Optional Celibacy in the Priesthood

[otjm]

Perhaps the greatest cause of priests is the lack of discernment among Catholics. of course the enemy will give the idea to get an imediate solution which is the attack on celibacy. It is not for us to get desperate and then to try to change the Church. If that was so, we probably wouldnt have the Church any longer. we have had many desperate situation, I know we are going through a real bad one, but why attack celibaby? The priests need our support on celibacy now and days and not we must not support arguments against. those who are against celibacy are worldly people who lack wisdom and discernment and knowledge of God. This is another attempt to put God last in our lives. why sacrifice for our Lord, not many are doing this anymore is if Love thy God with thy heart, mind and soul was something of the past. foolish people, how can we escape from the wrath of God?

Who is attacking celibacy? The issue of relaxing the discipline of celibacy and allowing married men to be ordained is not an attack on celibacy; if it were, then Rome itself, which has allowed married ministers who convert to be ordained, would be leading the charge on attacking celibacy.

Rome, however, has not and is not attacking celibacy. Removing or relaxing the discipline on celibacy is not doing away with celibacy; it is not suggesting that celibacy has no value; and it is not an attack. Celibacy will continue in the priesthood should Rome not continue with the discipline, or relax the discipline. The universal Church (as opposed to the Roman rite) has managed to have both, for 2000 years. Having a married clergy is not in any way any statement against having a celibate clergy. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[otjm]

and just where does VII allows for lay women ext. minister to give out Eucharist?

This is an off-topic issue. However, there is nothing in the management of the Church -the rules - which would require that the matter come from a Council. It came from Rome; Rome has authority in the matter, and they exercised it.

and just because the east have married priests, it doesnt mean that the Latin right has to follow the same thing.

While this is true, neither does it mean that the Latin rite would be wrong in doing so.

Further, the issue may be a bit more refined as follows: the Latin rite has a discipline of many centuries standing, that priests in the Latin rite must be celibate. Because it is a discipline, it may be relaxed. And in fact, it has been relaxed.

So the question may be better articulated as: What is it about married convert ministers that has caused Rome to relax the discipline? Why is it relaxed for them, and not for others?

One could say, well, they came in with their congregations, and in some circumstances that may be true, but most certainly not in all, and most likely ;not in many. So it is not an issue of continuity of the community with its pastor.

Why relax it at all? They obviously have done so. and if it is relaxed (for what ever reason), could or would not that reason apply to married Catholic men who feel called? At this point, it appears not; and Rome has not been forthcoming with any anwers (and in fact, would appear to say that it is NOYDB, in essence).

 

[otjm]

And yes, “extraordinary minsters of communion” either male or female, do diminish the significance of cellibacy in the latin rite. The whole reason why celibacy was adopted in the latin rite was because vaginal intercourse was seen as making a MAN unfit to handle the eucharist. So when you have “extraordinary ministers” who are not celibate handling the Body of Christ, it is theological confusion.

Well, that is the first time I have heard that charge. Usually, the charge is that EMHCs diminish the significance of the priesthood (and although I have not seen it mentioned, by analogy, the deaconate).

I don’t believe that the issue of celibacy only can be attributed to intercourse, if for no other reason than that the Eastern rites, as I understand it, have a rule that a married priest is to abstain from intercourse (the day) before saying Mass (or Holy Mysteries).

And I am not sure that the issue is particularly simple in how the Church looks at intercourse; ritual purity does not, as I understand it, imply that intercourse is “dirty”, but rather that it is so powerful a force and act, that one must have some abstinence period. Entering into intercourse is entering into the act of creation as co-creator, as it were, with God. Children are not spontaneously created by an act of God, but require that the husband and wife are the direct, and therefore extremely powerful means of God’s creation. To those who are consciously aware of the power and impact of their act (and many, sadly, have no clue), it can be one of the most profound acts humans do.

So it is not that a bunch of “old men” are simply “dirty minded”, or “prudish”; rather, that they may be more aware than the average individual of what the sexual act encompasses.

 

[JReducation]

This is an off-topic issue. However, there is nothing in the management of the Church -the rules - which would require that the matter come from a Council. It came from Rome; Rome has authority in the matter, and they exercised it.
While this is true, neither does it mean that the Latin rite would be wrong in doing so.

Further, the issue may be a bit more refined as follows: the Latin rite has a discipline of many centuries standing, that priests in the Latin rite must be celibate. Because it is a discipline, it may be relaxed. And in fact, it has been relaxed.

**So the question may be better articulated as: What is it about married convert ministers that has caused Rome to relax the discipline? Why is it relaxed for them, and not for others? **

I believe that this is where you’re running into your problem. The answer is a philosophical one. I don’t mean as in you have one philosophy and I have another. I mean as in philosophy guides the Church’s reasoning.

The non-Catholic clergyman was not born into the Catholic Church. Therefore, canon law cannot be applied to him. You can only apply law to those over whom you have jurisdiction. It makes no difference if he comes alone or with the congregation. The difference is that he was not born a Catholic. At the time that he married and at the time that he entered the ministry, the law could not be applied, because the law had no jurisdiction.

When this person converts and requests to remain in ministry, he’s not asking for something that is new to him. He’s asking for the grace and permission of continuity. The Church grants him that grace and permission, because his circumstances are extraordinary. Under ordinary circumstance, Christ only calls single men to the priesthood in the Roman Church. But this man was not in the Roman Church when Christ called him. Christ called him from before he was born. Through no fault of his own, he was born outside of the Roman Church. The Roman Church must then acknowledge the call.

As far as men who are born within the Roman Church, the Church knows, without a doubt, that Christ never calls a married man to the priesthood within the Roman Church. Christ does not call people where they cannot go. Christ works within the parameters set by the Church, not against them.

He has revealed to the universal Church the sanctity of celibacy. The Roman Church has established that she wants only those men who are called to this holy state to be priests. Christ cannot act according to what he has revealed. He has revealed to us that the Church cannot err on such matters, because sacraments are part of our faith. Therefore, she cannot err on sacramental disciplines. Christ will not call those who do not meet the criteria for the reception of the sacrament. The criteria is that if you are born Roman Catholic you must be called to celibacy first, then to the priesthood.

The Church is not relaxing her rules for converts. Her rules do not apply to them. They were not born Roman Catholic. Christ works through the circumstance in which the person finds hinself. If the person is born a Lutheran or Anglican, Christ will call him through that tradition and lead him into the Church where he can exercise the proper priestly ministry.

The Church does not want to relax the criteria for those born into the Roman Catholic Church, because she believes that this is the will of Christ for this Church. It is not the will of Christ for the other 21 Catholic Churches.

One of the areas where you’re having problems is distinguishing between rites and churches. There are only five rites. There are 22 Catholic Churches, all in full communion. Each Church uses one of the five existing rites. The Roman Church uses the Roman Rite. But the rite does not define us as a Church. What defines us as a Church is the apostolic succession. Our apostolic succession goes back to Peter and Paul. Peter and Paul had very defnite teachings on celibacy, which were revealed to them. Paul insisted on it. It gradually spread from the religious brothers who lived as hermits or monks to those clerics who joined them and later it spilled over to clerics who remained in the world, today known as Diocesan priests. There was a gradual adoption of celibacy, by the Roman Church. But it was based on Divine Revelation taught by the Apostles Peter and Paul, especially Paul. The rite has nothing to do with celibacy. Priestly celibacy is part of the Church of Rome.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[otjm]

What I like about this possibility is that it means the priesthood could both serve as a sign of contradiction to the overly-sexualised content of much of Western society and also serve as testimony to the dignity (charism? - probably an inappropriate technical use of the word) sacrament of marriage.

Sorry, I was more than a tad bit cryptic in my response.
It is my observation (backed up with what I was taught about vocations in the early 1960’s, before catechesis began to unwind), that some people are called to marriage.

And after doing divorce work for 12 years, it is my observation that there are some people who have no calling whatsoever to the married life. Or as I said of one woman, some man is lucky beyond belief that she never got married… she has embraced celibacy as a way of life (not professed, but openly accepted).

Some people not only appear to not be called, but also appear to not have the basic prerequisites of - what, intelligence, psychological makeup, emotional stability, etc? - to be able to form a self-giving covenentual relationship with another. The seriously narcissistic personality type, and the seriously hedonistic type come quickly to mind, the former perhaps not curable.

So perhaps I am aligning charism with vocation, and that may not be the best use of the term.

 

[JReducation]

Well, that is the first time I have heard that charge. Usually, the charge is that EMHCs diminish the significance of the priesthood (and although I have not seen it mentioned, by analogy, the deaconate).

I don’t believe that the issue of celibacy only can be attributed to intercourse, if for no other reason than that the Eastern rites, as I understand it, have a rule that a married priest is to abstain from intercourse (the day) before saying Mass (or Holy Mysteries).

And I am not sure that the issue is particularly simple in how the Church looks at intercourse; ritual purity does not, as I understand it, imply that intercourse is “dirty”, but rather that it is so powerful a force and act, that one must have some abstinence period. Entering into intercourse is entering into the act of creation as co-creator, as it were, with God. Children are not spontaneously created by an act of God, but require that the husband and wife are the direct, and therefore extremely powerful means of God’s creation. To those who are consciously aware of the power and impact of their act (and many, sadly, have no clue), it can be one of the most profound acts humans do.

So it is not that a bunch of “old men” are simply “dirty minded”, or “prudish”; rather, that they may be more aware than the average individual of what the sexual act encompasses.

There has never been such an official teaching. There certainly have been people who believed that the sexual act between husband and wife was a necessary evil… Look at Victorian England. They were not Catholic.

But just because you have a bunch of people who have a very strange view does not make it law or formal teaching of the Church. The Church never taught this. I’m not sure where Notredame gets that this was an official position of the Roman Church. It may have been the belief of many people, not because they were Catholic. As I said, look at Victorian England or the fundamentalist Protestants. Even the very orthodox Jews believed this, but it was never a teaching of Judaism.

As to abstinence, there is no law in the Roman Church that requires married clerics to abstain from sex before handling the Eucharist. They can have sex and then go to mass. Both are holy as long as the sex is chaste. I don’t know what the Oriental Churches require, but I do know that it’s a stretch to say that ALL require something. The canons for the Oriental Catholics have variations according to the different Churches. This sounds more like a issue of spirituality and not one of Canon Law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Sorry, I was more than a tad bit cryptic in my response.
It is my observation (backed up with what I was taught about vocations in the early 1960’s, before catechesis began to unwind), that some people are called to marriage.

And after doing divorce work for 12 years, it is my observation that there are some people who have no calling whatsoever to the married life. Or as I said of one woman, some man is lucky beyond belief that she never got married… she has embraced celibacy as a way of life (not professed, but openly accepted).

Some people not only appear to not be called, but also appear to not have the basic prerequisites of - what, intelligence, psychological makeup, emotional stability, etc? - to be able to form a self-giving covenentual relationship with another. The seriously narcissistic personality type, and the seriously hedonistic type come quickly to mind, the former perhaps not curable.

So perhaps I am aligning charism with vocation, and that may not be the best use of the term.

YOu’re right. Not everyone is called to marriage.

You’re also right. Charism is not the same as vocation. For example, I’m a friar. The guy up the street is a friar. However, I’m a Franciscan Brother of Life and he’s a Dominican – same vocation, different charisms. We make the same commitment. We do not serve the Gospel the same way. The former is the vocation and the latter is the charism.

Applying it to married people I would use this example.

My parents: vocation – marriage charism – live as husband and wife

Parents of Therese de Liseux: vocation – marriage charism – lived as celibates from the time they had their last child until death

The Martin’s charism was to live a continent life. My parents did not have that gift. (Not that I know )

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[otjm]

The non-Catholic clergyman was not born into the Catholic Church. Therefore, canon law cannot be applied to him. You can only apply law to those over whom you have jurisdiction.

When this person converts and requests to remain in ministry, he’s not asking for something that is new to him.

I beg to differ. The Anglican ordinations were declared null and void because of significant change to the ordination ceremony, and with the exception of the Orthodox, and a few other minor examples (usually of someone doing a “back door” ordination with a bishop who may have orders), the Church does not recognize the call to ministry as sacramental. This includes high and low Lutherans, high and low Episcopalians, Methodists, and the one Presbyterian (in our archdiocese, who recently died). Further, once they become Catholic, ordination is not in any way guaranteed; the matter, if I recall correctly, has to go specifically to Rome and Rome must answer positively. So I beg to differ that the rules do not apply to convert ministers as they do to cradle Catholics, or convert Catholics who were not ministers.

He’s asking for the grace and permission of continuity. The Church grants him that grace and permission, because his circumstances are extraordinary. Under ordinary circumstance, Christ only calls single men to the priesthood in the Roman Church. But this man was not in the Roman Church when Christ called him. Christ called him from before he was born. Through no fault of his own, he was born outside of the Roman Church. The Roman Church must then acknowledge the call.

What continuity, and called to what? Priests and ministers are ontologically different. Further, married ministers are no more capable, nor less, of being called to priesthood than married Catholic men; what they are first called to is conversion to the Faith; and then some, but not all, are called to the priesthood. But that call to the priesthood comes after conversion (and at that point they are a married Catholic man). It may be that some ministers felt, before their conversion, that they were called to the priesthood; but from all appearances, and from what I have read of some conversion stories, their call while they were ministers was to be Catholic, not to be a Catholic priest.

Further, the essence of what you are saying is that God would not put in one’s heart the call to be a priest if one were not capable of being one. I have met not a few Catholic married men who would say that they have felt a call to be a priest and they would differ significantly from your point (and at least two of them are related to me, though not immediate relations). But that is not the call that ultimately matters; it is the call of the Church to the man to be ordained. One may feel with all of one’s being that one is called; unless and until the Church calls, the feelings are just that. I would be somewhat hesitant to say that a man who feels called has either manufactured that feeling himself, or that it is from the Evil One; at least, I would not say that to their face.

As far as men who are born within the Roman Church, the Church knows, without a doubt, that Christ never calls a married man to the priesthood within the Roman Church. Christ does not call people where they cannot go. Christ works within the parameters set by the Church, not against them.

As noted above, I have met people, and am related to two, who would most strongly disagree with you.

He has revealed to the universal Church the sanctity of celibacy. The Roman Church has established that she wants only those men who are called to this holy state to be priests. Christ cannot act according to what he has revealed. He has revealed to us that the Church cannot err on such matters, because sacraments are part of our faith. Therefore, she cannot err on sacramental disciplines.

On the contrary, disciplines are not immutable nor doctrinal. Christ promised we would not err in faith or morals. Discipline is a judgemental call, and that judgement can err. Early on in the Church, the discipline was that one could only go to (Confession) Reconcilliation once in one’s lifetime. That was the discipline; and the Church realized that discipline was in error, and changed it (thanks in large part to Irish monks, who did not follow the discipline).

The Church is not relaxing her rules for converts. Her rules do not apply to them.

Sure it is. Each one has to go to Rome for permission, and permission is not by any means automatic. The rule specifically has to be relaxed in each instance.

The Church does not want to relax the criteria for those born into the Roman Catholic Church, because she believes that this is the will of Christ for this Church. It is not the will of Christ for the other 21 Catholic Churches.

Well, we certainly can agree on that. My questions, however, stand.

One of the areas where you’re having problems is distinguishing between rites and churches. There are only five rites. There are 22 Catholic Churches, all in full communion. Each Church uses one of the five existing rites. The Roman Church uses the Roman Rite. But the rite does not define us as a Church.

Yeah, Malphono has corrected me a couple of times, but I am old and don’t necessarily remember everything I am told. Churches, rites, and it seems to me there is another division; my categorization is a bit sloppy, but for the sake of this conversation, I think most people understand what I am getting at. Seems to me there are three other rites extent in the Roman Church; I would suspect, but don’t know for sure, that the same set of rules apply to them.

 

[JReducation]

I beg to differ. The Anglican ordinations were declared null and void because of significant change to the ordination ceremony, and with the exception of the Orthodox, and a few other minor examples So I beg to differ that the rules do not apply to convert ministers as they do to cradle Catholics, or convert Catholics who were not ministers.

That is a case of philosophical argument. The argument is that it does not apply and the Church accepts that.

What continuity, and called to what?

The continuity is the call to ministry. They must now transition from Protestant to Catholic. We have an ordained ministry. The call to ministry is continuous or continued.

Further, the essence of what you are saying is that God would not put in one’s heart the call to be a priest if one were not capable of being one. I would be somewhat hesitant to say that a man who feels called has either manufactured that feeling himself, or that it is from the Evil One; at least, I would not say that to their face.

The Church has never said that the feeling is from the evil one. She has said that the feeling is a subjective one. She does say that when it comes to two calls, only the hierarchy can confirm them to be from Christ: Holy Orders and Religious Profession.

As noted above, I have met people, and am related to two, who would most strongly disagree with you.

They’re not disagreeing with me. They’re disagreeing with the Magisterium. I’m only passing it along. You can take their opinion or that of the Magisterium. It’s your call.

On the contrary, disciplines are not immutable nor doctrinal. Christ promised we would not err in faith or morals. Discipline is a judgemental call, and that judgement can err. Early on in the Church, the discipline was that one could only go to (Confession) Reconcilliation once in one’s lifetime. That was the discipline; and the Church realized that discipline was in error, and changed it (thanks in large part to Irish monks, who did not follow the discipline).

Disciplines attached to the sacraments are free of error. The former discipline on confession was not changed because it was in error. It was changed because the Church believed that it was better to do it as we have it today. People may want to call it an error, but the Church has never called it an error. It’s her opinion that matters, not what others say.

Sure it is. Each one has to go to Rome for permission, and permission is not by any means automatic. The rule specifically has to be relaxed in each instance.

They do not have to go to Rome. The Ordinary of the diocese makes that decision. The rule is not being relaxed, because the rule was written for those born into the Roman Catholic Church, not for those who convert.

**VI. § 1. Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfil the requisites established by canon law[13] and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments[14] may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42[15] and in the Statement In June[16] are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1. ** APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS

Yeah, Malphono has corrected me a couple of times, but I am old and don’t necessarily remember everything I am told. Churches, rites, and it seems to me there is another division; my categorization is a bit sloppy, but for the sake of this conversation, I think most people understand what I am getting at. Seems to me there are three other rites extent in the Roman Church; I would suspect, but don’t know for sure, that the same set of rules apply to them.

The reason that Malphono and I bring this up is because bringing in the rites muddles the waters. The rites do not define the Churches. Different Churches use the same rites, but they have different laws about ordination.

In the end, there is always the question, why should the Roman Church change drif away from the celibacy requirement? Even if she did, the fact that a man feels that he is called to the priesthood does not mean that he is. Christ does not call outside of the Church. He calls through the Church. Even in the case of the converts, they are being called to Holy Orders through the Church. When they present themselves, it is the Church who says that Christ is truly calling them. It is not two calls. It is one call from Christ. But it comes only through the Church.

None of us who have presented ourselves for either Holy Orders or Religious Vows or both have a right to do so. Nor do we have any knowledge that we are called. We have a desire. The Church confirms or negates the call. If she denies the call, then it is clear that the desire is subjective. In other words, it comes from within, not from Christ. Christ can only call through the Church. And he can only call those who can serve. He does not act contrary to our good nor contrary to his Church. Therefore, he does not call those who cannot serve, because it would be unmerciful on his part to do so. He would be calling them to something that they cannot acheive.

What you’re saying is that Christ is calling men to the priesthood and they are being frustrated by the Church. If that’s the case, then Christ is not merciful. Why would he call men only to be frustrated?

Philosophy would tell us that:

a. Christ is merciful

b. Christ never asks for more than we can give

c. Therefore, a merciful Christ would never call us to the impossible.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I am wondering if the whole discussion on celibacy is because people are looking at the shortage of parish priests, without understanding the reasons for the shortage. There seem to be too many people who want to blame it on celibacy. Let’s look at many facts to understand why there is a shortage of parish priests.

There was a large exodus of priests who wanted to get married. This is true.

From 1900 to 1960 we experienced an explosion of ordinations. Today, the number of ordinations are back to normal. They are back to where they were before 1900. We seem to go through waves on this.

Many parishes were staffed by religious orders or by religious congregations. The Church mandated all religious orders and religious congregations to return to the vision and mission of their founders. Religious orders and congregations closed parishes or abandoned them, because the founders never intended them to be in parishes.

Many religious orders of parishes ordained an excessive number of men. The founders never intended to start religious orders for priests. These religious orders found that they had a surplus of priests. They cut back on the number of men that they ordained and put their focus on the religious life and recruiting men to live that life, which does not require the sacrament of Holy Orders. This meant that they could no longer staff as many parishes. Parishes were abandoned. The orders no longer guarantee their men that they will be ordained, unless Christ speaks through the superior.

Parishes in the USA were found in cities where the largest number of Catholics were concentrated in ethnic ghettos. As urbanization increased, many Catholics moved to the suburbs, thus spreading them over a larger geographical area. This demanded a larger number of parishes per diocese. The priests had to be spread thinly.

Many religious communities were founded to serve the poor. When Catholics began to move up the economic scale and became middle class, these religious could no longer minister to them. These people had no priests.

Social changes influenced Catholics as well as other people. Families began to get smaller. The large families that often provided one or two priests were no longer there.

Social changes triggered an age of materialism in all people of all faiths. Young men became much more interested in economic, political and professional success and less interested in serving the Church.

Families no longer place religious formation and faith as the primary duty of their children. Instead, children are told that their primary duty is to be good students and get a good education. Even religious education is often sacrificed for the basketball practice or ballet lesson.

The level of education required to be a priest was increased. Priests did not have to get advanced degrees. Today, no one may be a priest without at least a four-year Master’s in Divinity and no one may be a bishop without a doctorate degree. Degrees are long and expensive. It costs just as much to be a priest as it does to be surgeon and takes as much time. This was not the case before 1983. Only religious orders required higher education of their men, not dioceses. Many men are willing to be celibate, but are discouraged at the education requirements to enter the seminary.

Even if you do away with the celibacy requirement, you still have all of these other challenges in place. The shortage of parish priests is here for the long-term, until we see some changes in the Catholic family values and priorities.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[1Yesusmen]

It is apparent that there is a severe world-wide shortage of priests. Over 50,000 operating parishes in the world have no priest and no regular access to sacraments (Georgetown University, Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate 2009). While the number of Catholics in the world doubled between 1970 and 2006, growing from 653 million to 1.131 billion, the number of priests stayed about the same (Vatican Statistical Yearbook 2006). The gap between numbers of laity and priests has never been wider than it is today, though the mission of the Church has perhaps never been more needed. Globally, national leaders speak of a third world war, reports of terrorism and genocide fill the nightly news; hunger, critical illnesses, homelessness, and poverty abound.

Mandating celibacy contributes to the priest shortage in at least three ways: i) it deters candidates from the priesthood, ii) it means that priests who marry are dismissed from active ministry, (125,000 priests have left to marry in the last 50 years (Sipe 2008, p545) and iii) it contributes to a problematic clerical culture that is not conducive to retaining priests.

The KIngdom has begun here now (not just in the future) and optional celibacy is necessary for the sake of it now.

 

[Biedrik]

My problem with this claim that celibacy seriously contributes to celibacy is simply the way history has played out. We’ve had celibacy for the last thousand years, and we have had times with enormous amounts of priests. Likewise, one sees countries with celibate priesthood where there are enormous amounts of vocations. Poland, where my family comes from, comes to mind. There are repeated examples of places with bountiful amounts of priests, along with celibacy. It cannot be as big a factor as some would claim.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Mandating celibacy contributes to the priest shortage in at least three ways: i) it deters candidates from the priesthood

Groups that do not mandate celibacy are also having a shortage so your argument does not work.

ii) it means that priests who marry are dismissed from active ministry, (125,000 priests have left to marry in the last 50 years (Sipe 2008, p545)

125,000 left only to marry? Not for any other reason?

Anyways, once a man is ordained he can not marry, Holy Orders is an impediment to marriage. This is dogma and can never change. The discipline in the Latin Church is only ordaining celibate men instead of including married men.

iii) it contributes to a problematic clerical culture that is not conducive to retaining priests.

This is so vague as to be meaningless.

 

[otjm]

My problem with this claim that celibacy seriously contributes to celibacy is simply the way history has played out. We’ve had celibacy for the last thousand years, and we have had times with enormous amounts of priests. Likewise, one sees countries with celibate priesthood where there are enormous amounts of vocations. Poland, where my family comes from, comes to mind. There are repeated examples of places with bountiful amounts of priests, along with celibacy. It cannot be as big a factor as some would claim.

However, it would be beyond simplistic to presume that the number of vocations (e.g. in Poland) was due to celibacy. It was also a country under siege, and the Church has seemed in the past to thrive when persecuted, and falter when things got “too good”. And I strongly suspect that the peaking of vocations we had in the US was due to a number of factors, celibacy not being one of the leading causes of the increase. Without opening the priesthood to married men and seeing what kind of a response is generated, it is hard to say that it is a big factor, a small one, or no factor at all. There is not necessarily a parallel to the response the Church has received to the permanent diaconate, but certainly there are a large number of married men who have chosen to serve the Church in such a vocation. One cannot draw solid conclusions from the response, but it certainly raises possibilities that there are a significant number of men who would respond, were married men allowed to be ordained to the priesthood.

If celibacy contribute to celibacy (and I would accept the premise), that does not mean that celibacy alone contributes to the increase in vocations, nor that having married priests would work the opposite. In fact, if celibacy can be seen as standing on its own merits (as opposed to being required), one would think that those who have the charism of celibacy would see it more brightly proclaimed.

The Roman Church has had celibacy alone for about 1000 years (although it does not have it absolutely now), but the Church has had a married clergy since its beginning (the Eastern Churches) and I know of no studies showing that having a clergy that was either married or celibate or both hindered either married men or celibate men from entering.

 

[otjm]

Anyways, once a man is ordained he can not marry, Holy Orders is an impediment to marriage. This is dogma and can never change.

I cannot find this in Ott; however, it has been the practice of the universal Church. I am not sure that it is dogma, however, as it is my understanding that in very limited circumstances, a married priest who is widowed may be able to remarry (usually associated with having young children). The, again, he was married prior to ordination, to begin with.

Are you considering this to be dogma or doctrine, similar to the teaching that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood (as set forth by John Paul 2 as the ordinary and perpetual teching of the Church, and thus doctrine)?

And excepting those married clergy from other Protestant denominations, who convert and are ordained.

 

[Cara_Serrano]

I do not believe priests should be married simply because Christ, our High Priest, was not married and priests are called to imitate Christ. I understand the other arguments and am glad they are being discussed here, but personally if a man is not willing to follow Christ into the celibate life, I don’t want him for my spiritual leader. Because of my own weakness, I would not want to receive the sacraments from someone who cannot follow his own sacrament. This would cause me too much temptation to start watering down my own faithlife and I’m already on shaky ground.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I do not believe priests should be married simply because Christ, our High Priest, was not married and priests are called to imitate Christ. I understand the other arguments and am glad they are being discussed here, but personally if a man is not willing to follow Christ into the celibate life, I don’t want him for my spiritual leader. Because of my own weakness, I would not want to receive the sacraments from someone who cannot follow his own sacrament. This would cause me too much temptation to start watering down my own faithlife and I’m already on shaky ground.

i agree with you 100%. this idea of having married priest to solve a problem of shortage is the wrong one. we live in a society that we must fix everything our own way. there is no more wait for God’s providence. we no longer can accept difficulties, we must hurry and try to fix the problem even if we have to do the wrong thing. it is sickening.
we know what exactly where the problem lies and it is not celibacy that is causing the shortage of priests. it is mostly the waterdown of the Faith. God knows what he is doing. we should try to be as if we are God like the world is doing. we live in ungodly world in which man wants to fix everything as if there is no God, and if we are not becarefull, we find ourselves doing the same. I am afraid that many Catholics have forgotten that there is a God because of the world we live in it is so influential. i think we are taking for granted how the evil one is working against us.

 

[otjm]

I do not believe priests should be married simply because Christ, our High Priest, was not married and priests are called to imitate Christ. I understand the other arguments and am glad they are being discussed here, but personally if a man is not willing to follow Christ into the celibate life, I don’t want him for my spiritual leader. Because of my own weakness, I would not want to receive the sacraments from someone who cannot follow his own sacrament. This would cause me too much temptation to start watering down my own faithlife and I’m already on shaky ground.

Hmmm. Given that the Church has had married clergy from the Apostles to today, it sounds more like you simply have never had the experience of a married clergy. I am not going to argue your point, but I find it strange that a married priest could in any way tempt you to “water down” your faith. A married priest certainly is not “watering down” his spiritual life.

Oh, and by the way - “follow his own sacrament” - there is absolutely nothing - nada - zip - whatsoever about priesthood that makes either marriage or celibacy “intrinsic” to it. While celibacy is considered a “higher” calling, it most definitely is not intrinsic to priesthood in any way, shape or form. What is intrinsic to priesthood is that the individual must be male. Whether he is married when ordained, or celibate, he “follows his own sacrament” by confecting the sacraments he is responsible for, leading his flock and bringing people to Christ.

And to pre-judge someone as to whether or not they are a good spiritual leader based on whether or not they are celibate of married is to misconstrue what makes for a spiritual leader. In the all too many years I have known priests, I have known too many celibate priests who did not make for good spiritual leaders - and at least one of them made for an extremely bad one. Celibacy is no guarantee.

 

[Biedrik]

However, it would be beyond simplistic to presume that the number of vocations (e.g. in Poland) was due to celibacy. It was also a country under siege, and the Church has seemed in the past to thrive when persecuted, and falter when things got “too good”. And I strongly suspect that the peaking of vocations we had in the US was due to a number of factors, celibacy not being one of the leading causes of the increase. Without opening the priesthood to married men and seeing what kind of a response is generated, it is hard to say that it is a big factor, a small one, or no factor at all. There is not necessarily a parallel to the response the Church has received to the permanent diaconate, but certainly there are a large number of married men who have chosen to serve the Church in such a vocation. One cannot draw solid conclusions from the response, but it certainly raises possibilities that there are a significant number of men who would respond, were married men allowed to be ordained to the priesthood.

If celibacy contribute to celibacy (and I would accept the premise), that does not mean that celibacy alone contributes to the increase in vocations, nor that having married priests would work the opposite. In fact, if celibacy can be seen as standing on its own merits (as opposed to being required), one would think that those who have the charism of celibacy would see it more brightly proclaimed.

The Roman Church has had celibacy alone for about 1000 years (although it does not have it absolutely now), but the Church has had a married clergy since its beginning (the Eastern Churches) and I know of no studies showing that having a clergy that was either married or celibate or both hindered either married men or celibate men from entering.

I did not claim that celibacy contributed to the number of priests in Poland. All I stated was that a country with celibacy got plenty of priests. In the end, the point is that one cannot justify changing that discipline because “it causes us to have less priests.” There are way too many factors, and we have seen time and time again where plenty of men were willing to join the priesthood, even when it did require celibacy. I think a priest who used to be in my parish had a good observation about the vocation crisis. He said “The real reason for why we have few priests now is not because of celibacy, the scandals, or any of the other usual suspects. It’s simply because we have too few devout and well catechized Catholics.”

 

[otjm]

i agree with you 100%. this idea of having married priest to solve a problem of shortage is the wrong one. we live in a society that we must fix everything our own way. there is no more wait for God’s providence. we no longer can accept difficulties, we must hurry and try to fix the problem even if we have to do the wrong thing. it is sickening.

I have been down this path elsewhere, but I will try it again.

Perhaps there are other reasons to consider whether or not celibacy should be mandatory. There are a large number of men who feel called to serve the Church, and they are married. They are now becoming deacons. It is certainly not far-fetched to consider the possibility that there are married men who feel they are or would be called to the priesthood, were the Church to make that possibility available to more than just Protestant married ministers who convert. It is not necessarily a matter of “fixing” a problem of too few priests; but rather that we may well have those among us who would become priests, were the rule to be relaxed.

we know what exactly where the problem lies and it is not celibacy that is causing the shortage of priests. it is mostly the waterdown of the Faith.

That is one of the problems, but by no means the only problem. There are a multitude of issues we face today that didn’t exist 50 or 60 years ago, which militate against men joining the priesthood. For example, we used to have larger families, and parents would be more inclined to see one of their boys enter the seminary; now, with such small families, there may not be any boy at all; or maybe one, and the partents are not likely to be encouraging their only son to enter - and that is not a matter of weak faith; people with stong faith can have the same reluctance.