Optional Celibacy in the Priesthood

[JReducation]

As I posted on another thread with a similar subject, celibacy is not the reason for a decline in the number of vocations to the priesthood. Let’s look at the decline in the number of married couples. Marriage too is a vocation. How many people stay married until death? How many couples get married at all? It seems to me that in many metropolitan areas, where the larger concentration of people live, there are many transitional couples.

If people were that committed to marriage and the exclusion of marriage were the only reason for the decline in priestly vocations, we would not be seeing a decline in marital vocations. The fact is that there are more couples together who are not married or who are on their second or third marriages than ever before.

I doubt that men are not choosing to be priests because they want to be married. If that were the case, they would be married and stay married.

The instability of marriages is a bigger crisis than the shortage of priests. Almost every priest I know comes from a family. I don’t’ think that I’ve ever met one who was poofed into existence.

Before the laity tries to reconstruct the priesthood and the religious life, why doesn’t it try to work on marriage. Marriage falls within the Apostolate of the Laity according to the decree of Vatican II. I think that we’re trying to solve the shortage of priests and forgetting that priests are born into nurturing families.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[hitherwood1]

First, I have to say that no Catholic should get messed up with the group from the website you posted. Here is a snippet from their mission statement: “FutureChurch respects the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church and its current position on ordination and advocates widespread discussion of the need to open ordination to all baptized Catholics who are called to priestly ministry by God and the people of God.” Apparently this group thinks that the Church’s position on ordination of women is changeable.

I repeat, do not give this website the time of day, it will do no good.

As to your question, the tradition of the Roman Church is priestly celibacy. Why are we now having problems with a lack of priests if for centuries we had a celibate priesthood and we were fine? It is because celibacy isn’t the issue. The issue, as Deacon Ed said, is more complex than that. Part of the problem is that the role of the priest has been diminished. Priests are no longer set apart, and the laity don’t actually know what a priest is called to do by Almighty God. That is, of course, a very simplified reason, but I hope it makes sense.

Are we so petrified by the celibacy issue that we can’t even visit sites that might advocate it, or even debate the issue? While I support celibacy we can at least have the strength of character to debate it - otherwise it demonstrates that we are rather insecure. In my nearby town we had a situation where a priest left because he wanted to marry, only to be replaced by a married Anglican convert priest. How daft is that?

 

[JReducation]

Are we so petrified by the celibacy issue that we can’t even visit sites that might advocate it, or even debate the issue? While I support celibacy we can at least have the strength of character to debate it - otherwise it demonstrates that we are rather insecure. In my nearby town we had a situation where a priest left because he wanted to marry, only to be replaced by a married Anglican convert priest. How daft is that?

First, when did the Church say that celibacy was on the table for debate?

Second, the preist who replaced your priest was married before he was ordained. That’s the crux of the matter. Married men can be admitted to the priesthood. Deacons and priests who are single can never get married. That tradition was handed down to us from the Apostles. We do not have the right to change it. Neither the Eastern Catholics nor the Orthodox allow single deacons, priests and bishops to marry. They ordain men who are already married. That’s very different.

Men who are married cannot become bishops or religious. They may be ordained as secular deacons or secular priests. They may never become consecrated men. The consecrated life, by doctrine, requires celibacy. Therefore, these priests who are married cannot be religious.

With all due respect, but those of us who are celibate are happy. We believe what the Church teaches about celibacy. We do not see how ordaining married men will do anything to improve the priesthood, especially in a world where married life is in a bigger crisis than the priesthood.

The laity must concentrate on what is appropriately their ministry, the family. They should be running threads, workshops, reatreats, lectures, education and other programs to repair the damage done by social change to the institution of marriage. The declining number of priests is not as critical as the increase in divorce, domestic violence, and transitional marriages. If we want more priests, we need more families where boys grow into men of faith.

Where do people get the idea that married priests are going to help the number of vocations? This has not proven true even among ecclesial communities where the clergy is married.

Social changes that usurped the moral order have more to do with the decline of vocations to the priesthood.

Currently there are more new communities of religious men, than there are diocesan seminaries around the world. Last year, the Franciscan family, which is the largest religious family in the Church, reported the profession of vows of over 1,000 brothers around the globe and the ordination of 200 of those brothers. All 1,000 brothers have solid training in theology and other sciences. Any of them can make very good priests. But many religious communities are focussing on the growth of their community and other ministries for which they were founded and where Holy Orders is not a requirement.

We have such communities as the Brothers of the Poor, the Little Brothers of St. Francis, the Brothers of Peace, the Brothers for Life, the Brothers of Christ the King, the Brothers of Charity and the Brothers of Penance. These religious communities of men do not ordain their members. They have been approved by the Holy See or by the local bishops since 1995, just for the USA. Together they have over 500 men.

Then there are monastic communities that are growing again such as Trappists, Carthusians, Camaldolese, Carmelite hermits, Franciscan hermits, Capuchin hermits. These have some priests. But these priests are not called to serve outside of the hermitage or the enclosure of the monastery. The Cathusians will not even allow the laity to attend their masses, nor will the Camaldolese. Yet, these communities are getting priestly vocations.

If we look, there are vocations to the priesthood, just not to the parish priesthood. Maybe it’s time that we rethink the American paradigm of parish. It is certainly very different from that of other countries around the world. It worked for a long time, but it is not working now.

I sincerely believe that debating celibacy or making it an option in the Latin Rite, is not going to make a big difference. There are other forces in competition, some very good and others not so good.

Let’s think about these too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hidden_One]

I had a brief inner debate, but I’m just going to say it…

Anyone who advocates for a married priesthood in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church has fundamentally failed to understand the priesthood. Period. I am willing to say this to a Cardinal’s face.

By the same token, anyone who attacks the tradition of married priests in the Eastern rites basically doesn’t have a clue what he or she is talking about. There are a very small number of Catholics who have the understanding and background to properly advocate for the end of the married priesthood in the the Eastern rites and they are not the ones doing it.

And again by the same token, anyone who advocates for women clergy has not only fundamentally failed to understand the priesthood, but has also failed to understand manhood, womanhood, the Church herself, and each one of the seven sacraments and probably also the basic workings of the Trinity.

 

[JReducation]

I had a brief inner debate, but I’m just going to say it…

Anyone who advocates for a married priesthood in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church has fundamentally failed to understand the priesthood. Period. I am willing to say this to a Cardinal’s face.

By the same token, anyone who attacks the tradition of married priests in the Eastern rites basically doesn’t have a clue what he or she is talking about. There are a very small number of Catholics who have the understanding and background to properly advocate for the end of the married priesthood in the the Eastern rites and they are not the ones doing it.

And again by the same token, anyone who advocates for women clergy has not only fundamentally failed to understand the priesthood, but has also failed to understand manhood, womanhood, the Church herself, and each one of the seven sacraments and probably also the basic workings of the Trinity.

That is the most reasonable course of thought.

If we spent as much energy on defending the rights of the unborn as we do on this topic, maybe we could get somewhere. As I’ve posted before, maybe we should spend more energy on repairing the crisis in the marital state, which is far more important that the shortage of priests.

God will supply priests. God will not make moral choices for people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[wisdomseeker]

That is the most reasonable course of thought.

If we spent as much energy on defending the rights of the unborn as we do on this topic, maybe we could get somewhere. As I’ve posted before, maybe we should spend more energy on repairing the crisis in the marital state, which is far more important that the shortage of priests.

God will supply priests. God will not make moral choices for people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

well said. we became a society that forgot the ways of the Lord. we decide to trust ourselves more than trust in our Lord. when a problem arises, we must solve them immediatly. we no longer want to wait on our Lord. as far as i know we have created more problems by solving them ourselves than if we just hold still and wait for the Lord to do some about it. like you said brother, with so many marriage in chambles how can we even suggest that our priest should be married. leave the priests alone. we must support them and love and obey them. we must discern the spirits that come against the Church.

 

[otjm]

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.

I am not familiar with problems arising from the married priests we already have (which doesn’t mean that there are not problems!). Perhaps you copuld cite some of the problems you ahve come across. and if you have not come across problems, you could indicate what problems you feel this will add.

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.

If you are referring to the group (website) that was in the OP, I would agree with you. Hopwever, it would be naive to presume that just because some screwball said there was an issue, that there was no issue simply because the person saying it was a screwball. Or said another way, even a blind pig will find an acorn now and then. I will agree whole-heartedly we need more holy priests and bishops; and they can come from maried men being ordained if the Holy Spirit has called them to that vocation, as well as celibate ment called to ordination. As to bishops, it has been the history of the Church that the bishops came from the group of priests who were celibate - either married and widowed, or never married. I kind of doubt that would change.

There seems to be a feeling, not entirely veiled, that everything that happens in the Church sources with the Pope, or at least one or more bishops whispering in his ear. The Holy Spirit moves where He will, and an issue can source from the laity as a question needing an answer.

 

[otjm]

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.

Your statistics, even granted that they are a small sampling, are a sad statement. As I noted in a previous post, I know a number of men who were ordained and subsequently left and got married. Sadly, my personal experience of the issue includes my younger brother, ordained and then left to get married. In my conversations with him, I can agree that it was two of the three three issues you cite - he was very well liked and respected in almost every parish he served in during the 10 years he was active. The one exception was a parish that was somewhat to the left of Trotsky; he seemed to have been sent there to start them on the path back to the center (something like shock troops). From all I observed of what he accomplished and the people he touched, I don’t think there was any misunderstanding of the call.

There is enough stress in the voaction as it is. Given the reduced number of vocations, priests in a diocesan setting are more isolated than they were 50 or 60 years ago, when it was much more usual to find two or more priests assigned to a parish. The isolation they now endure only adds to the stress.

 

[otjm]

As I posted on another thread with a similar subject, celibacy is not the reason for a decline in the number of vocations to the priesthood.

Technically, that may be largely correct. However, if you refer to my previous post and Dr. Sayer’s, it certainy ha cointributed to the decline in the number of priests, still living, who are still in active ministry.

Let’s look at the decline in the number of married couples. Marriage too is a vocation. How many people stay married until death? How many couples get married at all? It seems to me that in many metropolitan areas, where the larger concentration of people live, there are many transitional couples.

If people were that committed to marriage and the exclusion of marriage were the only reason for the decline in priestly vocations, we would not be seeing a decline in marital vocations. The fact is that there are more couples together who are not married or who are on their second or third marriages than ever before.

While the issue of marriage that you bring up is most likely not directly the cause in the decrease in vocations, I would posit that there is an inter-relationship in the causation. While getting into marriage problems gets us off track, the issues of materilism, secularism, the moral breakdown in relationships due to ABC and most particularly to the Pill, the movement of women into the workforce (but not necessarily as many might interpret that), the change in the miobility in society and the resultant brekadown of the extended family, hedonism and the massive loss of respect for authority in society in general have all contributed to both the breakdown of the family as well as impacting vocations.

I

doubt that men are not choosing to be priests because they want to be married. If that were the case, they would be married and stay married.

Now that is a bit of a broad statement. A lot of men still do stay married until death do them part. While the statistics of divorce are seemingly overwhelming, there are still amny married couples who make it. Further, there is the interesting statistic which is admittedly not as well researched as other statistics) that those who practice NFP have a divorce rate estimateda at about 3 to 5 %, instead of the 50% for first marriages, and higher for subsequent ones.

The instability of marriages is a bigger crisis than the shortage of priests. Almost every priest I know comes from a family. I don’t’ think that I’ve ever met one who was poofed into existence.

I could respond about that but I might get myself banned…

Before the laity tries to reconstruct the priesthood and the religious life, why doesn’t it try to work on marriage. Marriage falls within the Apostolate of the Laity according to the decree of Vatican II. I think that we’re trying to solve the shortage of priests and forgetting that priests are born into nurturing families.

I am not trying to “reconstruct” the priesthood. I think there is an issue about justice (married and Protestant can become a priest, but not married and Catholic - in the Roman rite) and I think, for whatever reason, there seems to be an almost knee-jerk fear of even discussing married clergy in the Roman rite on the part of the hierarchy. Maybe I trust the Holy Spirit too much. In part, I think we have an image of priest that is not entirely based on sacramental issues. And I have seen far, far too many priests leave and get married. There is an elephant in the room, and we all seem to be trying to ignore it, or argue that it can’t be in the room because the door is too small, so it could not have entered… all the while getting the shovel and trying to clean up after it.

 

[otjm]

I had a brief inner debate, but I’m just going to say it…

Anyone who advocates for a married priesthood in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church has fundamentally failed to understand the priesthood. Period. I am willing to say this to a Cardinal’s face.

You need to go back to Sacramental Theology 101. I don’t care what Cardinal you say this to - and whether it is to his face or his back. While the theology of the sacraments differs between the East and the West in emphasis, there is nothing intrinsic to the priesthood that requires celibacy. Or put another way, ceilbacy is not intrinsically related to the priesthood in such a way that it is a part of the sacrament. Both the Latin/Roman/western rite and the Eastern rites have married priests. The Eastern rites have a 2000 year history of it; the Western rite had only celibate priests for a period of time and has since, on an extemely limited basis, re-introduced them. They are simply two distinct and separate gifts, and the presumption that the gift of the vocation to the priesthood presumes the gift of celibacy lacks logic, lacks a reality check, and lacks any foundation in theology.

By the same token, anyone who attacks the tradition of married priests in the Eastern rites basically doesn’t have a clue what he or she is talking about. There are a very small number of Catholics who have the understanding and background to properly advocate for the end of the married priesthood in the the Eastern rites and they are not the ones doing it.

whether or not there are any who are attacking the tradition of married priests in the Eastern rites should be the subject of another thread.

And again by the same token, anyone who advocates for women clergy has not only fundamentally failed to understand the priesthood, but has also failed to understand manhood, womanhood, the Church herself, and each one of the seven sacraments and probably also the basic workings of the Trinity.

Other than the website the OP ntoed, I don’t think anyone herein is suggesting any such issue. That is called a red-herring. And a dead one, three days old, at that. Give it to the cat, as no one else wants it. We have enough to discuss without setting up straw-men arguements.

 

[JReducation]

With all due respect to everyone on the thread. I believe that this conversation is an academic one at best. As far as the Holy See is concerned, this topic is closed and if they were going to reopen it for discussion again, only a synod of bishops or the Holy Father himself can change the discipline. Even a synod of bishops cannot overrule the Holy Father. So . . . we get back to the same place, until the Holy Father says that he wants to discuss this, it is a futile discussion for the laity, evne the diocesan clergy, who are the only ones affected by this discipline.

That’s why I broiught up the issue of marriage. Marriage is in crisis. This is an issue that is on the table for discussion and which that Church wants the laity to fix. Maybe the laity’s time would be better spent discussing the current issues that are debilitating marriage and how to fix them.

Those are just my thoughts.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hidden_One]

You need to go back to Sacramental Theology 101. I don’t care what Cardinal you say this to - and whether it is to his face or his back. While the theology of the sacraments differs between the East and the West in emphasis, there is nothing intrinsic to the priesthood that requires celibacy.

Note my position on non-celibate clergy in the East. Why would I violate the Law of Non-Contradiction?

Or put another way, ceilbacy is not intrinsically related to the priesthood in such a way that it is a part of the sacrament. Both the Latin/Roman/western rite and the Eastern rites have married priests. The Eastern rites have a 2000 year history of it; the Western rite had only celibate priests for a period of time and has since, on an extemely limited basis, re-introduced them. They are simply two distinct and separate gifts, and the presumption that the gift of the vocation to the priesthood presumes the gift of celibacy lacks logic, lacks a reality check, and lacks any foundation in theology.

Source that statement, s’il vous plait. The one starting with the words, “the presumption”.

whether or not there are any who are attacking the tradition of married priests in the Eastern rites should be the subject of another thread.

I was simply attempting to head off any accusation that I’m saying that celibacy is required or intrinsic to the Sacrament of Holy Orders… and it didn’t work.

Other than the website the OP ntoed, I don’t think anyone herein is suggesting any such issue. That is called a red-herring. And a dead one, three days old, at that. Give it to the cat, as no one else wants it. We have enough to discuss without setting up straw-men arguements.

Straw man? That would require me setting up an opponent to knock down. In any case, so long as it remains a non-issue, I have said all that I need to say on that matter.

I will note that God calls people according to the rule of the Church. The Church does not allow wymynpriests; no women are called to the priesthood. The Church decides to recreate the permanent diaconate, and suddenly men are called to it. No one was called to be a member of a mendicant order until it existed, and there were no callings to the Nashville Dominicans until it was time for the Nashville Dominicans.

So long as the discipline of celibacy remains in the Latin rite in regards to priests who do not convert after marriage, all called to the priesthood will be given the grace of celibacy… otherwise it would be impossible for some men to follow their vocation. And it is not, because God does not command anyone to do what cannot be done. (For anyone reading this wondering “When is it recorded that God commands people to live out their vocations?” well, it is written whenever He says to do His Will.)

Following from this, why ever, given that God does not call for the impossible, would the Church cause the Latin rite to allow for married clergy under normal circumstances so as to alleviate the vocations crisis? God calls ample priests to serve the Church now, and he would if that occurred - in fact, He’d have to call many more than otherwise to serve that purpose.

I will also note that, in certain places in the early Church, if a man could not sing or sing well, it was deemed that he was not called to the priesthood. Did the early Church have some vocations shortage that I’ve never heard of? Whatever the God-given graces that the Church requires in a man for him to become a priest, God will call and gift to the called.

Now, as Br. JR said, let us discuss marriage, which is also in crisis, and where it is celibacy as normal that is currently out of the question.

 

[otjm]

First, when did the Church say that celibacy was on the table for debate?

and where is it written that a discipline of the Church may not be questioned - either by the laity or the clergy? The Pope (JP2) decided that on a very limited basis he would allow the ordination of married men in the Roman rite. and why do you suggest that an individual, who may have a calling by the Holy Spirit, but just happens to be incoveniently Catholic and married, have no right to question whether or not the Church might want to consider an investigation into what he perceives the Spirit calling?

Second, the preist who replaced your priest was married before he was ordained. That’s the crux of the matter.

The poster was speaking of the irony of a celibate priest leaving to get married and being replaced by one who “came in the back door”. We can all figure out that a priest has to be married before he is ordained, or he will remain celibate as long as he is active. That was not, I think, the point of the example.

Men who are married cannot become bishops or religious.

Yes, however, the poster brought up an example that had nothing to do with religious.

With all due respect, but those of us who are celibate are happy. We believe what the Church teaches about celibacy. We do not see how ordaining married men will do anything to improve the priesthood, especially in a world where married life is in a bigger crisis than the priesthood.

People who have a gift, a charism, are sometimes somewhat blinded(? maybe that is a bit strong), or at least not able to put themselves into the shoes of someone who is not so gifted. The issue is not about doing away with celibacy, nor of denigrating the call. It is about those who may be called to the priesthood, but not called to celibacy.

The laity must concentrate on what is appropriately their ministry, the family. The declining number of priests is not as critical as the increase in divorce, domestic violence, and transitional marriages.

to begin with, I don’t see the issue being one of “curing” the shortage of priests. It is an issue of whether or not the Church wishes to be open to what it already has - both a married and a celibate clergy, and being open to seeing if the Holy Spirit may be calling other men, married, to the priesthood.

Where do people get the idea that married priests are going to help the number of vocations? This has not proven true even among ecclesial communities where the clergy is married.

Well, simple logic tells us if some are called and ordained, there will be more priests. But why do you frame it in the terms of helping the number of vocations?

Social changes that usurped the moral order have more to do with the decline of vocations to the priesthood.

I very much agree.

Currently there are more new communities of religious men, than there are diocesan seminaries around the world. Last year, the Franciscan family reported the profession of vows of over 1,000 brothers around the globe…

This is, however, pretty much a non-sequitur in the issue, as married priests will be of the diocesan variety, as they are now.

We have such communities as the Brothers of the Poor, the Little Brothers of St. Francis, the Brothers of Peace… These religious communities of men do not ordain their members.

To which you can add the Bridgetines near McMinnville, Oregon. But again, a non-sequitur.

If we look, there are vocations to the priesthood, just not to the parish priesthood. Maybe it’s time that we rethink the American paradigm of parish.

Now, perhaps we have a relevant issue.

I sincerely believe that debating celibacy or making it an option in the Latin Rite, is not going to make a big difference.

Again, I posit a different issue. There seems at best to be an issue of justice in not considering whether or not Catholic married men might have just as much a vocation to the priesthood as married Protestant men who convert and were ministers. Maybe I use the wrong word - but justice in answering what may be the call from the Holy Spirit; and justice to the people who could be served by a married priest who loves his wife. . Or perhaps it is simply that the Church usually moves slowly in making a change, and unlike the abruptness of the change from the EF to the OF, this change is something that will come aobut slowly, and eventually the door will be opened wider.

I would hope I could live long enough to see the married priest, bearing the same burdens as his parishoners who are married, but giving witness to the efficacy and beauty of living married life with NFP; one who can give witness to the sanctity of married life as a celibate can give witness to the sanctity of celibacy. Having seen all too many priests leave to get married (great witness to the charism of celibacy); having been in the seminary and having had “the talk” (“Priesthood and celibacy are two distinct and separate charisms; but if you are going to be ordained, you are going to be celibate. If you feel you have a call to the priesthood, but you don’t have a call to celibacy, get out now. Period”), perhaps you might call me a bit what - jaundiced? cynical? - about the semi-absoluteness of bonding the two gifts together.

I am not questioning the validity of the religious life, and I am pleased to see the growth at the local monasteries - Bridgetine, Trappist and Benedictine. But that is not really the topic in discussion.

 

[otjm]

Note my position on non-celibate clergy in the East. Why would I violate the Law of Non-Contradiction?

OK, I am baffled. either I missed something, or we are not on the same page.

Source that statement, s’il vous plait. The one starting with the words, “the presumption”.

I’ll start with my time in the seminary, and we can go from there. It (celibacy)simply is not intrinsic to the sacrament. It is a discipline; what is intrinsic to the sacrament is doctrinal.

I was simply attempting to head off any accusation that I’m saying that celibacy is required or intrinsic to the Sacrament of Holy Orders… and it didn’t work.

Well, at least with me it didn’t.

Straw man? That would require me setting up an opponent to knock down. In any case, so long as it remains a non-issue, I have said all that I need to say on that matter.

I will note that God calls people according to the rule of the Church. The Church does not allow wymynpriests; no women are called to the priesthood. The Church decides to recreate the permanent diaconate, and suddenly men are called to it. No one was called to be a member of a mendicant order until it existed, and there were no callings to the Nashville Dominicans until it was time for the Nashville Dominicans.

We disagree about the suddenness of the call. As to women, that is doctrinal, not disciplinary, thanks to the elucidation of JP2. I ain’t goin’ there. Not part of the discussion. He said it, I believe it, that ends it.

So long as the discipline of celibacy remains in the Latin rite in regards to priests who do not convert after marriage, all called to the priesthood will be given the grace of celibacy… otherwise it would be impossible for some men to follow their vocation. And it is not, because God does not command anyone to do what cannot be done. (For anyone reading this wondering “When is it recorded that God commands people to live out their vocations?” well, it is written whenever He says to do His Will.)

My experience is otherwise. I simply do not agree that the Holy Spirit is bound by disciplinary laws which are subject to change. I think that priests are called by the Holy Spirit to the priesthood; some are given the gift - the charism - of celibacy. Others are not (and that comes from practical experience and conveerstations with priests) and my live the discipline, but with great suffering. However, my personal experience is that some are gifted with celibacy and some are not.

Following from this, why ever, given that God does not call for the impossible, would the Church cause the Latin rite to allow for married clergy under normal circumstances so as to alleviate the vocations crisis? God calls ample priests to serve the Church now, and he would if that occurred - in fact, He’d have to call many more than otherwise to serve that purpose.

Why do we keep going back to the issue of solving a vocational crisis? I am not promoting that. At the base of this is the question - can the Church make disciplinary rules that are not theologically wrong, and yet are not necessarily the best rule? It seems you have the presumption that if the Church makes the rule, then the rule is the wisest. I would think that in 2000 years of history, that would not be understood to be not entirely tenable.

I will also note that, in certain places in the early Church, if a man could not sing or sing well, it was deemed that he was not called to the priesthood. Did the early Church have some vocations shortage that I’ve never heard of? Whatever the God-given graces that the Church requires in a man for him to become a priest, God will call and gift to the called.

My recollection is that the Trappists had that rule into the 1960’s. Sorry, we disagree.

Now, as Br. JR said, let us discuss marriage, which is also in crisis, and where it is celibacy as normal that is currently out of the question.

I have no fear of a discussion of that issue, but let’s make it another thread.

 

[RevDrNorth]

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.

Are you still an active Priest? Your (name removed by moderator)ut was very interesting thank you.

The celibacy issue aside, I agree with someone who posted that Catholic Churches CAN afford to support married priests they just may not want to. Whoever posted that Catholics are less generous in terms of offerings seems to be correct from other things I have heard. I recall hearing a Catholic priest who chew his congregation out by pointing out how less generous than Protestants they were. Frankly, as large as most Catholic churches are in terms of numbers of congregants they should have NO PROBLEM in supporting a Catholic priest and his family if they gave like many Protestants do. The problem is that there are many Catholics who feel putting 5 or 10 dollars in the plate on Sunday is being generous.

PS This is a generalization as I know there are a great many Catholics who are generous but with your congregational size if you gave more you would really be able to do so much more.

 

[iowastate]

either married to The Lord and the Church or a spouse otherwise they have divided loyalties. So many protestant ministers have less time for their flock because they spend much of their time worried about their primary families and have less for “job”.

The Catholic priest is father to all the faithful not just a few after he gets off work.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

either married to The Lord and the Church or a spouse otherwise they have divided loyalties. So many protestant ministers have less time for their flock because they spend much of their time worried about their primary families and have less for “job”.

The Catholic priest is father to all the faithful not just a few after he gets off work.

Again, this is not an authentic teaching of the Church. The priest is not married to the Church in any way and there is no way you can say that he is married to the Lord as that would open up a whole other can of worms, afterall the Lord, Jesus, is a male.

If what you say is true then how can one explain the 2000+ year history of married priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches and the dispensations that Rome has granted for converting protestant ministers to be ordained to the priesthood even when they are married?

 

[otjm]

either married to The Lord and the Church or a spouse otherwise they have divided loyalties. So many protestant ministers have less time for their flock because they spend much of their time worried about their primary families and have less for “job”.

The Catholic priest is father to all the faithful not just a few after he gets off work.

So how is it that the Catholic Church has had a married clergy for 2000 years, if it is as bad as you say?

Why do you think that a priest, if married, would not ahve time for his congfregation? Or to put it another way, what is it that you think he would not have time for?

Are you married? do you spend time at work “worrying” about your family? does that mean you should not ber married? If you are married, are your loylaties to your work “divided”?

How is a priest “father” to all after he gets off “work” and sits alone in his rectory?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I am not familiar with problems arising from the married priests we already have (which doesn’t mean that there are not problems!). Perhaps you copuld cite some of the problems you ahve come across. and if you have not come across problems, you could indicate what problems you feel this will add.

If you are referring to the group (website) that was in the OP, I would agree with you. Hopwever, it would be naive to presume that just because some screwball said there was an issue, that there was no issue simply because the person saying it was a screwball. Or said another way, even a blind pig will find an acorn now and then. I will agree whole-heartedly we need more holy priests and bishops; and they can come from maried men being ordained if the Holy Spirit has called them to that vocation, as well as celibate ment called to ordination. As to bishops, it has been the history of the Church that the bishops came from the group of priests who were celibate - either married and widowed, or never married. I kind of doubt that would change.

There seems to be a feeling, not entirely veiled, that everything that happens in the Church sources with the Pope, or at least one or more bishops whispering in his ear. The Holy Spirit moves where He will, and an issue can source from the laity as a question needing an answer.

what do we do when priests commit adultery? or their wives? since we know that most couples commit adulteries one way or the other. how about divorce? how would the Church deal with divorced priests? as we know divorce is the norm now and days. how about the children misbehaving? anyway, i dont presume to know more than the Church does. i accept and encourage all priests to live celibate lives. i think is beautiful.
and they have 100% of my support. as far as i know the world and people who loves this world would like to see Church acting just like the world. the devil is working to bring down the Church any way he can. if priests beginn to marry, i am sure that will be the end of celibate priests in a very short time. the HS does not move anyone against the Church, the devil does. hope i was not to harshy. dont take personal my response. but those in the Church that i see supporting the idea of married priests are also those who want to see women priests, support feminism, supports abortion, and are usually very much critical of the Church’s ways. they want freedom just like the world offers. blessings

 

[otjm]

what do we do when priests commit adultery? or their wives? since we know that most couples commit adulteries one way or the other.

Please cite the source of this information. I have no knowledge at all that most, or even half of all married couples commit adultery. As to what we do - to begin with, even assuming it happens (and I have absolutely no information that would suggest it), no one may know. And if people do know, then it will be handled like anything else that happens - we forgive as Christ commanded and move on.

how about divorce? how would the Church deal with divorced priests? as we know divorce is the norm now and days. how about the children misbehaving? anyway, i dont presume to know more than the Church does. i accept and encourage all priests to live celibate lives. i think is beautiful.

As noted, the same way we handle divorce when a parishoner gets one - we forgive and move on. The pastor in the parish next to mine is divorced; he was married, divorced, the marriage was given a decree of nullity, and he then entered the seminary and was ordained. You put on your big girl or big boy panties and deal with it. Children misbehaving? And others’ children don’t?

if priests beginn to marry, i am sure that will be the end of celibate priests in a very short time.

You are not paying attention. The Church already has married priests in the Roman rite, and has had married priests for 2000 years in the Eastern rites. It hasn’t caused an end to celibate priests in the Eastern rites.

the HS does not move anyone against the Church, the devil does. hope i was not to harshy. dont take personal my response. but those in the Church that i see supporting the idea of married priests are also those who want to see women priests, support feminism, supports abortion, and are usually very much critical of the Church’s ways. they want freedom just like the world offers. blessings

You are simply wrong in lumping people together. There are plenty of people who support the Magisterium of the Church who would like to see the discipline relaxed further, and more married men be able to be ordained. I would be insulted by your comments, except that it is obvious that your experience is more narrow than mine, and that is not your fault, it is just the sum of your experience. The Holy Spirit has guided the Church for 2000 years, and for 2000 years the Church has had a married clergy. The Holy Spirit has also guided the Church since the 1980’s, and since the 1980’s the Roman rite has had married clergy. and the Church supports feminism in its truest sense, not radical feminism.