as a “singular sharing in God’s fatherhood’”(Pastores Dabo Vobis).
4. Celibacy as sacrifice. In renouncing married life, the priest also links himself with Christ’s own sacrifice on the Cross. “In a similar way, by a daily dying to himself and by giving up the legitimate love of a family of his own for the love of Christ and of His kingdom, the priest will find the glory of an exceedingly rich and fruitful life in Christ, because like Him and in Him, he loves and dedicates himself to all the children of God,” Paul VI writes. This ultimately is the purpose of human sexuality—to be a “a genuine sign of and precious service to the love of communion and gift of self to others,” writes Blessed Pope John Paul II in Pastores Dabo Vobis.catholicexchange.com/10-reasons-for-priestly-celibacy To allow priests to marry/allowed married men would lower the focus on the priesthood.

 

[Denise1957]

Were there saints in the past who have stated that the way to deal with a shortage of priests is to allow for the option for married men to be ordained? I don’t recall that any saints have stated this. There was a shortage of priests in France after the French Revolution, but St. John Mary Vianney didn’t recommend that married men be ordained as a remedy.

Also, in the former Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe, when there was also a shortage of Roman Catholic priests, what saints recommended married clergy as a remedy? Pope John Paul ll lived through that terrible time in Poland, but I don’t recall him ever saying that married clergy could have been a remedy for those times.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider recounts the heroic efforts of many people, including the women in his family, who, in Eastern Europe during the cold war, helped to bring Holy Eucharist to those who rarely had access to the Sacraments. These were saintly people who did what they could, but did not consider changing Church teaching as a remedy.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

How is it that they will get permission to change canon law on the issue? What precedent has there been in the Roman church for changing canon law specific to a particular diocese or region? (Please be specific).

There are certain issues that are delegated by canon law to the Episcopal conferences. Take a look at usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/canon-law/complementary-norms/ where it says:

The Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1983 contains eighty-four canons that call for or permit legislative action by the episcopal conference. Since that time the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (designated the National Conference of Catholic Bishops prior to July 1, 2001) has taken action on twenty-nine canons, thereby establishing particular legislation for the dioceses of the United States.

There you can see specific law for the US that may or may not agree with the specific law in other countries. I’m not a canon lawyer so I can’t say exactly how the process is implemented, but the web site indicates that the bishops come up with the norms and then they receive recognition from the Vatican.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

May i point something out , priests who are married in the eastern churches can not move up the hierarchy past Priest. They can never be bishops. Kinda contradictory don’t you think?

I don’t see it as contradictory, I see it as people having different roles. A parish priest has a different role from a bishop. A religious priest has a different role from a secular priest.

And I’m ot sure that “moving up the hierarchy” is the way I want priests to be oriented. What about simply being ordained to serve a community?

To allow priests to marry/allowed married men would lower the focus on the priesthood.

And I’m back to my earlier question. Are Eastern Catholic and Orthodox priests “less” than Roman Catholic priests? Are their sacraments less valid? Are they less fatherly to their congregations?

 

[Tigg]

May i point something out , priests who are married in the eastern churches can not move up the hierarchy past Priest. They can never be bishops. Kinda contradictory don’t you think?, Jesus was not married. Many of the apostles were not married. Peter was married but we can assume he was a widower considering it was his mother in law that served him not his wife. True Apostolic Tradition shows us that Celibacy is the way of the Priest/religious.

1. Priests as Christ figures. Above all else, the Catholic priest is an alter Christus—“another Christ.” This is clearest in the sacrifice of the Mass, when the priest acts in the person of the Christ in offering the Eucharist. Celibacy configures priests more completely to Christ, who lived a perfectly chaste life. Thus they not only “participate in His priestly office” but also share “His very condition of living,” Pope Paul VI writes in the encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus.
2. Marriage to the Church. In Scripture, the Church is often depicted as the Bridegroom of Christ. In celibacy, the priest, as an alter Christus, witnesses through his life to the marriage of Christ to His Church. “In virginity or celibacy, the human being is awaiting, also in a bodily way, the … marriage of Christ with the Church, giving himself or herself completely to the Church in the hope that Christ may give Himself to the Church in the full truth of eternal life. The celibate person thus anticipates in his or her flesh the new world of the future resurrection,” John Paul II writes in his apostolic constitution Familiaris Consortio.
3. Spiritual fatherhood. Through celibacy, priests give themselves over wholly to the service God and His Church. Just as a father is uniquely dedicated to his children, so also the priest should be dedicated to his parishioners. As one Jesuit priest at Georgetown University recently put it in the Washington Post: “I do not have my own biological children, but I have over 6,000 here on Georgetown’s main campus! I have many sons and daughters who call me ‘Father.’” John Paul II describes this as a “singular sharing in God’s fatherhood’”(Pastores Dabo Vobis).
4. Celibacy as sacrifice. In renouncing married life, the priest also links himself with Christ’s own sacrifice on the Cross. “In a similar way, by a daily dying to himself and by giving up the legitimate love of a family of his own for the love of Christ and of His kingdom, the priest will find the glory of an exceedingly rich and fruitful life in Christ, because like Him and in Him, he loves and dedicates himself to all the children of God,” Paul VI writes. This ultimately is the purpose of human sexuality—to be a “a genuine sign of and precious service to the love of communion and gift of self to others,” writes Blessed Pope John Paul II in Pastores Dabo Vobis.catholicexchange.com/10-reasons-for-priestly-celibacy To allow priests to marry/allowed married men would lower the focus on the priesthood.

Yes, yes, and yes, but lotsa luck with that number 4. Catholics have generally bought into the secular view and sexual deprivation as sacrifice is simply speaking a foreign language to most.

 

[Denise1957]

There are certain issues that are delegated by canon law to the Episcopal conferences. Take a look at usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/canon-law/complementary-norms/ where it says:

The Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1983 contains eighty-four canons that call for or permit legislative action by the episcopal conference. Since that time the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (designated the National Conference of Catholic Bishops prior to July 1, 2001) has taken action on twenty-nine canons, thereby establishing particular legislation for the dioceses of the United States.

There you can see specific law for the US that may or may not agree with the specific law in other countries. I’m not a canon lawyer so I can’t say exactly how the process is implemented, but the web site indicates that the bishops come up with the norms and then they receive recognition from the Vatican.

I asked about a precedent regarding the changing of canon law. You’ve provided an example of canon laws which have not been implemented, which is something different, IMO.