Priesthood Celibacy Poll (Reworded for Clarity)

[bquinnan]

Since this thread is is still going …

I had another thought about the problem with allowing married priests.

The Council of Trent said this (Canon X): “If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.”

Now, if the goal is to have priests who are holier and more faithful to the teachings of the Church, it does not seem to me that the proper way to do this would be to have priests who are in a state that is less blessed than celibacy.

Of course, perhaps more should be done to ensure that priests are truly celibate, and not simply unmarried, if they are to remain in active ministry.

 

[hawkeye]

Some argue over here with all the clericial abuse, that if Priests were allowed to get married that child abuse wouldn’t take place.
This opinion is just not right, for one, married men abuse children, so how did being married help them ? another scenario is one priest running away with another priests wife, plus it wouldn’t help homosexuality, it wouldn’t help one little bit, but only make matters worse, only my opinion.

 

[otm]

itsjustdave1988:

Not at this time.

The answer to the priest sex scandal is obedience to celibacy, not a loosening of celibacy.

I respectfully disagree. The answer to the priest sex scandal is getting the practicing homosexuals out of the priesthood, and getting chastity back in. Chastity is not celibacy, as chastity is required for married couples also.

 

[otm]

csr:

This is a false choice. It is a well-established fact that religious orders that do things traditionally have no problem finding vocations. Celibacy promotes the credibility of the priest vis-a-vis all kinds of situations and problems. Evolved ecclesiastical tradition is by no means random.

We are not generally talking about religious orders. We are talking about diocesan priests.

And if we are going to talk about evolved ecclesiastical tradition, you just flat out ignored the tradition of the Eastern rites.

 

[otm]

Ruben:

I think it is right that celibacy should be practiced by priests. I don’t believe that a priest can give himself fully to his flock if by the same token and in principle, a married man should give himself fully to his wife and family. I don’t see how we can have it both ways. I have a very close friend who is devoutly Catholic, married and a parent of several wonderful children. When I call him on the telephone I’ve always found that it is near impossible to keep his full attention on our conversations. Even when I visit with him and his wife at their home, I become overwhelmingly aware of how his attention is divided between his family and on the visiting time he and I are trying to share. I’m not complaining about that, because that’s the way it should be. He should be focused on his family in that way, that’s his vocation. On the other hand, if it were a priest that was in the same situation as my friend here, I don’t see how such a priest could truly be giving himself fully to me and my spiritual needs.

Well, you have just ash-canned all the married priests in the Roman rite, as well as all the married priests in the Eastern rites.

And by the way, I think your friend is rude. I have raised children, and I tought them to respect adults, and times of adult conversations. Some people allow their children to interrupt at any and all times; others don’t. Having a family is not a 24 hour vocation for a man unless he is playing Mr. Mom.

 

[otm]

Exporter:

I agree with darcee http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_169513”, true);
Senior Member
I man who is not willing to be a celibate Priest is not a man most peoplee will respect. Holy Mother Church is correct! Not the whining few.:tiphat:

Holy Mother Church allows married priests; the one I know is highly respected.

Why wouldn’t people respect him? They respect other married men???

 

[otm]

itsjustdave1988:

Not at this time.

The answer to the priest sex scandal is obedience to celibacy, not a loosening of celibacy.

No, it is obedience to chastity, which both married and singles are called to.

 

[otm]

bquinnan:

Since this thread is is still going …

I had another thought about the problem with allowing married priests.

The Council of Trent said this (Canon X): “If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.”

Now, if the goal is to have priests who are holier and more faithful to the teachings of the Church, it does not seem to me that the proper way to do this would be to have priests who are in a state that is less blessed than celibacy.

Of course, perhaps more should be done to ensure that priests are truly celibate, and not simply unmarried, if they are to remain in active ministry.

Perhaps we should be a little careful of how we understand the statement of Trent; particularly in light of what has been said since then. Celibacy is a charism. Marriage is a sacrament. If Christ had intended celibacy to be a sacrament, He would have made it one. He didn’t.

 

[otm]

hawkeye:

Some argue over here with all the clericial abuse, that if Priests were allowed to get married that child abuse wouldn’t take place.
This opinion is just not right, for one, married men abuse children, so how did being married help them ? another scenario is one priest running away with another priests wife, plus it wouldn’t help homosexuality, it wouldn’t help one little bit, but only make matters worse, only my opinion.

That arguement has been made here too. It is false. There is more child abuse in total numbers by married men than any other source. Marriage obviously is not a means of avoiding sexual abuse.

However, statistically, homosexuals are much more likely to abuse sexually than heterosexuals.

 

[BayCityRickL]

I voted ‘no’ but there may be some merit. I can’t recall the details, but the Church has experience with this and has held to the celibacy of priests.

Some may be put off by celibacy, for sure. I would be concerned about the loyalties of a priest who had family responsibilities. I think people would be put off by that, too. The types of demands on priests are such that people would be reluctant to call on a priest assuming that they were imposing too much on him.

There used to be a group of pediatricians in our town who insisted that their parents call them at any hour if the child was ill, and they dressed up and sped to the hospital to meet the family. As a group they did this, and they characteristically skipped vacations for years.

So, it’s possible, but do you want to call on a priest who would have these attachments?

 

[bquinnan]

otm:

Perhaps we should be a little careful of how we understand the statement of Trent; particularly in light of what has been said since then. Celibacy is a charism. Marriage is a sacrament. If Christ had intended celibacy to be a sacrament, He would have made it one. He didn’t.

I did not say celibacy is a sacrament. I only said, citing the Council of Trent which also acknowledged marriage to be a sacrament, that the state of celibacy is more blessed than the state of marriage.

 

[otm]

BayCityRickL:

I voted ‘no’ but there may be some merit. I can’t recall the details, but the Church has experience with this and has held to the celibacy of priests.

Some may be put off by celibacy, for sure. I would be concerned about the loyalties of a priest who had family responsibilities. I think people would be put off by that, too. The types of demands on priests are such that people would be reluctant to call on a priest assuming that they were imposing too much on him.

There used to be a group of pediatricians in our town who insisted that their parents call them at any hour if the child was ill, and they dressed up and sped to the hospital to meet the family. As a group they did this, and they characteristically skipped vacations for years.

So, it’s possible, but do you want to call on a priest who would have these attachments?

I can’t possibly think of a reason I would not want to call on them. I have an attorney with attachments (interesting choice of words for a family), a CPA with attachments, and a doctor with attachments.

I am not equating priesthood with “any other vocation or job”. I wouldn’t call a priest to do my will (but perhaps he might be involved, should my will be invoked!), or to do my taxes. I might call on him if I was sick, but I would use common sense to get the doctor involved in healing also.

But why would I hesitate to call on a priest for anything for which I need him should he have a family? Because I might interrupt the dinner hour or get him out of bed? Family or no family, I would hesitate to call on him at those times if it were not an emergency; if it were, family wouldn’t slow me down.

The Catholic Church (notice, I didn’t say “Roman”) has managed quite well with married priests for 2000 or so years. And the Roman Catholic Church seems to manage ok with married priests currently (although there is a tendency in some dioceses to “hide” them in the Chancery). I suspect it would continue to do so if we had more who were married.

 

[Veronica_Anne]

I haven’t read all the 110 posts on this before mine, so please forgive me if someone has already said this.

I was listening to a priest on the radio talking about how he wouldn’t have it any other way and is frankly somewhat tired of hearing people talk like celibacy as a priest is not the gift that he knows that it is that God gave to him to practice for the sake of the Kingdom. And that it’s not different from as a lay person if you’re not married being celibate.

He says that it’s enough on the plate to be a priest for everyone in his parish without trying to juggle it with being a good husband for a wife as well. That it would do any woman an injustice that his availability just wouldn’t be there for her.

He says that priesthood is a vocation. And that married life is a vocation. And that single life is a vocation.

He showed some dismay that popular opinion in America seems to think that priestly celibacy is an occasion of suffering. It is not. He’s dismayed that some lay people think that they can put pressure on the Vatican to turn over what the Holy Spirit has graciously and generously given to His priests… the gift of celibacy.

He finds joy in that celibacy. Really, he does. Precisely because his gift of celibacy gives him what he needs to serve God as a priest.

Understanding this gift of celibacy is not a head thing… it’s a Spirit thing.

 

[otm]

Veronica Anne:

I was listening to a priest on the radio talking about how he wouldn’t have it any other way and is frankly somewhat tired of hearing people talk like celibacy as a priest is not the gift that he knows that it is that God gave to him to practice for the sake of the Kingdom.

I would agree with him that celibacy as a chosen way of living is a gift - a charism. However, not everyone is given that gift. And celibacy is not intrinsic to the priesthood; it is a discipline in the Roman rite.
Veronica Anne:

He says that it’s enough on the plate to be a priest for everyone in his parish without trying to juggle it with being a good husband for a wife as well. That it would do any woman an injustice that his availability just wouldn’t be there for her.

There are several points here. All husbands have some juggling to do; and particularly those who have a career as opposed to an 8-5 job. Juggling does not preclude marriage. And as the Church has married clergy, it is not a particularly effective arguement for mandatory celibacy. And I am not saying that priesthood is a “career”, but simply that priests are by no means the only ones who have many demands.
Veronica Anne:

He says that priesthood is a vocation. And that married life is a vocation. And that single life is a vocation.

I agree, although many who are single are in transition. And surprisingly, for 2000 years the Church has had a married clergy; people with two vocations.

I would also submit that being an attorney, or a doctor, or the owner of a business is also a vocation; many of those are also married.
Veronica Anne:

He showed some dismay that popular opinion in America seems to think that priestly celibacy is an occasion of suffering. It is not./ QUOTE]

I think everyone would agree that all vocations can be a source of suffering. Suffering, according to the Gospels, is not only not bad, but to be embraced.
Veronica Anne:

He’s dismayed that some lay people think that they can put pressure on the Vatican to turn over what the Holy Spirit has graciously and generously given to His priests… the gift of celibacy.

I think he misperceives some things. Making celibacy optional is not “turning over” anything. If celibacy is such a gift, and given to so many, then it will be a non-issue. I do not advocate “doing away with” celibacy. I suggest that it should not be mandatory. The gift is still given, and we will still have celibate priests, just as they do in the Eastern rites (which have optional celibacy).
Veronica Anne:

He finds joy in that celibacy. Really, he does. Precisely because his gift of celibacy gives him what he needs to serve God as a priest.

Understanding this gift of celibacy is not a head thing… it’s a Spirit thing.

Fantastic! He is called to the vocation of priesthood and has the charism of celibacy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. But others may find that marriage gives them what they need to serve God as a priest. Neither position is “more” right.

 

[bquinnan]

The funny thing is that people who oppose required celibacy seem to think the fact that the Church once allowed married priests on a regular basis is an argument in their favor.

At one point, the Church allowed both, but eventually her leaders decided to make celibacy the norm. These leaders had ample opportunity to see both situations in action and compare the outcomes. Most likely, there were men at the time who were less likely to become priests if celibacy were required. And there were probably men belonged to orders that required celibacy who eventually decided that the burden was too much and either engaged in fornication or adultery or obtained permission to be released from their vow of celibacy and marry.

The Church has always taught – definitively in the Council of Trent – that both celibacy and the sacrament marriage are to be celebrated, even though celibacy is more blessed. Still, knowing that God approved of both situations, the Church decided that, given the pros and cons that came with both situations, mandatory celibacy would be a better option. And the Church has stuck with this decision for hundreds of years.

Now, some people think they know better then those Church leaders years ago who saw both situations, the Church leaders since who chose to continue the celibacy requirement, and today’s leaders, who themselves have experienced the priesthood and celibacy.

The burden of proof should be on these people who want to make the change. What concerns that led to the decision to require priestly celibacy are no longer issues today? What has changed in human nature or society that would make workable what was once deemed unworkable?

Without such information, we are like the man who takes the “Danger – Steep cliff ahead” sign down because he’s never seen anyone fall. Maybe he never saw anyone fall because the sign was up.

 

[otm]

bquinnan:

The funny thing is that people who oppose required celibacy seem to think the fact that the Church once allowed married priests on a regular basis is an argument in their favor.

I don’t find it funny. The norm was that we had both celibate and married clergy, until a law was made for the Roman rite that clergy would be celibate. It is incorrect to say that the Church once allowed… The church has continually allowed both married and celibate clergy for the last 2000 years; it is the Roman rite which requires celibacy only.

bquinnan:

And there were probably men belonged to orders that required celibacy who eventually decided that the burden was too much and either engaged in fornication or adultery or obtained permission to be released from their vow of celibacy and marry.

That is reaching. Unless you have specific evidence, it is a non-sequitur.

bquinnan:

. And the Church has stuck with this decision for hundreds of years.

That is the arguement that a"we’ve always done it that way (which is not true), therefore there is no reason not to continue". Again, the Roman rite departed from the norm due to widespread abuses centuries ago.

bquinnan:

Now, some people think they know better then today’s leaders, who themselves have experienced the priesthood and celibacy.

Actually, there is a goodly number of people who think that it should be revisited.

I have yet to hear a defense of mandatory celibacy that doesn’t fly in the face of reality (2000 years of non-mandatory celibacy in the Eastern rites, and the fact that the Roman rite has married priests).

bquinnan:

What has changed in human nature or society that would make workable what was once deemed unworkable?

The rule was made because of abuses centuries ago. There seems to be a feeling among the supporters of mandatory celibacy that there is a move afoot to do away with celibacy. I make no such statement. If celibacy is such a gift to the priesthood, permitting it to be an option will not destroy it. It hasn’t destroyed it in the Eastern rites. And it will bring a greater honesty about the issue in the Roman rite; many, if not most married Roman rite priests are shunted off to the Chancery, under the apparent assumption that Catholics in the pew can’t deal with a married priest.

Human nature hasn’t changed since the Church was founded. But what has changed in the Roman rite are two things: a) we are now ordaining converts who were ministers and married prior to converting; so the rule is not absolute even in the Roman rite; and b) we are now ordaining married men to the deaconite. If we can deal with a married deacon, why not a married priest?

bquinnan:

Without such information, we are like the man who takes the “Danger – Steep cliff ahead” sign down because he’s never seen anyone fall. Maybe he never saw anyone fall because the sign was up.

No one is taking a step off the cliff. It is not like we haven’t had a married clergy all along; and there is an unspoken (well, you spoke it) feeling that bacause the rule was made, therefore it must have had a good reason and because of that, there can’t be any good reason to overturn it. By that logic, we should not have the RCIA process or a reinstatement of the permanent diaconate.

The reliance on Trent’s statement that celibacy is better to make a mandatory rule equates in making a married priest somehow “not as good”. It is hard to say “better” without saying “not better” to whatever is opposite.

As an aside, I have talked with any number of Catholics who hesitate to speak with a priest about family difficuties. The reasons range from a feeling that the priest would not understand, to the reaction that the priest didn’t understand. There is an element of truth about having walked in someone else’s moccasins".

 

[rheins2000]

Just my thoughts…why do we catholics think we have the right to disagree with the Church’s stand on Celibate priests. The only time one does this is when they want the Church to conform to them and not them to the holy mother Church.

I have had opinions in the past of things the Church commanded and established, but have come to realize that God does not revolve around me and my intellect. My thoughts are easily tugged at and distorted by the devil. The Church has been granted the assurance to be led into all truth. What in my prideful and sinful mind would dare question what the Church declares as necessary and noble for the priesthood in our rite?
By the way priests are married…they are married to Christ as Christ is married to the Church.

If you are not Catholic, then this wouldnt apply to you…but think about who makes the rules in this life. Maybe, just maybe it not us.

 

[otm]

rheins2000:

Just my thoughts…why do we catholics think we have the right to disagree with the Church’s stand on Celibate priests. The only time one does this is when they want the Church to conform to them and not them to the holy mother Church.

I am not asking the Church to conform to me. The Church’s stance is internally inconsistent. They have a married clery in the Eastern rites (for the last 2000 years), and a married clergy in the Roman rite now, for married priests who were converts and married pastors before they converted.

Why would we not be able to disagree with a rule? Priestly celibacy is not a doctrine. It is also something that was acknowledged in the NT.

rheins2000:

I have had opinions in the past of things the Church commanded and established, but have come to realize that God does not revolve around me and my intellect. My thoughts are easily tugged at and distorted by the devil. The Church has been granted the assurance to be led into all truth.

It is hard to respond, as I don’t know what you previously disagreed with. If it was a doctrine, that’s a different issue. But celibacy in the priesthood is not about “all truth”; it is about rules, and it is, and has been, the position of the Church that rules can be changed or done away with. A prime example is the re-write of the Code of Canon Law.

rheins2000:

What in my prideful and sinful mind would dare question what the Church declares as necessary and noble for the priesthood in our rite?

Obviously it is not necessary even in our rite. We have married clergy.

I have no problem with a celibate clergy (nor with a married clergy). I agree that celibacy is noble (so is marriage; Christ elevated it to the level of Sacrament). I disagree with it being made mandatory. What is it that the Church fears? That no one would be celibate? Not likely, if it is such a gift; and not likely if the Church promotes it. That suddenly, married clergy would start the route before, of concubines? I seriously doubt it. That we would be flooded with married applicants? I dobut that too; but certainly we would have some.

So what is it, that leaves us talking out of both sides of our mouth?

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.