Optional Celibacy in the Priesthood

[peregrinus_sg]

To argue that the Protestant and other forms of Christianity are also experiencing a shortage of clergy is not convincing because those churches are also experiencing a shortage of people in their congregations.

The Catholic churches around the world are still doing better in terms of church attendance than their Protestant counterparts… but the priests just can’t keep up with the size of their congregations… hence the need for Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist (which in my youth would have been considered impossible).

Rove

If the congregations are decreasing faster than the drop in Protestant clergy, wouldn’t that mean the clergy to people ratio is improving, in which case there isn’t a real Protestant clergy shortage. But that is not what was reported.

By the way, there isn’t such a thing as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. The only minister of the Eucharist is a validly ordained priest (Bishop included). The rest of us who on occasion assists in distributing Holy Communion are properly called extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Our role is blissfully limited.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I mean no offense, I really mean no offense, but I have seen enough to know that people who believe the parish cannot afford a priest or two with families are kidding themselves, just the same way I used to kid myself.

But you see, you joined a community which was already used to donating that bit more to help their priest and his family. In the Latin Church, almost everyone is not used to doing that. Some parishes that have introduced electronic giving are complaining that weekly collections actually dropped since those who gave electronically don’t put anything in the basket when it comes to Mass on Sundays, and that influences others who did not give electronically to think it is normal not to give at Mass on Sundays! I know of a priest-friend who actually encouraged those who gave electronically to drop an empty envelope at Mass, just to be a good example to others.

In any case, the Latin Church has better reasons for maintaining the discipline of priestly celibacy than the habits of the assembly.

 

[otjm]

Collections during Mass are decreasing, because of the economy and because Mass attendance is decreasing. Theology aside, do you realize that just on a practical basis, married priests would need a part-time job to support their families because it’s doubtful the parishioners would be able to?

Either that, or the Church would actually have to practice what it preaches, and figure out how to do economic justice.

 

[otjm]

The “problems” of a married priesthood go beyond merely celibacy v. marriage. The Church would also have to overhaul the entire system for training priests. A family man can’t simply disappear from their family for 4-6 years.

That is a presumption that the only effective way a man can study for the priesthood is to live 24-7 at a seminary. I would hardly presume that is a given. There are obvious complications with the issue, and I do not intend to minimize the need for spiritual growth, which is not a classroom subject but rather part of the on-going life of a seminarian, including praying the Office together, and Mass together.

On the other hand, numerous married people obtain advanced degrees while married; it certainly is not unheard of for someone to obtain a Masters while married (which is what the classroom work in Theology is primarily for). Further, married men now studying for the permanent diaconite in this archdiocese spend 5 years in preparation on average, part of which is obtaining a Masters, and their coursework is on weekends. I am not suggesting that all Masters’ degrees be obtained by weekend work, but the course work can be accomodated. The 4th year of Theology is normally a practicum in a parish or other setting; again, nothing to do with being married. To make the point another way: Most married men I know have at least an 8 to 5 job; and anyone who is a professional is doing more than a 40 hour week (new attorneys average about 80 your weeks in large firms). While seminarians generally live together, the presumption that this is a prerequisite is not a given. No one would ahve to “disappear” for 4 to 6 years.

Secondly, where would they live? Obviously not in a rectory.

They would stay where many unmarried priests stay - in a house or apartment. Rectories used to accomodate two, three or more priests; many of them are no longer used for living quarters. Again, a non-issue.

Third, finances would have to be entirely overhauled. Right now, when a priest dies his pension stops paying out. If he leaves a widow, then the pension most likely continues. Health care costs are through the roof, more heads on a plan means more money.

A) perhaps the Church would need to practice what it preaches - economic justice. B) There most likely will not be a large number of married priests, should the church change its rules (I will post later), so in the overall budget of the diocese, it is not a significant amount.

Essentially, while most parishes might like to see married priests, the odds are that they can’t afford them.

Which presumes that the parish is supporting the priests now. I do not believe that is the case; at least in this diocese, they are payed by the diocese, not the parish. Which gets past the issue of poor parishes, small parishes, rich parishes, large parishes.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

That is a presumption that the only effective way a man can study for the priesthood is to live 24-7 at a seminary. I would hardly presume that is a given.

Nor am I saying that a 24-7 seminary is the only way. However, it would be a major undertaking to totally revamp a system that’s essentially been in place since Trent. Its easier said than done, that’s all I was trying to say.

On the other hand, numerous married people obtain advanced degrees while married; it certainly is not unheard of for someone to obtain a Masters while married (which is what the classroom work in Theology is primarily for).

Seminary trainning is about much more than the classroom. The Church is entrusting someone with essentially a lifetime gig, they want as much exposure to you as possible.

Further, married men now studying for the permanent diaconite in this archdiocese spend 5 years in preparation on average, part of which is obtaining a Masters, and their coursework is on weekends.

No offense to deacons, but they do not receive nearly the same trainning or scrutiny as do priesthood candidates.

They would stay where many unmarried priests stay - in a house or apartment. Rectories used to accomodate two, three or more priests; many of them are no longer used for living quarters. Again, a non-issue.

Not really. The norm is for priest’s to live in rectories in this country. There are exceptions, but it is the norm.

A) perhaps the Church would need to practice what it preaches - economic justice. B) There most likely will not be a large number of married priests, should the church change its rules (I will post later), so in the overall budget of the diocese, it is not a significant amount.

Not quite sure what you mean by part A. The Church practices economic justice in regards to lay employees. Priests, on the other hand, are expected to receive less as part of their vocation.

Which presumes that the parish is supporting the priests now. I do not believe that is the case; at least in this diocese, they are payed by the diocese, not the parish. Which gets past the issue of poor parishes, small parishes, rich parishes, large parishes.

You’re missing the point, the money is still coming from parishioners. It still requires either a substantial increase in giving or a substantial decrease in charitable services.
But in most diocese, as far as I know, it is the parish which pays the priest.

 

[budgie2]

While I rejoice at the many vocations from Africa and Asia, not all of them are motivated by spiritual concerns, which, IMHO, will prove to be disastrous in the long run. There are quite a few vocations (and I can say this from personale experience, not with Africa but India) where people do it only for societal status, financial reasons, education and the like.

There’s no problem with advocating married priests (a discipline after all) except the only people who seem to be doing that nowadays are groups who are not in accord with the teaching of the Church and not the least bit faithful to the teaching of the Magisterium. Married priests today, women priests tomorrow is the idea. And my fear-mongering side worries that among the avant-garde, we’ll have the priest’s wife in a few parishes acting like the priest himself.

And I think for most it is somethign of a knee-jerk reaction, with the mind focused more on issues of “equality” and “inclusion”. People forget that the vocation is a call, and they also forget other mundane secular issues - like suppose the priest gets divorced from his wife? Who gets the property? To what extent is the diocese then responsible? Etc., etc.

I don’t think you can say that vocations in Africa or India are not motivated by spiritual concerns but perhaps you know better. Many of the original apostles came from the poor so the poor are blessed spiritually.

 

[otjm]

Nor am I saying that a 24-7 seminary is the only way. However, it would be a major undertaking to totally revamp a system that’s essentially been in place since Trent. Its easier said than done, that’s all I was trying to say.

Why do you think it would be a major revamping? Most of what is done is done during the day; after dinner, they are generally on their own for studies, which do not have to be done on campus (with the exception of library work).

Seminary trainning is about much more than the classroom. The Church is entrusting someone with essentially a lifetime gig, they want as much exposure to you as possible.

Seminarians spend their days in class or studying. They pray together (the Office) before class (and attend Mass); they say Vespers and have dinner together (which may or may not be an important part of formation) and they spend their evenings studying, primarily alone, or are off campus doing some form of ministry work. Nothing about that schedule would be damaged by someone who was married. A goodly portion of their time that is involved in spiritual formation which results from their communal activities is done during the day, so being married is no imposition. And other portions do not require communal activity; in fact, they are just the opposite - done individually elsewhere than on campus.

No offense to deacons, but they do not receive nearly the same trainning or scrutiny as do priesthood candidates.{/QUOTE]and as I noted, I do not suggest that the training would be exactly, or even largely the same. But you seem to presume that 24-7 is necessary at a seminary. I disagree.
NewEnglandPries;5418460:

Not really. The norm is for priest’s to live in rectories in this country. There are exceptions, but it is the norm.

nless you have done a survey, I would suggest that it is not the norm. Obviously we have different experiences.

Not quite sure what you mean by part A. The Church practices economic justice in regards to lay employees. Priests, on the other hand, are expected to receive less as part of their vocation.

Why? Because they are not married? Justice looks at the whole person. And while we are at it, but off topic, that justice could spread to the laity also.

You’re missing the point, the money is still coming from parishioners. It still requires either a substantial increase in giving or a substantial decrease in charitable services.
But in most diocese, as far as I know, it is the parish which pays the priest.

No, I am most defintielty not missing the point. We already have a married clergy; they are few in overall numbers. I would not expect a large increase in those numbers.

Catholics are among the lowest in terms of individual giving. Whether or not we have a married clergy, that is not just. I am not suggesting that all have to tithe, but we are not even in that ballpark. Some dioceses are understaffed; some over-staffed. The whole issue is not un-doable; it is a matter of prioritizing, and sometimes, a matter of the good padre - married or unmarried - speaking plainly about the need for $$ assistance. People, even Catholics, are charitible when asked appropriately. Not demanded, but asked. It was my udnerstadning that the priests being paid by the diocese was from on high; but I have not heard what other dioceses do so I don’t know if it is consistent or not. Priests no longer get the stypend money, which has evened the income issue among them. Stypends now go to the Church, not the individual priest.

 

[otjm]

I don’t think you can say that vocations in Africa or India are not motivated by spiritual concerns but perhaps you know better. Many of the original apostles came from the poor so the poor are blessed spiritually.

It would not be correct to say that the majority of vocations, or even the large minority, are due to such circumstances, but the issue has been discussed publicly enough in the Church (see Catholic press) that it is not a complete unknown, nor is it speculative.

 

[otjm]

While the original post relates to a website that appears to want to re-shape the church in its own image and likeness, it should be understood that there are many good, sincere, Magisterium-following Catholics who would like to see the rule of celibacy relaxed. One does not have to want to violate dogma and doctrine, or reshape them in some fashion differing from Church teaching to desire a relaxation of the discipline of celibacy as a prerequisite for ordination.

There is something essentially odd about allowing Protestant ministers, married, who convert to be ordained but not allowing Catholics who are married to be ordained. I use the term odd because injust may be too strong. The Church has the right to determine what disciplines it follows. But what may have been important to end abuses at one period of time can easily become enshrined by certain individuals as something more than a discipline as time passes.

Too often what we hear coming from Rome seems to be a defense of celibacy, as if any and all who question the current discipline were insisting that celibacy be done away with. There is an old axiom that if a discipline is worthy, it should be its own defense; that is, one should not have to make celibacy an absolute if celibacy has virtue of its own.

I do not question that celibacy is a tremendous witness. I also do not question that celibacy is a charism in and of itself; the life of the Church amply demonstrates that even today by those who are professed celibates, and those who may not be professed, but openly and actively live the charism. One need only look to those nuns and brothers who have taken the vow of celibacy and live it openly and courageously within the Magisterium.

However, the charism of celibacy is different from and not an intrinsic part of the charism of the priesthood. The Church has had a married clergy for the sum of its existence in the Eastern rites; and has married clergy in the Roman rite, albeit limited.

I have yet to see anyone make any arguement against a married priesthood that has anything to do with its possiblity. Every issue that I have seen brought up projects problems that simply are not real roadblocks to a married clergy. Housing, pay, time demands, children, and a host of what are seen as real reasons to not have a married clergy simply miss the point. The priest is the leader of the parish in worship. Just because our current model puts him in the parish for more than 8 hours a day does not mean that what he does other than in the celebration of the sacraments has anything whatsoever to do with his charism as priest.

He has to go out on a sick call at 3 a.m.? So what does a physician do when a patient goes sour at 3 a.m.? He gets up and goes too; but we are not saying becasue of that he should be celibate.

And lest anyone get excited, there is no presumption that there would be a vast number of married men making an application to the diocese for entry into the seminary, if for no other reason than that they have spouses, and the spouse is going to have a good deal of (name removed by moderator)ut - a whole lot of women would not want to be married to a priest. I seriously doubt that if B16 said next week that ordination was open to married men, that there would be any great influx into seminaries.

But the bottom line is that the call - the vocation - to the priesthood is granted by the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit’s call to ordination that the Church responds to, and investigates when someone presents themselves to the diocese to be ordained, and ultimately it is the Church which calls the individual, not the individual who makes the call. And given that the call from the Spirit can (and in the circumstances of both the Eastern Churches, and the Roman rite for converting Protestant pastors) and does come to married men, it is the height of hubris to say that the Spirit cannot call or does not call married Cathoilic men to the priesthood. It is simply that the Roman rite does not respond to what the Spirit may be calling.

 

[eucharisteo]

You have made my point as clear as it will ever be stated. This is how I feel and think. Our thoughts are one on this subject. Even though I feel called to the priesthood, I seek the diaconate as a way to respond to my calling. It is the only means to my calling. I recognize that they are 2 different, yet similar or at least overlaping vocations. I will not push or pull to be made a priest because the Church must respond in kind much like I must respond to the Spirit’s call. I have no doubt that I have a vocation, it’s just that all parties concerned are not yet open to the posibilities.

Personally it seems [keyword here] to me that the Church may ultimately make the priesthood available to married men and it may be possible that the first steps are being witnessed today towards allowing married priests in future generations. But in that time the Church will hopefully control the floodgates from opening wide so as to maintain certain dignities deserving of our existing priests for having sacrificed their lives so freely. Who knows maybe the role of permanent deacons can be expanded into other liturgical ministries like hearing confessions and celibrating mass as priests instead of deacons. I do however understand the intense sacrifice that would be asked of women, much like Protestant minister’s wives. That said I’m hesitant to feel blessed that Protestant ministers all allowed to become priests because they too have a specific calling that is not the same as the priesthood. I believe that Protestant ministers have a similar vocation as a lay Catholic. Yet at the same time I do believe that the Church has just as many potential priests and religious within their ranks as well but because of the disparity in cult they do not see or hear their calling clearly to respond. We should lament the loss of men answering the call to the priesthood as well and both men and women to the religious life. I believe we lost religious vocations after VCII because they felt like it just was necissary and therefore robbed them of the dignity and respect due them. If we can encourage both men and women to consider religious vocations just as strongly if not more I believe priestly vocations would in crease as well. Encourage your children to first consider the posibility that God may be calling them to one of these vocations. Do not overly encourage them to date or get married and have children. If it is God’s will it will happen in due time. This is what my wife and I are attempting to do. PAX

 

[Thulas]

Dear Brothers and sisters, my opinion may sound controvesial, but, I have to state that the things we witness with priests in South Africa are shocking! Priests are openly having affairs and it is killing our faith. Talks about marriage HAVE to start immediately. A married priest would have far more dignity than one who claims to be celibate and yet has a steady girlfirend of many years. I love my religion, and sometimes find it difficult to defend these acts. There is also a shortage of priests in our country, because young men these days can not vow to celibacy, not because they want to be promiscous, but would rather be in a marriage with an official outlet.
Peace!

 

[centurionguard]

This might not be the correct forum for this kind of question but I figured this is as good as any of the forums to ask. I recently received an email from my brother asking me to support or open a meaningful dialog on Optional Celibacy in the Priesthood. His email included a link to web site that would allow you to send out e-cards or the modern equivalent of a postcard to various church leaders.

futurechurch.org/fpm/optcel/postcards/

The basis for this movement as he states is the shortage of priest and closings of various parishes and various different Popes who have been married throughout history. I believe he directed the email to me because my parish St. Mary’s is being closed next June and merging with another church St. Bernard’s; anyways. I wanted to know if any real discussions or dialog has been started in the church, their official standing on this matter and where I could direct him for more information on this subject.

Don

I haven’t even read through all the posts in this thread and all I can say is that the site that you quoted wreaks of secular humanism at best.

Optional Celibacy
So All Can Be At the Table ?

The (“option”) of celibacy for any Catholic man who seriously considering the desire to become a priest should not even be something that any man wanting to become a priest deliberates in his heart. You cannot serve two masters. A married priest would have his heart divided between loving and honoring his wife and between that of his love and humble service to his holy spouse (“Christ Jesus Himself”) in the Church.
Optional Celibacy would not answer the shortage of the priesthood. What many Catholics fail to realize is that the present shortage of priest we see globally in the Catholic Church today, is actually a scourge placed on the Church by God himself in direct proportion to not only the sins of the world but; the great sins of pride and the denigration of Gods Commandments happening in our present Church amongst “both” the laity and clergy.

Optional Celibacy

is humanistic reasoning.

I have to ask about the group of Catholics who posted the site you quoted ?

So All Can Be At the Table

Since when did a consecrated priest become separated from the rest of the congregation? And since when did a communal “Table” replace the Holy Sacrifice at the “ALTER” ?

 

[otjm]

I haven’t even read through all the posts in this thread and all I can say is that the site that you quoted wreaks of secular humanism at best.

On that we could probably agree; I don’t like it either. However, just because someone with screws loose thinks the world is round doesn’t mean that the world is not round.

The (“option”) of celibacy for any Catholic man who seriously considering the desire to become a priest should not even be something that any man wanting to become a priest deliberates in his heart. You cannot serve two masters. A married priest would have his heart divided between loving and honoring his wife and between that of his love and humble service to his holy spouse (“Christ Jesus Himself”) in the Church.

The essence of marriage is self-sacrifice; the last time I checked it was a sacrament, which makes it an interface between oursevles and God. To truly love one’s spouse, one must love God. And truly serving one’s spouse is serving God. Divided? That argument flies in the face of 2000 years of priesthood; it may be news to you but the Church has had a married clergy for 2000 years; the continuation of that tradition has been in the Eastern rites. The Western rite eliminated it centuries ago, in part because of abuses. However, since 1980 the Western rite has also had married priests. It would appear that you are not familiar with them.

Further, you have a very romanticized vision of what that “marriage” between the priest and God is about. It is about the priest as an alter Christus, which has to do with the priest as the confecter of the sacrmants (with the exception of marriage); according to that, a priest should never be a teacher, since that has nothing to do with sacraments, and is going to take away a large amount of time - class preparation, teaching, preparing and correcting tests, further schooling - but the Church has a history of hundereds of years of having priest teachers. It also has priest scientists, priest philosophers (as opposed to theologians), priest doctors… you have a very narrow view of what priests do.

Optional Celibacy would not answer the shortage of the priesthood. What many Catholics fail to realize is that the present shortage of priest we see globally in the Catholic Church today, is actually a scourge placed on the Church by God himself in direct proportion to not only the sins of the world but; the great sins of pride and the denigration of Gods Commandments happening in our present Church amongst “both” the laity and clergy.

I don’t know about a scourge; in fact, there is not a global shortage of priests; but rather globally the priesthood is growing, and in particular in India and Africa there is a surplus. And while I agree that allowing married men to be ordained would not “answer” the shortage of priests in the Western world (North America and Europe), it most certainly would not contribute to the shortage. It would result in more priests; probably not a large number more.

I have to ask about the group of Catholics who posted the site you quoted ?
Since when did a consecrated priest become separated from the rest of the congregation? And since when did a communal “Table” replace the Holy Sacrifice at the “ALTER” ?

I am not sure about your question of a priest separated from the rest of the congregation; but historically it goes back a long, long way. As to the communal table issue vs. sacrifice, that goes back to the beginning of the OF; and without getting this thread side-tracked, it is the fact that the Mass is both sacrifice and sacred meal; it can be argued that the EF emphasizes sacrifice to the point where sacred meal gets lost, and that the OF does the opposite. The truth lies somewhere between the two hyperbolic extremes. But that is fodder for another thread.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Why do you think it would be a major revamping? Most of what is done is done during the day; after dinner, they are generally on their own for studies, which do not have to be done on campus (with the exception of library work).

Seminarians spend their days in class or studying. They pray together (the Office) before class (and attend Mass); they say Vespers and have dinner together (which may or may not be an important part of formation) and they spend their evenings studying, primarily alone, or are off campus doing some form of ministry work. Nothing about that schedule would be damaged by someone who was married. A goodly portion of their time that is involved in spiritual formation which results from their communal activities is done during the day, so being married is no imposition. And other portions do not require communal activity; in fact, they are just the opposite - done individually elsewhere than on campus.

More than just studying and learning takes place while a man is in the seminary.

Formation classes take place and most of those are in the evening hours as well as on weekends.

 

[otjm]

More than just studying and learning takes place while a man is in the seminary.

Formation classes take place and most of those are in the evening hours as well as on weekends.

That depends on the seminary. The point is, we have a married priesthood - both in the Eastern and Western rites, and the issue is not insurmountable in regards to getting a married man through seminary without having to have him remove himself from the family while in seminary, or miss significant amounts of training, whether that be classroom or other. Pretty in the process? No. But then, I would not anticipate a hugh influx, either.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That depends on the seminary. The point is, we have a married priesthood - both in the Eastern and Western rites, and the issue is not insurmountable in regards to getting a married man through seminary without having to have him remove himself from the family while in seminary, or miss significant amounts of training, whether that be classroom or other. Pretty in the process? No. But then, I would not anticipate a hugh influx, either.

Formation classes are not dependent on the seminary. All those in formation for the priesthood have formation classes that are not part of the degree program. The only ones that do not do it there are religious who are attending a theologate rather than a seminary. Their formation classes take place in their houses of studies.

There should be housing for married candidates at seminaries that accept married men into formation but they will not be excluded from the formation classes. There should also, ideally, be formation classes for the wives of such men.

 

[otjm]

Formation classes are not dependent on the seminary. All those in formation for the priesthood have formation classes that are not part of the degree program. The only ones that do not do it there are religious who are attending a theologate rather than a seminary. Their formation classes take place in their houses of studies.

There should be housing for married candidates at seminaries that accept married men into formation but they will not be excluded from the formation classes. There should also, ideally, be formation classes for the wives of such men.

Mount Angel Seminary is about 35 to 40 miles south of Portland. Having attended there, I am familiar with the issues.

The point I was trying to make is that the issue is hardly unsolveable. Whether the housing is on campus or near by, the need to be close should be obvious. The OP I was responding to seemed to think that it would take a massive upheaval of the system in order to be accomplished, and/or require the individual to be absent from the family for 4 to 6 years. Those simply are not true. We have about 100 give or take a few ex-Protestant ministers who have been ordained while married, if my numbers from the Catholic press are true (the most recent I think being one in Nebraska, the first there). If we have managed to accomodate them, I sincerely suspect we will be able to accomodate others.

Does it take some accomodation? Certainly.

Does it border on the impossible? It hasn’t seemed to.

Will there be a massive number applying should it ever come true? I doubt it; for starters, there may be a lot of wives who simply do not want the family to go down that path; and she will be an active and intrinsic element in the decision making process.

Do I think the Holy Spirit can call men to the priesthood?

Do 2000 years of history give us a clue to that one?

Do I get tired of the old “serving two masters” bit about a priest not being able to serve God if he is married? How do I answer that one, given the fact that we have a 2000 year history of them doing so… without getting short, or impatient, or flippant…

I think that celibacy is a vibrant and precious gift to the Church and to the world, most particularly in a world that is so super-saturated with such a warped view of sexuality and sexual activity. However, I also feel that there are a goodly number of Roman Catholics who have a knee-jerk response that somehow, if we had a married clergy, that such would be an attack on celibacy. My guess is that among at least some (and by this I mean some of the hierarchy) there may be fears that are related to the simple fact that priesthood and celibacy are two separate and distinct charisms, and the truth might out that there are those ordained who had one but not both charisms.

We have a whole lot of semi-unspoken assumptions of what priesthood is about, and one of those is that Father needs to be at the parish office or parish beckoning 24-7. For sacramental issues, yes, he is absolutely indispensible. But as an administrator, which is a large amount of what he does?

 

[wisdomseeker]

This might not be the correct forum for this kind of question but I figured this is as good as any of the forums to ask. I recently received an email from my brother asking me to support or open a meaningful dialog on Optional Celibacy in the Priesthood. His email included a link to web site that would allow you to send out e-cards or the modern equivalent of a postcard to various church leaders.

futurechurch.org/fpm/optcel/postcards/

The basis for this movement as he states is the shortage of priest and closings of various parishes and various different Popes who have been married throughout history. I believe he directed the email to me because my parish St. Mary’s is being closed next June and merging with another church St. Bernard’s; anyways. I wanted to know if any real discussions or dialog has been started in the church, their official standing on this matter and where I could direct him for more information on this subject.

Don

people can and will use anything to solve problems. but in this case married priests is not the solution but only will ad to the problems. the Church does not need us to campaing against her but to be on her side. what we really need is more holy priests and bishops to carry on the Cross. stay out of these campaign if you can. as we know there are many enemies within the Church today and has always been. and together with the outsiders they seek to cause harm to the Church. we live in the days which many wants to modernize the Church in order to undermine her. the Church is living a very difficult time let s not ad to it even more. the Church needs our support to stand wiht her and not against her.

God bless.

 

[Dr_Mark_Sayers]

Having been ordained a priest, I agree that globally there is no shortage of priests and that the seeming lack of priestly vocations in many Western countries is a more complex issue than can be “solved” by changing the discipline and/or theology of celibacy. However, for what it’s worth by way of anecdotal information: of the 36 ordained from the seminary during my 9 years there (21 years ago), there are only 9 still living and working as priests; in discussions i had with the 27 who have left, all but 2 of them cited celibacy as the reason why they stopped. It is arguable that perhaps they misunderstood the call to vocation, or that they maintained a mental reservation about celibacy when they were ordained, or that they received less than optimal seminary training. Even if all of any of those factors explain why so many left the priesthood, it is important to know that the experience of celibacy for many in parishes (at least, for the many of those 36 ordained during my time) was a dispiriting one. Changes in discipline/theology about priestly celibacy may address the issue of why so many have left the priesthood but such changes, assuming they were to occur, will not address all the reasons why not enough men now do not enter the seminary.My only hope is that this dip in the number of priestly vocations here is all a work of the Holy Spirit, rather than of evil, and that it will help us all to discern and better appreciate the true value of priestly vocation.

 

[wisdomseeker]

i dont quite understand all this ridiculous desire to change celibacy in the Church. shortage of priests? there is shortage of people coming to Church. my parish. half of seats are empty. there is priests, but very few people. how about worry about how to bring Catholics into the Church instead of worrying about getting the priests to married.