Optional Celibacy in the Priesthood

[Hidden_One]

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?

Eastern Catholic parishes [with one married priest] tend to be drastically smaller than Latin rite parishes [with one priest]… so that the Eastern priest has time for his family.

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

A priest never gets off work. The priesthood isn’t work, it’s a life. Even a retired priest is still a priest - not so a retired store clerk (for example). Anyone - especially a priest - who sees the priesthood as a job or career, is making a tremendous mistake.

Further, why a priest would sit along in his rectory doing nothing (except, perhaps, from exhaustion) I haven’t a clue. Nobody should waste time unnecessarily. (I’m nto saying that he should be working, but recreation, prayer, and/or spiritual reading - or sleep or a meal - would be good.)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Further, why a priest would sit along in his rectory doing nothing (except, perhaps, from exhaustion) I haven’t a clue. Nobody should waste time unnecessarily. (I’m nto saying that he should be working, but recreation, prayer, and/or spiritual reading - or sleep or a meal - would be good.)

And who says that sitting alone in the rectory is wasting time? I see that you to qualify your comment but how do we know what a priest is doing when he is alone in the rectory? I chose to believe that he is doing one of those things you state. It is also necessary just to have some alone time where one is not doing anything, I find this necessary in my life.

I find it funny that all these lay people seem to know what a priest should be doing and what it means to be a priest. Maybe there needs to be a little less focus on that.

I know of many who start to discern but stop when they get the old “priests are there 24/7” and such nonsense.

 

[Hidden_One]

And who says that sitting alone in the rectory is wasting time?

I would advise you to read my post(s) more carefully. Let me quote myself, this time with an emphasis.

Further, why a priest would sit along in his rectory doing nothing (except, perhaps, from exhaustion) I haven’t a clue. Nobody should waste time unnecessarily. (I’m nto saying that he should be working, but recreation, prayer, and/or spiritual reading - or sleep or a meal - would be good.)

When I read the original post to which I responded, I took it to mean that the priest, sitting alone in the rectory, was doing nothing. (This should be evident in my post, if you reread it.) I would never condemn solitary - unless, of course, one was skipping out one one’s responsibilities by doing it or somesuch thing.

I know of many who start to discern but stop when they get the old “priests are there 24/7” and such nonsense.

Well, you should be glad to know that I’m not one of the ones who stopped on account of that. (Actually, it was some time after that point that I started, and it was one of the reasons why I did start.)

Furthermore, to clarify, in my last post I said nothing about a priest “being there” 24/7 in the conventional sense to which I assume you refer; I was talking perfectly literally… simple being a priest. That does not go away. I do not expect a priest to get up at 2:37 AM Monday morning to hear the confession of somebody who’s confessing 3 venial sins done since Saturday when that person last went to Confession. (Someone who’s been away from the church for 31 years, then it would seem like a good idea to hear the Confession. But still, I would not condemn the priest who asked the penitent to please come back in a few hours. Unless the penitent was also in need of Extreme Unction or whatever you want to call it.)

I find it funny that all these lay people seem to know what a priest should be doing and what it means to be a priest. Maybe there needs to be a little less focus on that.

Well, it is the Year of the Priest, so the priestly identity is on full display. That said, I essentially agree with your first sentence.

 

[otjm]

Eastern Catholic parishes [with one married priest] tend to be drastically smaller than Latin rite parishes [with one priest]… so that the Eastern priest has time for his family…A priest never gets off work. The priesthood isn’t work, it’s a life. Even a retired priest is still a priest - not so a retired store clerk (for example). Anyone - especially a priest - who sees the priesthood as a job or career, is making a tremendous mistake.

A) you just contradicted yourself, or you are making an assumption about Roman rite priests you are not stating. B) You seem to be operating on the assumption that (with the exception of priests) people have a 40 hour work week and then walk away. Since you seem to be focusing on time, attorneys work regularly 50 and 60 hour weeks, and if they are in a trial which takes more than a week, they may be putting 80 to 100 hours per week.

The time demands on a priest are due, as noted, to the larger size of parishes. To begin with, we are not going to have a mass stampede of married men to get ordained; I would suspect that there would be few. And those few could easily be in parishes where they are an assistant, in parishes where they have deacon(s) as assitants, and just possibly, we could have a reconfiguration of what exactly a priest is responsible for in a parish and what can be handled by others - deacons and laity. The presumption that because a priest has to be 24-7 at the parish, and the parishoners’ beck and call is a false assumption. The priest’s first and primary duty to the Church and the parish is the administration of the sacraments; all else comes secondarily. And I don’t know a priest (and I have known quite a few in my lifetime) who is administering the sacraments so often that he has no time for family. Your “understanding” is in part a lack of knowledge of the time demands on a priest, and in part an assumption that because we do things the way we do, that it is the best way to do things. We are not going to get such a flood of vocations that we will reduce the size of parishes. But I am not convinced that I accept your comment that Eastern rite parishes are all small - they may be in the US, but abroad I would expect differently.

Further, why a priest would sit along in his rectory doing nothing (except, perhaps, from exhaustion) I haven’t a clue. Nobody should waste time unnecessarily. (I’m not saying that he should be working, but recreation, prayer, and/or spiritual reading - or sleep or a meal - would be good.)

You missed the point entirely. Priests are not at the parish 24-7. They may have an inordinate number of evening meetings (something that is a} questionable in terms of need and b} questionable in terms of the need for their specific presence) but they also have time at the rectory or apartment where they reside. That could just as easily be spent with family as not.

And saying the Office with family? Beats saying it alone. what is the old saw - the family that prays together stays together.

You also miss the point that some priests are not even in a parish, except for Sunday Mass. They have other “jobs” as doctors, scientists, teachers… so your presumptions are not a bar to a married man being ordained.

 

[Hidden_One]

A) you just contradicted yourself, or you are making an assumption about Roman rite priests you are not stating. B) You seem to be operating on the assumption that (with the exception of priests) people have a 40 hour work week and then walk away. Since you seem to be focusing on time, attorneys work regularly 50 and 60 hour weeks, and if they are in a trial which takes more than a week, they may be putting 80 to 100 hours per week.

Many people do have an xx hour workweek and then walk away. Others don’t. I’m well aware of this - I personally have been in both of those situations.

The time demands on a priest are due, as noted, to the larger size of parishes. To begin with, we are not going to have a mass stampede of married men to get ordained; I would suspect that there would be few. And those few could easily be in parishes where they are an assistant, in parishes where they have deacon(s) as assitants, and just possibly, we could have a reconfiguration of what exactly a priest is responsible for in a parish and what can be handled by others - deacons and laity.

I believe that’s been tried and post-Vatican II failed epically. (I kid, I do get your point, and will add that what is and isn’t handled by priests is changing it all directions depending on what diocese and even parish you look at.)

The presumption that because a priest has to be 24-7 at the parish, and the parishoners’ beck and call is a false assumption.

Agreed. As I have earlier stated.

The priest’s first and primary duty to the Church and the parish is the administration of the sacraments; all else comes secondarily.

Again, agreed.

And I don’t know a priest (and I have known quite a few in my lifetime) who is administering the sacraments so often that he has no time for family.

I do (Eastern rite married priests), via a mutual friend who is a (celibate Latin rite) priest. That said, I have never stated that such a “balance” (I hate the word) is inherently impossible.

Your “understanding” is in part a lack of knowledge of the time demands on a priest, and in part an assumption that because we do things the way we do, that it is the best way to do things. We are not going to get such a flood of vocations that we will reduce the size of parishes. But I am not convinced that I accept your comment that Eastern rite parishes are all small - they may be in the US, but abroad I would expect differently.

According to Eastern rite sources of mine, it is so worldwide. Also, I’m not American.

You missed the point entirely. Priests are not at the parish 24-7. They may have an inordinate number of evening meetings (something that is a} questionable in terms of need and b} questionable in terms of the need for their specific presence) but they also have time at the rectory or apartment where they reside.

No, I haven’t missed the point. I believe, however, that you have missed a post.

That could just as easily be spent with family as not.

Almost as easily in many or perhaps even most cases, I’ll grant.

And saying the Office with family? Beats saying it alone. what is the old saw - the family that prays together stays together.

And the family that doesn’t exist doesn’t need to stay together. That said, though I admit exceptions, many priests do prefer to say the Office with one or more other people.

You also miss the point that some priests are not even in a parish, except for Sunday Mass. They have other “jobs” as doctors, scientists, teachers… so your presumptions are not a bar to a married man being ordained.

That’s not a point, that’s a fact. And I don’t miss it. (I will now note my disagreement with your use of the word “many”, though it was true in the past.) I imagine that the lfie of married priests in that situation would work in a very similar way as the permanent diaconate (when the deacon isn’t single) works. (And yes, I did say “works”, though I refuse to comment on how well it works or can work, as I lack sufficient information on that subject at this time.) Now, let us say that it were granted that the discipline of celibacy would end for priests of the Latin rite, allowing for married priests to work as teachers, doctors, professors, etc. Would proponents of the removal of the rule of celibacy really be contented by this? My answer: some yes, many no, though many of the many may well simple take the position of “This is as good as it’ll get, so I’ll leave with it.”

Ultimately, even were my argumentation in this debate to be completely and utterly destroyed (as opposed to misunderstood, misrepresented, misread, and/or skipped), that would not even begin a process of opening of the celibacy question. The Pope has said that it is closed. Therefore, it is closed, and, as has been said earlier in this thread, it is a merely academic question. If you wish to win an argument on this issue that actually matters, take it up with Pope Benedict, or at least a Cardinal or someone like that.

 

[otjm]

No, I haven’t missed the point. I believe, however, that you have missed a post.

If I did, I apologize.

Now, let us say that it were granted that the discipline of celibacy would end for priests of the Latin rite, allowing for married priests to work as teachers, doctors, professors, etc. Would proponents of the removal of the rule of celibacy really be contented by this? My answer: some yes, many no, though many of the many may well simple take the position of “This is as good as it’ll get, so I’ll leave with it.”

Ultimately, even were my argumentation in this debate to be completely and utterly destroyed (as opposed to misunderstood, misrepresented, misread, and/or skipped), that would not even begin a process of opening of the celibacy question. The Pope has said that it is closed. Therefore, it is closed, and, as has been said earlier in this thread, it is a merely academic question. If you wish to win an argument on this issue that actually matters, take it up with Pope Benedict, or at least a Cardinal or someone like that.

I would not use the words “the discipline of celibacy would end for priests of the Latin rite”. Celibacy is a valid charism, and the Church is blessed with women who live that vow, and men who live that vow whether the men are ordained or not. “Relaxed” might be a better term, for allowing for botrh married and celibate clergy.
As to taking it up with someone, I would be glad to do so but for the lack of access. What bothers me most is what I hear out or Rome. All I hear (and having missed a post, do you think it might be possible I have missed something out of Rome too? ) is a rigid, non-logical response that seems to be premised on the alternative of doing away with celibacy. Maybe there are those who are arguing such, but that begs the question. They simply do not address the fact that a) the Church has had and still has a married clergy for all its existence; b) the Roman rite has one by an exception that seems on the face of it to be unjust to Catholic married men (and to the parishoners they cannot serve) and to the Holy Spirit. Someone else herein posited that the Holy Spirit would not call married men if the rule was in place that married men could not be called. I hope my response was more charitible than my first reaction.

And I am not inclined to believe that the sum and substance of the Church re: the calling of the Holy Spirit, is confined to only the Pope, or the Pope and a few chosen cardinals and maybe a stray bishop here and there, and now and again.

I guess what I am saying is that I sense a lack of forthrightness, openness and honesty about why we are celibate only in the Roman rite.

Then, again, if I am correct in my observation, maybe it would do no good anyway… This is not something that just came upon me; I have felt this way since I first learned of married clergy in the Catholic Church. Which makes for about something like 45+ years. It didn’t make sense then, and it still doesn’t. And in that time, I have seen far too many priests, including my brother, get laicized, or just leave.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I would advise you to read my post(s) more carefully. Let me quote myself, this time with an emphasis.

If you would have read past the first sentence of my post you would have seen that I did read your post.

When I read the original post to which I responded, I took it to mean that the priest, sitting alone in the rectory, was doing nothing. (This should be evident in my post, if you reread it.) I would never condemn solitary - unless, of course, one was skipping out one one’s responsibilities by doing it or somesuch thing.

Again, I did read your post, maybe you should read past the first sentence of mine.

Well, you should be glad to know that I’m not one of the ones who stopped on account of that. (Actually, it was some time after that point that I started, and it was one of the reasons why I did start.)

Furthermore, to clarify, in my last post I said nothing about a priest “being there” 24/7 in the conventional sense to which I assume you refer; I was talking perfectly literally… simple being a priest. That does not go away. I do not expect a priest to get up at 2:37 AM Monday morning to hear the confession of somebody who’s confessing 3 venial sins done since Saturday when that person last went to Confession. (Someone who’s been away from the church for 31 years, then it would seem like a good idea to hear the Confession. But still, I would not condemn the priest who asked the penitent to please come back in a few hours. Unless the penitent was also in need of Extreme Unction or whatever you want to call it.)

I am glad that you didn’t but something caused you to realize that you were not called to the priesthood. It is wrong to chase people away though with unrealistic expectations.

I never said that you were saying that a priest is there 24/7, again read my post.

Please, practice what you preach. Do not condemn people for what you yourself do.

 

[Hidden_One]

If I did, I apologize.

Apology accepted. It was the one (of mine) after the one to which you responded, and clarified some of the aspects that it that yours responded to. Actually, you may have been writing your response while I posted mine, in which case I am extra out of line and do apologize. [Otherwise, I was just rude, for which I apologize.]

I would not use the words “the discipline of celibacy would end for priests of the Latin rite”. Celibacy is a valid charism, and the Church is blessed with women who live that vow, and men who live that vow whether the men are ordained or not. “Relaxed” might be a better term, for allowing for botrh married and celibate clergy.

Agreed.

. What bothers me most is what I hear out or Rome. All I hear (and having missed a post, do you think it might be possible I have missed something out of Rome too? ) is a rigid, non-logical response that seems to be premised on the alternative of doing away with celibacy. Maybe there are those who are arguing such, but that begs the question. They simply do not address the fact that a) the Church has had and still has a married clergy for all its existence; b) the Roman rite has one by an exception that seems on the face of it to be unjust to Catholic married men (and to the parishoners they cannot serve) and to the Holy Spirit.

Pope Benedict is a far greater theologian than I even aspire to, so I shall decline to defend him in this instance as I cannot read his mind.

Someone else herein posited that the Holy Spirit would not call married men if the rule was in place that married men could not be called. I hope my response was more charitible than my first reaction.

Actually, that was me, and I stand by it. I simply do not understand how it is that God could possibly truly require of someone something actually impossible. It seems to me to be a genuinely injust act.

Then, again, if I am correct in my observation, maybe it would do no good anyway… This is not something that just came upon me; I have felt this way since I first learned of married clergy in the Catholic Church. Which makes for about something like 45+ years. It didn’t make sense then, and it still doesn’t. And in that time, I have seen far too many priests, including my brother, get laicized, or just leave.

We are agreed, then, that the reasoning for celibacy of the Latin rite priests as normal ought to be promulgated in detail from Rome at some point for understanding’s sake?

 

[JReducation]

I’m not going to continue in the debate whether or not we should ordain married men. However, I’d like to join Brother David in clarifying some of the finer points of the priesthood. I’m speaking here about secular or diocesan priests.

1. Priests are not married to God or the Church. This is not part of Church teaching. Please, please stop saying this. It sounds silly. That statement comes from the old day when people thought that a priest was the opposite of a nun or a sister. Since women religious are called brides of Christ and Christ is male, someone thought it would be a nice sentiment to give priests a bride. So they married priests off to the Church. The only problem with that is that diocesan priests are not the counterpart of religious women. The counterpart of women religious are male religious (I.E. Brothers).
2. No priest, secular or religious, is expected to be at the beck and call of his parishioners 24/7. In fact, they are not. Priests who belong to religious communities usually have other obligations within their community to attend to or to participate in. Secular priests have a personal life like any other secular man. They have friends, family, hobbies, sports, etc. They go to school. Some have a second job: counseling, teaching, etc. Others just like to hang out, like any other bachelor. That’s why parishes where there are two or more priests, they have “on call days”. The priests take turns being on call for the hospital and other emergencies that require a priest. Please, let’s stop saying that priests are on duty 24/7. A physician is always a physician, but he/she is not on call 24/7. Neither is a priest. That is not in the job description.
3. While being a priest is not a job, parish work is a job. Hospital work is a job. Teaching is a job., And there are many other jobs in which priests engage. The Church does not expect them to perform these duties 24/7. They are ministries, not a way of life.
4. The priesthood is not a right. It is a calling. The Church has the final voice as to who is called and who is not. Whether we like it or not, the current discipline of celibacy is a requirement, unless there is a dispensation for a married man to be ordained a priest in the Latin Church. The Church includes the ability to live a celibate life among the other criteria that she uses to discern whether a man has been called to the priesthood. There is the issue in a nutshell. Until the Church takes that criteria off the list, we have to live with it. We’re not always going to like everything in any situation, not even inside the Church. As human beings we are different and we all have a different perspective on things. We all have an opinion of what would be better or what should be done and how. If the Church removed celibacy from its list of criteria, someone would come up with another desire or idea.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hidden_One]

If you would have read past the first sentence of my post you would have seen that I did read your post.

We seem to both have issues understanding each other - there was one later in your post, to which I will now refer.

I am glad that you didn’t but something caused you to realize that you were not called to the priesthood. It is wrong to chase people away though with unrealistic expectations.

I never said that I’ve stopped discerning. Nor have I stopped - but rather started.

Please, practice what you preach. Do not condemn people for what you yourself do.

I apologize for writing while angry (or at least, not pleased), and I apologize for coming across as condemning you.

That said, this will be my last post in this thread unless something significant convinces me to post again.

 

[otjm]

We are agreed, then, that the reasoning for celibacy of the Latin rite priests as normal ought to be promulgated in detail from Rome at some point for understanding’s sake?

Well, in the 45+ years I have referred to, I have seen and heard explanations. Some of them have been, um… as if there was no Eastern rites… We are one Church (in spite of the fact that a multitude of Roman rite Catholics are totally unaware that the Catholic Church is not the Roman Catholic Church, and that on occasion seems to include one or more Cardinals and bishops who speak with less than precision). The answers, without being snotty about it, seem to come down to a) “I said so”, b) “that’s the way we have always done it”; and c) “Celibate is oh, so much holier” (that one smacks of misogeny). It always seems that they are defending against the unwashed hoards at the gates.

We had no permanent deacons for centuries. How and why it was lost didn’t seem too relevant; it was more a “we just don’t need that” mindset, it seemed. The Holy Spirit moved, and voila, we have permanent deacons. Lotsa. Lotsa married ones. And the world, and the Church, hasn’t fallen apart at the seams with all sorts of problems.

In short, I have yet to see a defense of the celibacy only rule that makes sense in and of itself; they always seem to be saying something between the lines, or under their breath, or defending a non-question (e.g. 'doing away with celibacy" - what a straw man defense).

I have no question that some people are gifted with the charism of celibacy. But I do wonder, with what I have seen, if we have something akin to a good-ol-boys club that quakes at the thought that there might be members - even possibly significant numbers of members - who may not have been gifted, and are concerned for what they see as a potential earthquake clear off the scale. As if that has not already occured.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

We seem to both have issues understanding each other - there was one later in your post, to which I will now refer.

I never said that I’ve stopped discerning. Nor have I stopped - but rather started.

We never stop discerning.

I apologize for writing while angry (or at least, not pleased), and I apologize for coming across as condemning you.

That said, this will be my last post in this thread unless something significant convinces me to post again.

I too will apologize, I also let anger get the better of me. Maybe I will also take a break on this thread.

Especially when Br. JR seems to be more eloquent in getting the point across that I am trying to make.

 

[JReducation]

We never stop discerning.

I too will apologize, I also let anger get the better of me. Maybe I will also take a break on this thread.

Especially when Br. JR seems to be more eloquent in getting the point across that I am trying to make.

Br. David:

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I believe that I too am getting bored with this discussion. Maybe, if I had the honor of being invited by the Sacred Congregation on the Clergy to share my opnion on celibacy for secular Latin rite priests, my opinion might be worth something. But on an internet forum, it’s just time off from my other duties and activities, but will never make it further than cyber space. I doubt that anyone in the Vatican reads CAF.

In fact, I rescently got a note from someone, in the clergy, who told me that CAF may be getting some competition from an organized group of religious, deacons and priests. The note did not have much detail in it. But if I’m reading it correctly, the point is that many clerics and religious have ideas and information to share, but they are not pleased with the way that they are treated by many posters on CAF.

While on the threads we read a great many statements defending Catholicism, the fact that many people do not want to hear what clerics and religious have to say creates a doubt in their mind as to whether those who post in defense of the Church and then proceed to challenge clerics and religious really want a Church with an autonomous clergy and autonomous religious orders. Sometimes it seems as if they want a church with a clergy and religious that are designed according to their idea of what we should or should not be and do or not do.

That’s a very frightening thought, because the Catholic Church has always thrived because of the life and ministry of her clerics, her religious and her laity. Each brings to the table their gifts. Yes, she has gone through crises. She will continue to go through more. That’s part of human ecology. She will come out of it healthy, that’s part of salvation history. Human ecology and salvation history go hand in hand, faith and reason.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

.

 

[otjm]

In fact, I rescently got a note from someone, in the clergy, who told me that CAF may be getting some competition from an organized group of religious, deacons and priests. The note did not have much detail in it. But if I’m reading it correctly, the point is that many clerics and religious have ideas and information to share, but they are not pleased with the way that they are treated by many posters on CAF.

I would be interested, if you ever find that there is such a site. I suppose that is an issue that has at least two distinct sides. There are those among the laity who see themselves as anointed liturgical police. Some of the attitudes come across as running serious competition with the Pharisees Although in the time I have been here, I have seen some come and go). Then there are those priests who seem to have an attitude that directions coming out of Rome are at best minor suggestions. and clericalism is not yet dead (although some would judge recations to be clericalism simply because the actions don’t agree with preconceived notions, which notions are often not on the table).

Anyway, the short of it seems that we are all going to take out toys and go play in another sandbox. I have joined in this conversation not because I think I can change the issue, but because having observed it for a long period of time, and having seen some changes, I am still interested in the subject. In addition, I am often frustrated by lack of knowledge of the Church, and lack of critical thinking in others. I may stay around just to see what else comes up on the topic; maybe we can play again in another sandbox.

 

[JReducation]

I would be interested, if you ever find that there is such a site. I suppose that is an issue that has at least two distinct sides. There are those among the laity who see themselves as anointed liturgical police. Some of the attitudes come across as running serious competition with the Pharisees Although in the time I have been here, I have seen some come and go). Then there are those priests who seem to have an attitude that directions coming out of Rome are at best minor suggestions. and clericalism is not yet dead (although some would judge recations to be clericalism simply because the actions don’t agree with preconceived notions, which notions are often not on the table).

Anyway, the short of it seems that we are all going to take out toys and go play in another sandbox. I have joined in this conversation not because I think I can change the issue, but because having observed it for a long period of time, and having seen some changes, I am still interested in the subject. In addition, I am often frustrated by lack of knowledge of the Church, and lack of critical thinking in others. I may stay around just to see what else comes up on the topic; maybe we can play again in another sandbox.

If I ever get information, such as a link, I will share it with you when I see you again. Right now, I have very little to go on.

On another subject, I’m not going to deny the existence of clericalism, because it’s alive and well, as is racism and so forth. However, there are posters on CAF who are very rude to religious and clergy. There are some who, as you say, are self-appointed liturgical police. How they can attend mass is beyond me. I’ve had to stop talking to some people who take their liturgical policing to extremes, because it got to a point that I was not paying attention to the mass. I was paying attention to this or that and wondering what the CAF “liturgists” would saqy. I have always been one of those people who is able to go deep into myself and my inner silence during mass. Unless you yell, “Fire!” I would not notice anything out of the ordinary. I tend to remain very focussed on the words of the prayers, the words of the reading and homily and on the Eucharist at the consecration and communion. I guess that I’m trying to say that some things are not really distractions until everyone starts pointing to it. It’s like when you buy your new blue Toyota. Suddenly you begin to notice every single blue Toyota on the road.

There is another issue that seems to be happening more with the laity in North America and in certain European countries. That is, they are developing a sense of entitlement. This can be very unnerving to clerics and religious. Being a religious myself, I can tell you that sometimes it requires a lot of self-control to keep from telling someone to be quiet, because they don’t know what they’re talking about. I for one know that we’re not perfect. But I also know that we are good people trying to do the best that we can. You can only take so many beatings before you just shake the dust off your shoes and walk away. We are supposed to turn the other cheek,. However, we are also to protect our dignity. Charity and humility do not mean submitting to abuse when it can be avoided.

I believe that it does not come from lay people who have bad intetions toward religious or clergy. I believe that it comes from over generalization of bad experiences with some religious or some clerics. It’s like the over generalizations that we make about people from other cultures, religions or races. Sometimes, we do not realize that we are over generalizing. This happens both ways, religioius and clergy toward laity and laity toward religious and clergy.

What eventually happens is that lay people, religious and clerics who are not into being abused, just take off from these forums in search of greener pastures. It’s a shame, because you can make good friends here and you can learn a lot, if you are willing to let those who know teach you what they know.

If I am understanding the bried description that I got from my friend, the forum that they want to open would be moderated by clerics and religious only. I can’t imagine it being a big operation. How many would have the time and desire to do this kind of ministry? I believe this is a response to the Holy Father’s call to use the internet as a means of evangelization. Being that on CAF clerics and religious often get beaten up, some want to create a network where they have greater control and can turn off anyone who misbehaves. I guess it has a plus and a minus…

Oh well, I’ll see you later folks.

Fraternally,

Br, JR, OSF

 

[otjm]

If I ever get information, such as a link, I will share it with you when I see you again. Right now, I have very little to go on.

On another subject, I’m not going to deny the existence of clericalism, because it’s alive and well, as is racism and so forth. However, there are posters on CAF who are very rude to religious and clergy. There are some who, as you say, are self-appointed liturgical police. How they can attend mass is beyond me. I’ve had to stop talking to some people who take their liturgical policing to extremes, because it got to a point that I was not paying attention to the mass. I was paying attention to this or that and wondering what the CAF “liturgists” would saqy. I have always been one of those people who is able to go deep into myself and my inner silence during mass. Unless you yell, “Fire!” I would not notice anything out of the ordinary. I tend to remain very focussed on the words of the prayers, the words of the reading and homily and on the Eucharist at the consecration and communion. I guess that I’m trying to say that some things are not really distractions until everyone starts pointing to it. It’s like when you buy your new blue Toyota. Suddenly you begin to notice every single blue Toyota on the road.

There is another issue that seems to be happening more with the laity in North America and in certain European countries. That is, they are developing a sense of entitlement. This can be very unnerving to clerics and religious. Being a religious myself, I can tell you that sometimes it requires a lot of self-control to keep from telling someone to be quiet, because they don’t know what they’re talking about. I for one know that we’re not perfect. But I also know that we are good people trying to do the best that we can. You can only take so many beatings before you just shake the dust off your shoes and walk away. We are supposed to turn the other cheek,. However, we are also to protect our dignity. Charity and humility do not mean submitting to abuse when it can be avoided.

I believe that it does not come from lay people who have bad intetions toward religious or clergy. I believe that it comes from over generalization of bad experiences with some religious or some clerics. It’s like the over generalizations that we make about people from other cultures, religions or races. Sometimes, we do not realize that we are over generalizing. This happens both ways, religioius and clergy toward laity and laity toward religious and clergy.

What eventually happens is that lay people, religious and clerics who are not into being abused, just take off from these forums in search of greener pastures. It’s a shame, because you can make good friends here and you can learn a lot, if you are willing to let those who know teach you what they know.

If I am understanding the bried description that I got from my friend, the forum that they want to open would be moderated by clerics and religious only. I can’t imagine it being a big operation. How many would have the time and desire to do this kind of ministry? I believe this is a response to the Holy Father’s call to use the internet as a means of evangelization. Being that on CAF clerics and religious often get beaten up, some want to create a network where they have greater control and can turn off anyone who misbehaves. I guess it has a plus and a minus…

Oh well, I’ll see you later folks.

Fraternally,

Br, JR, OSF

Well, you hit some of my hot buttons.

It is one thing to have an opinion; it is another to not realize that it is an opinion, and/or what the basis of that opinion is. What saddens me, beyond the liturgical police (who are often technically correct, by the way), is the profound lack of understanding how the Church (as opposed to the ubiquitous garden variety cafeteria theologian) views the documents of Vatican 2. Both groups - the liturgical police and those borderline rejecting the docments - ofted display such a lack of charrity as to make me profoundly disinterested in joining what they perceive the Church to be.

I had a friend, a fellow parishoner who was a school teacher/coach; thin and wirey like the runner types. A member of the Knights of Columbus and seemingly a vey faithful and active Catholic. Somewhere, some how, he went off the deep end; I don’t know what it was he started with, but he started reading from somewhere on the far right to the ultra far right. It got to the point where you could not even speak with him. He broke off from the parish, ended up at the SSPX chapel, and I was not too sure they were “orthodox” enough fro him. And he was on it like a dog on a bone. When he got to the point of the conspiracies, I got to the point of wondering if it was not substance, but perhaps a mental breakdown. Not all are like him, but many are as hard to discuss with as they become self-anointed theologians, out to tell the priest, the bishop, and any parishoners who would listen how corrupt it all is. And charity seems the first to go.

See you “round the back side”.

 

[Majobe]

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?

That is so true !We hardly maintain our priests by themselves,they will really struggle if they had to have families.

I don’t want to sound selfish by this, but I love the Idea of unmarried priests.They have more time and they are also more accessible.i pray they remain this way…

 

[JReducation]

That is so true !We hardly maintain our priests by themselves,they will really struggle if they had to have families.

I don’t want to sound selfish by this, but I love the Idea of unmarried priests.They have more time and they are also more accessible.i pray they remain this way…

It’s funny that you mention accessibility. We don’t have any ordained brothers in our house, so we go to mass at the local parish. I just came back from mass. After mass, another brother and I were talking to the priest, who is a good friend of ours. He is a secular priest. Brother X asked him for an appointment to hear his confession and he looked at his calendar and said that he could do so on Wed at 2:00, because he is off on Tues and his office hours for today are full. The office opens at 9:00 and closes at 4:30.

The other brother and I accepted this as a natural thing, because we understand that diocesan priest is not a commodity for the faithful. They are truly secular men. They have other interests and things to do with their time. We also understand that unless you’re dying, you can wait until Wed. And if you die before Wed, your sins will be forgiven, because you were planning to go to confession, which assumes that you are contrite. Otherwise, why would you want to go to confession in the first place.

As we walked back to our friary, we were talking about this. I was commenting to my confrere how the laity would go bonkers if they were told to come back in two days for confession, because the priest is a secular and has a life of his own, not to mention a busy schedule in the parish. Our parish also serves the local hospital that has about 1,000 beds. At least half of the town is Catholic There are three parishes, with 12 priests for about 100,000 people. Of the 12 priests, 10 are secular, two are religious. But the two religious, only one is a parish priest. The other is a high school principal. He’s only available to help out in the parish on weekends.

Now, we do have three houses of Franciscan brothers in the same town, with a total of 17 brothers. All but myself work in the parishes as associates.

Anyway, I digressed. You statement about more available is interesting. Because some priests spoil their congregations and then you get one who says that he wants his time, which the diocese allows him and people get upset. That’s not fair to the priest, celibate or married.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[otjm]

That is so true !We hardly maintain our priests by themselves,they will really struggle if they had to have families.

That may be an issue of your diocese, or of your country. At the heart of it, it is an issue of justice. The joke often has been that the order priests (such as Jesuits and Fanciscans) take a vow of poverty; the diocesan priests just live it. However, as in issue of justice (and the Church is very vocal about economic justice), what the Church preaches, the Church nees to practice. Further, the reality is that the Church alsready has a married clergy, so it needs (and seemingly is) to figure this out.

I don’t want to sound selfish by this, but I love the Idea of unmarried priests.They have more time and they are also more accessible.i pray they remain this way…

One does not preclude the other. There have been a few small radical groups who have appeared to have an agenda of “doing away with” celibacy; however, they have niether history nor logic on their side. The issue is not doing away with celibacy; it is not “either or” but rather “both and”. And the likelyhood is that the Church will not be over-run with candidates for priesthood who are also married.

As to time and accessibility, there is no particular reason to think that a person who is married is less accessible than a person who is not. How accessible is your doctor? How accessible is your CPA? Niether of them have 40 hour a week schedules (well, the CPA might when it is not tax season). We seem to operate as if the world ran on a 40 hour work week; it doesn’t, and a whole lot of people who are o=not on a 40 hour work week are married and manage it.

 

[Majobe]

Hello ,

JR thanks for sharing that story about confession,I use to get really worried when I had to confess on a Friday then go to Mass on Sunday.I wasn’t aware that priests had schedules now that you’ve mentioned it a whole lot of stuff makes sense.

I am not really clued up with what Brothers (male nuns)do? sorry for changing the subject but I see this celibacy issue doesn’t benefit me in anyway.