Pope Could Soon Say ‘I Do’ to Married Priests–and Open a Schism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Woodyl57 said:
I agree. I am not in favor of removing the discipline in the Latin rite, but do not believe it would be grounds for a schism.
Click to expand...
I think the time has come to reconsider this discipline. I think it was manageable when two or three priests lived in a rectory, and were integrated into the local community. There was fellowship, fraternal meals together, praying the Hours together, all things that made rectory life like a little convent where men were never lonely, helped each other, and developed fraternal bonds.

On top of it they generally lived in Catholic neighbourhoods where they were respected by the community.

Now, many of them live alone in isolated parishes; sometimes having to service multiple parishes, alone, at the same time. Communities are no longer homogeneously Catholic, and in this secular age, a priest is as likely to be spat at as respected, and in general simply ignored.

It’s a lonely life, and a heck of a way to try and attract vocations. And in the face of that loneliness, is it any wonder that sometimes priests go off the rails?

I also don’t buy that being married dilutes their vocation somehow or makes them torn between Church and family. My wife is a family doctor. Through her career she did on-call obstetrics, ER work and hospital pick-up, through her childbearing years. And I had a job that required frequent overseas travel. We worked as a team and managed to make it work. Many people in fact have a huge task juggling career and kids today. The workplace has become a jungle with people having to work crazy hours just to keep their jobs.

I see no reason why it would be any different for a married priest. The lifestyle would be modest, but at least there’s security.
 
AlNg said:
Jesus called St. Peter to be Pope. Also, how many of the other Apostles were married men? Generally, the only apostle known to be unmarried was St. John. Even St. Paul was married
Click to expand...
Again, Jesus’ and Paul’s words remain.

Peter was married, but he left the married life to follow Jesus. *Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?” “…And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.”

But Paul himself says he was celibate—b+not necessarily meaning that he was never married or a widow. His advice about celibacy for serving the Lord undivided has it’s many fruits. Those who think that marriage and raising a family is not a full-time vocation, are in for a surprise. Thus the wisdom of the Church has married priesthood for exceptions or for people that were already married before they were called to the priesthood
 
How well has it been working out in the Eastern Churches? Is there some surplus of priests and lack of a shortage there? If so, do they have a presence in the Amazon. This is being proposed as a solution to a shortage problem. So has it worked? I’m not eastern. There isn’t an eastern Church in my state in union with Rome. Even the Greek Orthodox have serious limitations on married priests, one cannot marry once a priest, one cannot remarry if the wife dies. Why would that be if it is so beneficial? I just don’t see the expansion, and missionary work of the eastern Churches. I’m sure it exists on some scale, but I don’t see the solution to the Amazon crisis or really the universal crisis as being a married priesthood. So why is this idea being pushed? How many qualified, potential good priests does the amazon keep sidelined because they are married? My guess, not many.

As I said earlier, if the proposed solution to the Amazon is married clergy, then I fear the disaster will be the further confusion and division it will sow in the universal Church and the Amazon will still be an isolated, unchurched, dangerous poverty stricken place that the Church will be struggling in.

Think of the married men in the 1st world who serve the Church who are not priests but are married.
This very website we are discussing with is one. As is FOCUS. We have speakers, and podcasters, and college missionaries, and doctors and charity non profits, etc all run by married Catholic men.
Does the Amazon have this pool to draw from? I am honestly asking. I don’t live there.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know. There is merit to both sides.

I think it is unfair that they allow married Episcopal priests to come in, but deny it to their own. I know of two priests that left to get married and have kids. The priest that used to be our rector and lead the RCIA program was brutally honest and told us he also almost left the priesthood to get married. It is an excruciating decision for some of them at some point to remain unmarried or leave their calling. Sometimes I think that we are violating God’s law for the sake of tradition. And let’s face it, it is only recent tradition. The majority of time in church history has allowed married priests than not.

Paul made it clear in 1 Corinthians 7 that it was not a direct commandment from the Lord, but his own opinion. In other parts he defends the rights of apostles to be married and sets rules for bishops to be married only once. Also, the prophets and priests in the Old Testament were typically married (even though some of the sons were called “worthless”).

Our parish only has one permanent priest despite 5 sunday masses of about 500 people each. Several parishes in the diocese including ours continually has to rely on retired priests to fill in the gaps, or import from India or Africa (not that they are bad priests) but have a significant language barrier.
 
Gab123 said:
Thus the wisdom of the Church has married priesthood for exceptions
Click to expand...
Not true for the Eastern Churches. Only the Roman Church had this discipline but not for the first several hundred years. I suspect that the Church had wisdom and was guided by the Holy Spirit when it allowed married priests in the past.
Kobayashi-Maru said:
Paul made it clear in 1 Corinthians 7 that it was not a direct commandment from the Lord, but his own opinion. In other parts he defends the rights of apostles to be married and sets rules for bishops to be married only once.
Click to expand...
Well if Paul said that a bishop could be married only once, then that would seem to imply that he does allow for married clergy, although under certain conditions.
As you know, Ísleifur Gissurarson (1006 – 5 July 1080) was archbishop of Bremen and was married to his wife Dalla Porvaldsdottir and had 3 sons. My understanding is that there were Popes who were married either legally or by common law.
Pope St. Peter
Pope Adrian II was married to Stephania before he took Holy Orders. She was still living with him when he was elected Pope. He had a daughter.
Pope Paul II was not legally married but had 3 sons and one daughter by his mistress Silvia Ruffini.
Pope John X and Pope John XII are said to have had romantic affairs.
Pope Alexander VI had several children by Vanozza dei Catanei and Giulia Farnese.
 
Last edited:
Kobayashi-Maru said:
I think it is unfair that they allow married Episcopal priests to come in, but deny it to their own. I know of two priests that left to get married and have kids.
Click to expand...
And there are many married deacons who would make great priests but are not allowed to do so in the Roman Church.
 
AlNg said:
Only the Roman Church had this discipline but not for the first several hundred years. I suspect that the Church had wisdom and was guided by the Holy Spirit when it allowed married priests in the past.
Click to expand...
The Latin Church and it’s missionaries Christianized the earth. Married priests fulfilled different roles in society. But the fruits of celibacy are tremendously powerful.
 
Most of those missionaries were religious… religious will always be celibate by definition, regardless of whether there are married secular priests. In the East, monastics are obviously always celibate as well.
 
twf said:
Most of those missionaries were religious… religious will always be celibate by definition, regardless of whether there are married secular priests. In the East, monastics are obviously always celibate as well.
Click to expand...
Realize that monastics are confined to monasteries; St Ignatius of Loyola, and the Jesuit order he founded were certainly not monastic. And monks who take religious vows are not not necessarily ordained priests, in fact most are not, thus do not receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.
 
That’s not my point. My point is that both religious priests in Apostolic orders (the missionaries you spoke of) and monastics are consecrated persons. Consecrated persons are celibate by definition. That is intrinsic to their vocation.
What is being discussed here is whether married men should be ordained secular priests.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
IdaCatholic:
How well has it been working out in the Eastern Churches?
Click to expand...
It has worked out very well for 2000 years.
Click to expand...
2000 years!? Nope. No matter your tradition you have not had married priests for 2000 years. Nope. Just impossible. And innnacurate quips like that dont add credibility to your point.
 
The beginning of the Eastern branch? What tradition are you?
 
Last edited:
IdaCatholic said:
The beginning of the Eastern branch?
Click to expand...
The Eastern Orthodox Church is an apostolic Church. They have had married priests all along, i.e., before the split with Rome and after the split with Rome. That is 1988 years, no? I rounded this off to 2000 years in the post above.
 
Last edited:
Your contention is that the churches that became the eastern orthodox in 1054 had over a thousand years of married priesthood before the split? Can you show that? I’ll of course recognize that the early universal Church had married clergy before celibacy was established.
 
Not to get off track but this is not an attack on married priests in the Roman rite or other rites. This solution is being proposed in the Amazon because of a shortage of priests. It is foolish to think that movement will not be applied to all places in need of priests. It is a major wager that I think will be disastrous and will not tangibly help the amazon.
 
Ok. But it doesn’t show a continuous married priesthood dating back 2000 years.
I think in general the east and west has flip flopped on this issue. And while there may have been married priests, it was not a practice of any Church to do so for certain periods of time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top