Of 'viri probati' to alleviate the shortage of priests

[otjm]

Maybe 50 or 60 years ago, the argument against married priests was based more on the attitude to celibacy. I think the caution against married priests today reflects far greater concern over the fragility of the married state. Divorce among Catholics (and Protestants, and others) today is far worse than anyone could have predicted in 1960. I have relatives who have been enormously impacted by issues with their children through the teen years, often well into their kids’ young adulthood.

It’s tempting to say “ordain Bob, we can limit his duties to Sunday mornings and Saturday afternoon”. But you KNOW what will happen: the pastor gets sick, and there’s no back up plan; that hospital can’t find a priest to come in at night; they need a priest to say Mass for the K of C, the alumni gathering, the convent, the Scouts, the this, the that; this emergency, that crisis, and so on. “If you’re a priest, how can you turn us down”. He is scheduled for only a half hour of confessions, but one confession opens up a huge can of worms that he has to deal with.

Bob’s family life seemed stable 5 years ago when he entered seminary. Today Fr. Bob’s son is on drugs, and it’s stressing Fr. Bob’s marriage, especially since the phone won’t stop ringing for him to come help. I know an awful lot of Christians who had a seemingly stable family life, who are raising their grandchildren, or dealing with their 20-something daughter’s mental illness, or other concerns, not predicted a decade earlier, none of which are their “fault”. It’s easier for deacons to limit their ministry duties than priests, but even deacons have had family life sometimes stressed by their ministry.

I’m not denying the arguments presented here for a married priesthood, which I agree with; I’m simply looking at the issue from another direction - or rather, from the other sacrament.

Having had a professions which absolutely was not a 9 to 5 job, and having had friends who had professions which likewise had far more demands than a 9 to 5 (and yes, I know priesthood is not a profession), I can only surmise that those who constantly bring up the issues of demanding schedules are those who have never had one.

Yes, there are a lot of divorces; about 1 out of 4 Catholic marriages end in divorce, and that is way too high.

On the other hand, 75% of Catholic marriages do not end in divorce; and I fail to see that the world, and in particular the Catholic world, does not need more witnesses to marriages sticking together.

The same issue was brought up constantly about married deacons - “Oh, the scandal that we are going to have” - except it never materialized.

Which marriage is more likely to have problems ending in divorce - one in which both parties are soundly committed to Catholicism, or one in which one or both parties are at best mildly catechized, and far more drawn to the secular world than the Christian world?

We are constantly bombarded with the nonsense of the priest committed 24/7 - hogwash; - if for no other reason than that they sleep 8 hours of that 24, and (at least in our diocese) they are required to take one day off.

And it is beyond silliness that the remaining time is crammed so full that they can’t see straight. Some are far better time managers than others; they are not out every night - in fact they are not out once every week - tending to the sick and dying for two reasons - a) there are simply not that many people dying and requiring the Sacraments; and b) many of those that do are attended to during the day.

In other words, we are making a false construct, and then attempting to apply it to all priests. There are a number of priests who do not have parishes; they may assist at a parish or may assist wherever needed in an on-going basis; but they too are not meeting demands 24/7.

Yes, there are emergencies; and guess what - doctors have those too. And doctors’ families manage the odd hours. And that is not to mention the demands put on married deacons. Yes, they too do not have 9 to 5 jobs with weekends completely off; and we are not seeing disintegration of their families and marriages.

Absolutely there are demands on marriages if one has the vocation of priest - we have married priests in the Roman rite and we have a 2000 year history of married priests in the Eastern rites; and they manage. Are they pastors of parishes? In the Roman rite some may be (in our Archdiocese, Father Slider Steuernol, who was previously a Presbyterian minister, was pastor of a smaller inner city parish in Portland and managed); others are assistants, or are doing something other than parish work during the week.

Maybe elsewhere pastors are running out on calls in the middle of the night for people in crisis; but the priests I know pretty much keep office hours except for Sacrament of the Sick (and as noted, that often is administered during the day, of by a hospital chaplain who is not assigned parish work).

Does it make a demand on a marriage: absolutely. Does celibacy make a demand? Totally aside from sexual issues, there is the lack of companionship and the support of another. Talking to walls, or to the cat or dog, is not conducive to having the emotional support that many, if not most people need. It used to be that many parishes had several priests in residence and there was some form of community; any more that is the exception.

 

[otjm]

OTOH, those who don’t have priests available aren’t obligated to attend Mass. Just sayin…

Looking at the celebration of Mas and the reception of Communion as obligation is to minimize the faith to bare rules.

As I have noted elsewhere, Ralph Martin in the 90’s wrote a book which detailed the inroads which the evangelical churches were making in Central and South America. Blithely dismissing the failure to provide Mass and the Eucharist on a regular basis with a comment about no obligation to attend is unbecoming of anyone who professes to be a strong Catholic. And that is about as politely put as I can do.

And I have absolutely no doubt that if Brazil were to receive permission to ordain married men, that their vocation crisis would not be solved. It would be alleviated to some degree - the degree to which more men could be ordained; but there will be no rush; if anything, it will be a gradual growth in the number of priests who can serve such a huge area - just as the growth of the permanent deaconate has been gradual.

 

[otjm]

Here, here, and here. Maybe these articles will help you to understand what I have always held to be true, and will continue to firmly believe.

Peace, Mark

Your first link is non-responsive to the issue art hand.

From Fr. Saunders (your second link): “Sadly, in our world, many people cannot appreciate the discipline of celibacy, whether for the clergy or anyone else. We live in a society where the media bombards us with uncontrolled sexual imagery. If some people cannot appreciate the values of virginity before marriage, fidelity in marriage, or sacrifice for children, they cannot begin to appreciate anyone, man or woman, who lives a celibate lifestyle in dedication to a vocation. As a Church, we should be thankful to the clergy and the men and women religious who have made the total sacrifice of themselves out of love to serve our Lord and the Church.”

No question about that, but again, non-responsive.

Both of them support the issue of a celibate clergy; neither answer the question of a married clergy; - which, not to make too fine a point of it, we have currently.

They both, “in between the lines” seem to reflect some sort of fear that somehow, should the rule of mandatory celibacy be breached, that there would be such a flood of married men applying that we would be inundated (that won’t happen, any more than it happening with the permanent deaconate) and that somehow, celibacy is going to go out the window. That won’t happen either. Celibacy, whether as part of the priesthood or as its own vocation, has been with the Church since its founding and is going to continue, as it is a gift and a calling from God.

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe 50 or 60 years ago, the argument against married priests was based more on the attitude to celibacy. I think the caution against married priests today reflects far greater concern over the fragility of the married state. Divorce among Catholics (and Protestants, and others) today is far worse than anyone could have predicted in 1960.

I agree. This is also evidenced by the decreasing numbers of Catholics getting married. The decline is so steep in fact that one can easily conclude that within 50 years, sacramental Matrimony (or the lack of it) will make this whole controversy over married priests a moot point, whether it goes into effect or not.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

OTOH, those who don’t have priests available aren’t obligated to attend Mass. Just sayin…

They also don’t have the OPPORTUNITY to attend Mass…or confess their sins…or marry their sweethearts. Just sayin…

I see people on CAF complain because their parish merged with another and now there is only one Mass available on Sunday morning. It’s followed by the equivalent of “oh woe is me, there’s such a vocations crisis.” Now imagine that there’s only a Mass available every few months. What would that do to your faith?

 

[ProVobis]

As I have noted elsewhere, Ralph Martin in the 90’s wrote a book which detailed the inroads which the evangelical churches were making in Central and South America. Blithely dismissing the failure to provide Mass and the Eucharist on a regular basis with a comment about no obligation to attend is unbecoming of anyone who professes to be a strong Catholic. And that is about as politely put as I can do.

It’s also unbecoming to hold those who have no access to the sacraments to the same set of standards as those without. And what makes you so competent to judge strength in Catholic matters? Have I made the claim to be strong, whatever that means? What are you really trying to say, politely or otherwise?

 

[otjm]

Here, here, and here. Maybe these articles will help you to understand what I have always held to be true, and will continue to firmly believe.

Peace, Mark

As to the third link, again, what was written 20 years ago needs a bit of context. I don’t know Father Zimmerman’s age at the time of his writing, but I would strongly suspect that he was still hearing echoes and feeling the backlash of what occurred starting in the 70’s and continuing on in the 80’s, and that was the almost incredible number of men who left the priesthood - some being laicized and given permission to marry, and some not being given permission to marry, and some not being laicized even - and almost every one of them got married.

You are not going to find a lot written by priests about any positives of a married clergy. It should not be particularly hard to figure out why; such a position would run counter the discipline and publicly calling a current discipline into question is not seen, in may quarters, as a particularly healthy route to take.

Father Zimmerman seems to ignore 2000 years of history, and I will leave his article at that. No one here is debating the value of celibacy as witness. It simply is not the only witness, it is not in any way intrinsic to the priesthood, but is most definitely highly complimentary.

 

[otjm]

It’s also unbecoming to hold those who have no access to the sacraments to the same set of standards as those without. And what makes you so competent to judge strength in Catholic matters? Have I made the claim to be strong, whatever that means? What are you really trying to say, politely or otherwise?

Go read post 104.

 

[ProVobis]

They also don’t have the OPPORTUNITY to attend Mass…or confess their sins…or marry their sweethearts. Just sayin…

I see people on CAF complain because their parish merged with another and now there is only one Mass available on Sunday morning. It’s followed by the equivalent of “oh woe is me, there’s such a vocations crisis.” Now imagine that there’s only a Mass available every few months. What would that do to your faith?

But there’s a difference between those who were brought up in the faith with all sacraments and Mass available and those who have never experienced any of it at all. And I suppose we can include non-Catholics in that mix. Ecumenism IMO recognizes that we are all brothers and conversion to our way of thinking is perhaps that not desirable in the whole scheme of things. You and I have been raised and taught certain things along the way under which each of us will be judged. I can’t say what’s best for people in South America and I doubt any one else on this thread can either.

I think I’ve said all I need to on this thread. Proceed.

 

[Denise1957]

It is not a “teaching” in the sense of “doctrine.” It is a “discipline” which has been affirmed by councils and encyclicals. Disciplines can change, doctrines cannot.

Are you hoping that the teaching on celibacy for the clergy will change?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

But there’s a difference between those who were brought up in the faith with all sacraments and Mass available and those who have never experienced any of it at all. And I suppose we can include non-Catholics in that mix. Ecumenism IMO recognizes that we are all brothers and conversion to our way of thinking is perhaps that not desirable in the whole scheme of things. You and I have been raised and taught certain things along the way under which each of us will be judged. I can’t say what’s best for people in South America and I doubt any one else on this thread can either.

I think I’ve said all I need to on this thread. Proceed.

I’m not sure who you think is judging the people in Brazil. I think we’re all pretty sad that there’s a large group of people who don’t have access to priests.

More than that, I think the Church is failing these people. We (in the sense of the Church) have sent missionaries to spread the gospel and bring people into the Church. Then once they’re in, they’re on their own. “Best wishes…good luck…hope everything works out for you” is not the answer, yet right now that’s pretty much all that’s offered.

 

[otjm]

Are you hoping that the teaching on celibacy for the clergy will change?

This is not meant to pick, but rather to help avoid confusion.

The question is “what do we mean by ‘teaching’ in this context?”

The context is the possible further relaxation of the current discipline (rule - as in Canon law) that currently says that married men may not be ordained in the Roman rite.

Eastern rite Churches have a different set of Canon laws; and their Canon law allows married men to be ordained.

In the Roman rite, Catholic married men may not be ordained, except that there has been a relaxation of that rule specifically applied to married men who were ministers in Protestant churches, and have converted. Some, but not all, have been ordained Catholic priests as Rome has seen fit to make exceptions in this circumstance.

Separate from the Canon law which states that married men will not be ordained, is a body of teaching - not doctrine, but rather the rationale behind the Canon law rule, which strongly supports a celibate clergy.

The Church holds that Christ was celibate, and at least a significant part of the teaching behind the rule is based on that.

It is also factual that not only were some of the Apostles married, but also the Church had married, as well as celibate clergy, from the time that such matters were recorded.

So when you ask if one hopes that the teaching on celibacy might be changed, it is hard to discern exactly what you are asking.

I would suspect that no one in this thread would hope that celibacy would be done away with - so no one would be hoping that the teaching con celibacy be changed.

on the other hand, some people in this thread would like the rule to either be changed - to allow both a married and a celibate clergy; or relaxed further than it has been (as the relaxation of the rule ha only applied to protestant minister converts).

It is possible that the rule could be relaxed specifically to Brazil, or specifically to some of the dioceses in Brazil, but not all.

It could be that instead of what might be considered a “normal” ordination, that men could be ordained along the lines of a more simple exercise of priestly ministry. as Father Solanus Casey was.

Or it could be that Rome would not want to expand the exceptions that have been granted so far.

 

[Denise1957]

This is not meant to pick, but rather to help avoid confusion.

The question is “what do we mean by ‘teaching’ in this context?”

The context is the possible further relaxation of the current discipline (rule - as in Canon law) that currently says that married men may not be ordained in the Roman rite.

Eastern rite Churches have a different set of Canon laws; and their Canon law allows married men to be ordained.

In the Roman rite, Catholic married men may not be ordained, except that there has been a relaxation of that rule specifically applied to married men who were ministers in Protestant churches, and have converted. Some, but not all, have been ordained Catholic priests as Rome has seen fit to make exceptions in this circumstance.

Separate from the Canon law which states that married men will not be ordained, is a body of teaching - not doctrine, but rather the rationale behind the Canon law rule, which strongly supports a celibate clergy.

The Church holds that Christ was celibate, and at least a significant part of the teaching behind the rule is based on that.

It is also factual that not only were some of the Apostles married, but also the Church had married, as well as celibate clergy, from the time that such matters were recorded.

So when you ask if one hopes that the teaching on celibacy might be changed, it is hard to discern exactly what you are asking.

I would suspect that no one in this thread would hope that celibacy would be done away with - so no one would be hoping that the teaching con celibacy be changed.

on the other hand, some people in this thread would like the rule to either be changed - to allow both a married and a celibate clergy; or relaxed further than it has been (as the relaxation of the rule ha only applied to protestant minister converts).

It is possible that the rule could be relaxed specifically to Brazil, or specifically to some of the dioceses in Brazil, but not all.

It could be that instead of what might be considered a “normal” ordination, that men could be ordained along the lines of a more simple exercise of priestly ministry. as Father Solanus Casey was.

Or it could be that Rome would not want to expand the exceptions that have been granted so far.

I’ll keep it simple: are you hoping that the rules in the Roman Church will be relaxed so as to allow for married men to be ordained? And no, I’m not speaking here of Protestants who convert, so there’s no need to bring that up yet again.

 

[otjm]

I’ll keep it simple: are you hoping that the rules in the Roman Church will be relaxed so as to allow for married men to be ordained? And no, I’m not speaking here of Protestants who convert, so there’s no need to bring that up yet again.

Some would like to see the rule relaxed; some would like to see it changed.

By relaxing the rule, would mean limiting it, perhaps to Brazil, or to Brazil and other third world countries where it might be needed (if there are other areas which are so under-served). I am sure others could think of limitations while relaxing the rule.

Some would like to see the Roman rite allow the ordination of both married men and celibate men - or in other words, the rule changed. And after 2000 years of history, there is no reason for anyone to presume that we would not have celibate men to ordain.

There are undoubtedly many Catholics who have no idea that the Roman rite currently has married priests; with something like 17,000 parishes in the US, it is not hard at all to be out of touch with what is happening beyond the parish boundaries. There is a certain element of shock to people who assume that it is a doctrine, rather than a discipline.

And there are other pressures afoot; to mention one, there are the priests who quit and got married, and some of them want back in. Let’s just put that to rest with the fact that it would be far more likely that the Church would ordain married men than it would allow priests to marry. But that does not stop what would be a clamor; and one has only to look at how the secular press has had a field day reporting (I prefer to say spinning) what the synod on families is about. One is reminded of the old saying that when one is up to one’s (backside) in alligators, it is hard to remember that the original project was to drain the swamp.

Personally, I have no fear at all if the Pope should either make another exception to the rule of celibacy only, or for that matter, allow all bishops to decide if they call married men to ordination. There won’t be an absolute mad rush, just as there has not been an absolute mad rush to ordain married men to the deaconate.

5 years (or more) of education and practicum can cool an awful lot of heels; in addition, the wife has to approve (and that is not a one-time question; it occurs several times specifically along the way - at least in my archdiocese). And as has occurred (or not occurred) in some dioceses, some bishops have not favored deacons - which is within their rights and responsibilities.

I have no fear about the purported need to have a priest devoted 24/7/365 to a parish as that also is a false assumption that they will, or need to be, in a parish. Some may (we had one who was an awesome priest and pastor, and came over for the Presbyterian church); others may be assistants (we have one now who is); and some might, like deacons and some priests, have a day job and be available some evenings and weekends.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

OTJM,

I would add another limitation in addition to limiting this to Brazil or other defined places with severe shortages, the title of the post refers to viri probati. So that would add another limitation, by age. I’m not sure how old you have to be to be considered “proven,” but perhaps 60? So that would also tend to limit the numbers involved. Basically when other people are starting to think about retiring or at least slowing down, these would be people who are preparing for a new job in ordained ministry.

 

[otjm]

OTJM,

I would add another limitation in addition to limiting this to Brazil or other defined places with severe shortages, the title of the post refers to viri probati. So that would add another limitation, by age. I’m not sure how old you have to be to be considered “proven,” but perhaps 60? So that would also tend to limit the numbers involved. Basically when other people are starting to think about retiring or at least slowing down, these would be people who are preparing for a new job in ordained ministry.

Good point. I would suspect that it might be closer to 45 to 50; While we might be living on average to our 80’s, not all of the rest of the world shares in that extension.