Optional Celibacy in the Priesthood

[JReducation]

Hello ,

JR thanks for sharing that story about confession,I

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.

You’re welcome. I’m glad that you got something out of my post. By the way, brothers are not male nuns. Men and women make up the religious life of the Church.

Religious life and the priesthood are very different. Let’s just bullet the differences.

1. Priesthood is a sacrament, Holy Orders. Through the imposition of hands by the bishop and the reception of the sacrament a “mark” is implanted in a man’s soul that changes him forever. He will never again be a lay man. Even if he leaves the priesthood. He can lose his clerical state and return to the ranks of the faithful, but he will be a priest forever.
2. The Sacrament of Holy Orders is both a call and commision. The priest is sent to preach, govern, sanctify (through the sacraments that he dispenses, blessings and so forth) in the person of Christ. He joins Christ’s priesthood and performs Christ’s saving ministries on earth in Christ’s place and name.
3. The priest himself, despite what he does in Christ’s name and person, remains a secular man. He can own property, he can govern his own life, he can live as he chooses (except sin). He makes a promise to obey the local bishop in matters regarding the ministry, not his personal life. He also promises never to marry, which is celibacy. The End.

The religious (i.e. Brother or Sister)

1. Consecrates his life to Christ, to become like Christ. His daily life is one journey to be more like Christ each day.
2. He vows to remain obedient to all legitimate authority under pain of mortal sin. This includes civil authority, ecclesial authority and the superior of his community. He surrenders his free will. He does nothing without the permission of his superior, not even go out for a walk. In some communities you actually have to tell the superior when you’re going out the door. You can’t purchase anything without permission. You do not go anywhere without permission. You don’t even go on vacation without permission.
3. He vows to live according to the rule of his religious family. In my case, I’m a Franciscan. I live by the rule of St. Francis. Everything we do must be allowed by the rule. If it is not allowed by the rule, the superior has to decide if it is permitted. If the superior cannot decide or does not have the authority to decide, the brothers gather in what is called a chapter and discuss it and vote on it. I have to obey the decision of the chapter. If something is forbidden by the rule, even if it is not a sin, I cannot do it. It would be a grave sin to disobey the founder and the rule.
4. The superior of the brother governs his life. The superior makes sure that every brother follows the rule. This means that he has the duty to ensure that brothers pray, fast, do penance, work, sleep, rest, play, and even dress according to the rule.
5. Brothers make a vow of chastity. This means that we live a pure life, like every Christian should. However, there is an added dimmension. We now belong to a new family. That family is the religious community. Our biological family is not longer our family. We are married to the Church and the religious community represents the Church. We spend every waking moment with our brothers except when we are working alone, during quiet times of prayer, study or silence and during alone time. We do where our community goes. We do not choose where we want to go.
6. Because chastity binds us to our religious family, we go everywhere in the world that our religious family finds itself in need of our services and companionship. Sometimes we give up mistering to the laity to take care of our older and sick brothers or to train our younger and newer brothers. In those cases, it may be years before we return to serving the laity or maybe never again. Taking care of your family is part of marriage.
7. Like Christ, we are in love with the Church. We are at the service of the Church as long as the Church’s needs are not in conflict with the founder’s wishes. Then we enter into negotiations with the local bishop and try to come up with something that works for both sides.
8. We make a vow of poverty. Brothers own nothing of their own. Everything is owned by all. You can only own what the rule allows you to own. For example, the rule of St. Francis says that we may not own our houses. We do not own the friaries in which we live. They belong to the local bishop, the local people or the Vatican, depending on the situation.
9. We never have money, except when we need it. We do not have our own TVs, radios, computers and other things. We only have what we need for our work. For example, I use a laptop for my wor. I have one. When I leave here and move into a different assignment, the laptop stays here. If I need a laptop there, it will be provided. We share cars or take public transit. We only have one habit that we wash once a month to preserve it and one set of work clothing. We have no retirement plan, therefore we have no fiancial security. We may not inherit money from our parents or accept personal gifts without permission.

These things are not part of the life of a priest. A priest can do all the things that a brother cannot do. A priest has none of the community supports, rules, superiors or obligations that a brother has. A brother can be a priest if the superior allows it. You cannot eliminate celibacy in the life of the brother, because of the community life. The celibacy question only applies to priests who are secular, meaning not consecrated religious.

That was the fastest theology class that I have ever taught.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :0

 

[iowastate]

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?

Even when he is “off duty” a priest is on call 24/7 and does not have to worry about following two masters. There is not a wife and family to take his attention away from his parish.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Even when he is “off duty” a priest is on call 24/7 and does not have to worry about following two masters. There is not a wife and family to take his attention away from his parish.

This is not true.

This is something that has been made up by the laity and has no place in any real discussion.

There are married priests, period. The Eastern Catholic Church has them as the norm, they are extraordinary in the Latin Church but they do exist.

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is not true.

This is something that has been made up by the laity and has no place in any real discussion.

There are married priests, period. The Eastern Catholic Church has them as the norm, they are extraordinary in the Latin Church but they do exist.

many people cannot stand the fact that the CC is different. she is the CC. dont forget people.

"But all did not obey the Gospel. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our report?"
Romans 10:16

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

many people cannot stand the fact that the CC is different. she is the CC. dont forget people.

"But all did not obey the Gospel. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our report?"
Romans 10:16

I am sorry, you have lost me, I have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[JReducation]

Even when he is “off duty” a priest is on call 24/7 and does not have to worry about following two masters. There is not a wife and family to take his attention away from his parish.

This is not true. Priest are not expect to be on call 24/7. They have schedules just like medical doctors do. If there is a parish that has only one priest, he is on call for life and death situations, but that is like a town that has a lone sheriff. If the parish has more than one priest, they take turns being on call. They have office hours and are off duty after work.

If the priest belongs to a religious community, the community does not allow him to be on duty 24/7. He is married to his community. He must be present for community prayer, community meals, community recreation, community retreats, meetings, Liturgy of the Hours and other functions. He does not take calls after he leaves the parish office, unless it’s a sick call. His community takes priority over the parish. This is the exact same situation as an Eastern or Latin rite priest who is married. The Orthodox have had married clergy as well and they have families.

In my community, our priests are not allowed to return to the parish after 4:30. One is assigned to take evening calls for the sick. All other evening functions are handled by the secular deacons and the laity. Our guys may go to the parish for an evening function when there is a special need, but not as a daily thing. Sometimes you get a person who need an appointment and that person works until 5:00 pm. Then the exception is made. But we try to keep those to a minimum so that it does not become a habit that the same person is missing from the community all the time, just like a husband who has to work late on occasions, but you don’t want to make that the usual routine.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Majobe]

Hello people,

JR see I am not the only one with crazy(lack of a better word)notions.I was also under the impression that priests must always answer to our calls,they have no schedules what so ever.

Thank God for this website.Let me get back to work,God bless

 

[JReducation]

OK, so maybe those of us who are either religious men or who are priests were the only ones told that neither religious nor priests are on duty 24/7. Why hadn’t anyone told the laity?

Everyone is now informed. Priests and religious have schedules just like anyone else.

There, I said it. Yes, we do have other obligations and interests just like the rest of the world. Even the pope goes away and even the pope has a day off every week and is off duty after 6:00 pm every night, unless there is something very special going on.

In fact, Pope Benedict has Evening Prayer at 6:00, at 7:00 he plays the piano and at 7:30 he has supper. After that he spends time doing his favorite thing, reading and writing until it’s bedtime. John Paul II used to go swimming and John XXIII would have friends come visit him in the evenings. Actually, the average school teacher spends more time on duty than the average parish priest, unless you’re talking about a one man parish. He’s go no choice.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hidden_One]

Actually, the average school teacher spends more time on duty than the average parish priest, unless you’re talking about a one man parish. He’s go no choice.

I would like to note that, at least here in Canada, most parishes have only one priest. I am not sure, at the moment, whether we have more church buildings (which were formerly the focii of their own parishes) or priests (including religious & parishes served by them) serving in parishes.

I would surmise that the situation in many American dioceses is similar. This can be credited, at least in part, for a common lay unawareness of priests and schedules and such.

 

[Majobe]

Good morning,

I think its time I explored other threads,this one was quite informative.Its a blessing to be Catholic.

Bye…

 

[cathedrallector]

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.

AMEN

 

[JReducation]

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.

This is very well put. The solution to the shortage of priests is not found in creating more debates, but in more prayer and more sacrifice.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Dr_Mark_Sayers]

I agree that prayer and sacrifice are the doorway to an answer (as they are for virtually any problem faced by those who accept the way of the cross). However, I do not see the logical or even intuitive step that gets us from point A (prayer and sacrifice) to point B (let’s not discuss topic x lest it undermine church unity).

Let’s assume however that there is a logical and/or intuitive connection. In which case, let’s explore ‘sacrifice’ in this context.

Who is to sacrifice and what are they sacrificing?

In my region, increasing numbers of parishes are going ‘priest-less’ or ‘Mass-less’ in the sense that regular access to Sunday Mass, let alone daily Mass, is either not guaranteed or not available. If Eucharist is meant to be so central to our lives as Catholics, how do we reconcile that thought with the reality of long established communities being without Eucharist? How do we reconcile those concerns with our theology and/or discipline about how Eucharist is only to be “delivered” (ouch, I hate that TQM word) by a celibate priest?

Let’s be crystal clear: I am not advocating either letting priests marry or ordaining married men or “recycling” former priests who are married. I am simply advocating a debate about the following: if we accept as givens both that only celibate priests can celebrate the Eucharist and the celebration of Eucharist is central to our Catholic lives, then how do we make Eucharist available to all where it has previously been a regular part of their lives? Do we perhaps need to talk about what only a celibate priest can do (ie say Mass) rather than whether a priest has to be celibate? Because the sacrifice of no or irregular experience of Eucharist is the sacrifice which many of our people are already paying. When they cry out to God, what are we to helpfully say to them in their pain?

In short: my fear is that the lack of Eucharist in many regions may prove a greater catalyst to loss of communion (literally) within the Church than a mere bona fide, polite debate about optional celibacy for priests.

 

[JReducation]

I agree that prayer and sacrifice are the doorway to an answer (as they are for virtually any problem faced by those who accept the way of the cross). However, I do not see the logical or even intuitive step that gets us from point A (prayer and sacrifice) to point B (let’s not discuss topic x lest it undermine church unity).

Let’s assume however that there is a logical and/or intuitive connection. In which case, let’s explore ‘sacrifice’ in this context.

Who is to sacrifice and what are they sacrificing?

In my region, increasing numbers of parishes are going ‘priest-less’ or ‘Mass-less’ in the sense that regular access to Sunday Mass, let alone daily Mass, is either not guaranteed or not available. If Eucharist is meant to be so central to our lives as Catholics, how do we reconcile that thought with the reality of long established communities being without Eucharist? How do we reconcile those concerns with our theology and/or discipline about how Eucharist is only to be “delivered” (ouch, I hate that TQM word) by a celibate priest?

Let’s be crystal clear: I am not advocating either letting priests marry or ordaining married men or “recycling” former priests who are married. I am simply advocating a debate about the following: if we accept as givens both that only celibate priests can celebrate the Eucharist and the celebration of Eucharist is central to our Catholic lives, then how do we make Eucharist available to all where it has previously been a regular part of their lives? Do we perhaps need to talk about what only a celibate priest can do (ie say Mass) rather than whether a priest has to be celibate? Because the sacrifice of no or irregular experience of Eucharist is the sacrifice which many of our people are already paying. When they cry out to God, what are we to helpfully say to them in their pain?

In short: my fear is that the lack of Eucharist in many regions may prove a greater catalyst to loss of communion (literally) within the Church than a mere bona fide, polite debate about optional celibacy for priests.

You last point really struck me. Because it is something that we dealt with in South America when I was a missionary there. One of the things that really worked for us was to work closely with family renewal and youth renewal. After a period of 10 or so years, we have begun to see men respond to the call to the priesthood. It was interesting, because some of them wanted to join us. We were the only Catholics that they had met. When we sorted through things, we found that some wanted to join us because they wanted to be priests, not because they wanted to be like Francis. Those men we directed to the diocesan seminary, which was several hours away from home for these guys. But they went and they were happy. And today they have replaced our brothers.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[maraia]

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./QUote

I agree with your view but with a slight dissent.Not all,there are some who have received the CALL from our LORD.I know few of my students from families that are financially and socially well-off.
Let’s pray for them and also for others

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

AJV;5407913:

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.

People also forget that the Call actually comes through the Church. With out an actual Call from a bishop or religious superior there is no Call. A Call is not just an interior feeling. That feeling must be recognized by the Church and acknowledged by actually Calling the person forward, for a man that would be a Call to orders and/or a call to vows in religious life, for a woman that is a call for vows in religious life.

With out a bishop or religious superior Calling one forward, there is no Call present no matter what one feels or thinks.

 

[JReducation]

AJV;5407913:

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.there are some who have received the CALL from our LORD.

I know few of my students from families that are financially and socially well-off.
Let’s pray for them and also for others

Bold is mine.

There is only a call if your bishop or your religious superior says that you have a call. They are the only ones who can speak for Christ and call you to either vows or Holy Orders. No one else can do this, not even the person. I am a religious, because my superior said that Christ called me; therefore, he (my superior) called me to vows. The same happens with the priesthood. If the superior (bishop or major superior) says that you have a call, then you do. Otherwise, you do not.

It has happened that some men or women have applied to a particular diocese or religious familly and have been turned down and accepted by another. This means that you were not called by Christ to the diocese or religious community to which you applied, but you are called to the one where you were accepted.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mercer87]

I’ll weigh in on this, since the celibacy rule affects me. I am discerning a vocation to the priesthood but I am in love with a young Catholic woman and we plan to marry after she graduates. I’m not in seminary, because it would be pointless to go to seminary and then leave because I’m getting married and I’d get the heave-ho. It is a great source of aggravation (and at times, even though I have no grounds to feel it, insult) to me, a young Catholic man, to see married Protestant ministers convert to the Catholic Church and then be ordained priests while Rome thumbs it’s nose at me and says, in effect “You’re not worthy because you’re in love.” I know, or at least hope, that isn’t the official attitude. But the silence from Rome is the worst thing about it, because there is no explanation for the reasons for the continuation of the discipline from the Magisterium (or at least not one that is readily available), and young men like me only hear the sometimes vicious mongering from the laity (i.e; “You would give her up if you truly loved God”, “You obviously don’t want to make the sacrifices the priesthood requires”, etc.) . The role of the laity in fostering vocations MUST be addressed very soon, as this is more important than any discipline issue, despite my personal bias.

The Church has opened a can of worms with this, as more young men are becoming disillusioned with it watching returning married schismatics receive the sacrament of Holy Orders while those of us who have lived orthodox, Catholic lives and feel a call to the priesthood are rejected outright without any thought, scrutiny, or consideration. The Church seems to bend over backwards for them, but all we get is a curt dismissal, at best.

It pains me to criticize the good people who govern our Church, but there is a legitimate problem and they don’t seem to be in any hurry to even discuss a solution. I, like others, do not believe that married priests will solve the crisis of the shortage. However, it would at least alleviate it smoewhat until a more long-term solution is found.

I only object to the celibacy requirement because it is a discipline, not doctrine. I accept the doctrines that the Magisterium teaches as truth, and I will at times privately question them as a process of increasing my faith, but I do not disobey them.

The fear that once married men are admitted to the priesthood, celibates will die off, is I believe unfounded. God will always call celibates to the priesthood. Is he calling married men as well? I think so. But until then I’ll just crawl along in obedience to the rules set down by Mother Church.

 

[JReducation]

I’ll weigh in on this, since the celibacy rule affects me. I am discerning a vocation to the priesthood but I am in love with a young Catholic woman and we plan to marry after she graduates. I’m not in seminary, because it would be pointless to go to seminary and then leave because I’m getting married and I’d get the heave-ho. It is a great source of aggravation (and at times, even though I have no grounds to feel it, insult) to me, a young Catholic man, to see married Protestant ministers convert to the Catholic Church and then be ordained priests while Rome thumbs it’s nose at me and says, in effect “You’re not worthy because you’re in love.” I know, or at least hope, that isn’t the official attitude. But the silence from Rome is the worst thing about it, because there is no explanation for the reasons for the continuation of the discipline from the Magisterium (or at least not one that is readily available), and young men like me only hear the sometimes vicious mongering from the laity (i.e; “You would give her up if you truly loved God”, “You obviously don’t want to make the sacrifices the priesthood requires”, etc.) . The role of the laity in fostering vocations MUST be addressed very soon, as this is more important than any discipline issue, despite my personal bias.

The Church has opened a can of worms with this, as more young men are becoming disillusioned with it watching returning married schismatics receive the sacrament of Holy Orders while those of us who have lived orthodox, Catholic lives and feel a call to the priesthood are rejected outright without any thought, scrutiny, or consideration. The Church seems to bend over backwards for them, but all we get is a curt dismissal, at best.

It pains me to criticize the good people who govern our Church, but there is a legitimate problem and they don’t seem to be in any hurry to even discuss a solution. I, like others, do not believe that married priests will solve the crisis of the shortage. However, it would at least alleviate it smoewhat until a more long-term solution is found.

I only object to the celibacy requirement because it is a discipline, not doctrine. I accept the doctrines that the Magisterium teaches as truth, and I will at times privately question them as a process of increasing my faith, but I do not disobey them.

The fear that once married men are admitted to the priesthood, celibates will die off, is I believe unfounded. God will always call celibates to the priesthood. Is he calling married men as well? I think so. But until then I’ll just crawl along in obedience to the rules set down by Mother Church.

I undestand what you’re saying and your frustration, but the bottom line remains the same. No one is called by Christ unless the bishop or the religious superior says that he is. Christ speaks through them, not us. I would not be here if my superior had said that I was not called, regardless of what I felt or wanted.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mercer87]

And I understand that I must be called by my bishop. The point I’m trying to make is that the rule does not allow any bishop to even make a discernment as to whether there is a call. And the lack of explanation from the Magisterium does not help matters at all.