Priests and marrige?

[Patchunky]

I did say there are exceptions, but that still doesn’t change the fact that it shouldn’t be encouraged, especially when there’s a shortage of priests.

Married men have been ordained priests for centuries and have no problems

 

[Woodstock]

Personally, I don’t believe that converts should become priests in the Church if they’re married. The problem is the exception becoming the norm. If married men are allowed to become priests, the next step is to get rid of priestly celibacy. Married men have responsibilities to their families, priests to their parish. To be distracted by one while helping the other isn’t fair to either , *especially *with a shortage of priests (as one will definitly get the short end); it makes perfect sense. Ordaining married men is a false answer to a real problem. The seminaries need to get back on track and start becoming seminaries. Priests need to start preaching Catholicism instead of a watered-down Christianity, say Mass reverently and start behaving like priests. Then, and only then, will there be an attraction to the vocation of the priesthood, and thus the problem solved. Caving in has done no good for the Church.

I agree with you that ordaining married men will not and cannot address the priest shortage and should not be considered a potential solution. I agree with you that married priests in the Latin Church right now, especially those with young or growing families, would be overburdened in most areas because of the priest shortage. I agree with you that the Church needs to be educating people on the fullness of the faith and from that fidelity vocations will arise. I agree with you that among those vocations will be people who will embrace celibacy.

I do not understand how any of those modern issues says anything about the inherent worth of married priests or superiority of celibacy. When the Church is living out its vocation, the people within it will be fully able to live theirs to the fullest. In such a climate, married priests could return to the Latin Church and be a source of inspiration and faith just as any others who answer their calling and live it to the fullest help to bring about the Kingdom of God.

 

[bilop]

I did say there are exceptions, but that still doesn’t change the fact that it shouldn’t be encouraged, especially when there’s a shortage of priests.

This doesn’t make much sense to me.

I, for one, would strongly consider pursuing the Priesthood if married men were accepted in the Latin Church. (I was never very religious before I was married, so didn’t consider it then.) I will also discern the permanent Diaconate when I am older. I could certainly see married Priests as “part-timers” like Permanent Deacons; responsible for their own financial support.

If I was able to pursue the Priesthood, I would be willing to fund my own seminary training. I also wouldn’t need Church pay (although it would be nice )

I could say Mass on Sundays at my home parish, and during my lunch hour I could say daily Mass or hear confessions.

I wouldn’t be of as much service as a celibate Priest, but I can’t see how it wouldn’t be a help given the Priest shortage.

God Bless

 

[otjm]

Personally, I don’t believe that converts should become priests in the Church if they’re married. The problem is the exception becoming the norm. If married men are allowed to become priests, the next step is to get rid of priestly celibacy.

Hogwash. You have no evidence with which to support such an opinion. Further, the evidence is exactly to the contrary, as the Eastern Church has had married priests since the beginning fo time, as well as celibate priests, and continues to do so to this very day.

Married men have responsibilities to their families, priests to their parish. To be distracted by one while helping the other isn’t fair to either , *especially *with a shortage of priests (as one will definitly get the short end); it makes perfect sense.

If a man who is married truly has a calling to serve Christ in that way, then the problems are ones that he will be aware of; and further, no married man is going to be ordained without his wife’s acknowledgement and cooperation. Yes it would be difficult; but priests are now, today dealing with the issues.

Ordaining married men is a false answer to a real problem. The seminaries need to get back on track and start becoming seminaries. Priests need to start preaching Catholicism instead of a watered-down Christianity, say Mass reverently and start behaving like priests. Then, and only then, will there be an attraction to the vocation of the priesthood, and thus the problem solved. Caving in has done no good for the Church.

However, it is not an issue of “caving in” nor is it an issue of ordaining them to “solve a problem” (and I agree that is not a good reason). The issue is, if a man who is married is called by Christ to the priesthood, then why are we not responding? The Church does respond - it ordains them - but the Roman rite only responds if they were converts. That to me is unjust to those called, but just happened to be Catholic rather than Methodist or Presbyterian or Episcopalian.

In short, you miss the point.

 

[latinmasslover]

Hogwash. You have no evidence with which to support such an opinion. Further, the evidence is exactly to the contrary, as the Eastern Church has had married priests since the beginning fo time, as well as celibate priests, and continues to do so to this very day.
If a man who is married truly has a calling to serve Christ in that way, then the problems are ones that he will be aware of; and further, no married man is going to be ordained without his wife’s acknowledgement and cooperation. Yes it would be difficult; but priests are now, today dealing with the issues. However, it is not an issue of “caving in” nor is it an issue of ordaining them to “solve a problem” (and I agree that is not a good reason). The issue is, if a man who is married is called by Christ to the priesthood, then why are we not responding? The Church does respond - it ordains them - but the Roman rite only responds if they were converts. That to me is unjust to those called, but just happened to be Catholic rather than Methodist or Presbyterian or Episcopalian.

In short, you miss the point.

Interesting opinion, but that’s all it is. Women tend to be more religious than men, should women become priests? Other ecclesial communities do very well with women pastors. With your reasoning, why not start to ordain women? they might “be called?”

 

[latinmasslover]

This doesn’t make much sense to me.

I, for one, would strongly consider pursuing the Priesthood if married men were accepted in the Latin Church. (I was never very religious before I was married, so didn’t consider it then.) I will also discern the permanent Diaconate when I am older. I could certainly see married Priests as “part-timers” like Permanent Deacons; responsible for their own financial support.

If I was able to pursue the Priesthood, I would be willing to fund my own seminary training. I also wouldn’t need Church pay (although it would be nice )

I could say Mass on Sundays at my home parish, and during my lunch hour I could say daily Mass or hear confessions.

I wouldn’t be of as much service as a celibate Priest, but I can’t see how it wouldn’t be a help given the Priest shortage.

God Bless

Personally, the idea of marrying a priest would be a thrill. When I was younger (before I knew better) I wanted to marry a priest (not one in particular). It would be nice to be married to a priest, *if *he didn’t have a parish to run. You have to be available to your parish 24/7, and a married priest cannot do that without neglecting his family, especially with a shortage of priests. I myself am not in favor of married men becoming deacons, but that’s a matter of opinion. I will have to settle for a holy man of God who maybe seriously considered the priesthood.

St. Frances of Rome said:
A married woman, even when praising God at the altar, must when needed by her husband or the smallest member of her family, quit God at the altar and find him again in her household affairs.

These words ring true for the husband. It’s a noble thought to want to do both, but consider the time that your family wouldn’t get if you were a priest. How many times you’d have to leave to help a fellow parishoner. The parishoners would have more time with you than your wife and children. This isn’t a sarcastic question, but would you really want that for them?

 

[bilop]

These words ring true for the husband. It’s a noble thought to want to do both, but consider the time that your family wouldn’t get if you were a priest. How many times you’d have to leave to help a fellow parishoner. The parishoners would have more time with you than your wife and children. This isn’t a sarcastic question, but would you really want that for them?

Well, as I said above, I was thinking of more of a part time thing, like permanent Deacons. I know this isn’t as good as a full-time Priest, but I’d need no financial support from the Church.

For example, there is a poor Parish near me that has a wonderful, orthodox Msgr. in his 80’s as the only priest. It is very hard on him, and they don’t have the resources to bring in an extern or order Priest to help. If, “part-time” married priests existed, who worked regular jobs as well, one could be assigned to his parish.

If it were me, I could spend Sundays at his parish, and during the week I could help a couple of evenings with pre-marriage counseling, confession etc… I could also serve (Mass or confessions) during my lunch hour at a church near work.

It wouldn’t be easy, or as much as a celibate Priest does, but if you had a fair number of these Priests, it would help a lot.

God Bless

 

[otjm]

Interesting opinion, but that’s all it is. Women tend to be more religious than men, should women become priests? Other ecclesial communities do very well with women pastors. With your reasoning, why not start to ordain women? they might “be called?”

That is called a red herring. Stick to the issue. We are talking about married priests, not women’ ordination and you know that.

The Church has said it does not have the power to ordain women; it is not posible. That has nothing to do with the power to ordain married men, which it has been doing for 2000 years and continues to do today.

Married men are becomeing priests in the Eastern rites. They are also becomiong priests in the Roman rite if they are converts. The question is, since the Church ha always ordained married men in the Eastern rites, and today is doing so in a limited way (converts) in the Roman rite, should that be expanded.

You are entitled to think it should not be expanded. But let’s keep the conversation to the topic, ok?

 

[otjm]

You have to be available to your parish 24/7, and a married priest cannot do that without neglecting his family, especially with a shortage of priests.

That is a mantra that keeps coming up, and it simply is not true as stated. The comparison is being made to a 40 hour worker, but in the real world, there are married men, more than just a few, who do not have jobs limited to 40 hours. They include middle and upper management in corporations, small business owners, farmers, CPAs, attorneys, doctors (most especially doctors, who are on call much of the time) and others. A priest may be “on call” for the parish, but no priest that I know of works 24 hours a day. Our diocese requires them to take at least one full 24 hour period off where they are not to do parish work - and guess what - another priest covers for them, and Sacramaents of the Sick get done, and emergency confessions, and emergency counseling…

St. Frances of Rome said:
A married woman, even when praising God at the altar, must when needed by her husband or the smallest member of her family, quit God at the altar and find him again in her household affairs.

And I have never seen or met a priest - diocesan or religious - who was on the alter 24-7. Neither have I ever read of one. It is a very nice and flowery phrase, but has little to do wtih the real world.

These words ring true for the husband. It’s a noble thought to want to do both, but consider the time that your family wouldn’t get if you were a priest. How many times you’d have to leave to help a fellow parishoner. The parishoners would have more time with you than your wife and children. This isn’t a sarcastic question, but would you really want that for them?

Substitue doctor; substitute a whole lot of other professions, and the question is the same. Surprisingly, a very large number of them have families and manage the demands beyond a 40 hour work week.

It is pure romance to assume that a priest is out there in the parish from before sunup to after sundown. I do know many priests who put in 60 hour work weeks, but not many at 80 hour work weeks; however, I also know others who put in the 80 hours. Don’t make it into something it is not.

 

[latinmasslover]

That is a mantra that keeps coming up, and it simply is not true as stated. The comparison is being made to a 40 hour worker, but in the real world, there are married men, more than just a few, who do not have jobs limited to 40 hours. They include middle and upper management in corporations, small business owners, farmers, CPAs, attorneys, doctors (most especially doctors, who are on call much of the time) and others. A priest may be “on call” for the parish, but no priest that I know of works 24 hours a day. Our diocese requires them to take at least one full 24 hour period off where they are not to do parish work - and guess what - another priest covers for them, and Sacramaents of the Sick get done, and emergency confessions, and emergency counseling…
And I have never seen or met a priest - diocesan or religious - who was on the alter 24-7. Neither have I ever read of one. It is a very nice and flowery phrase, but has little to do wtih the real world.

Substitue doctor; substitute a whole lot of other professions, and the question is the same. Surprisingly, a very large number of them have families and manage the demands beyond a 40 hour work week.

It is pure romance to assume that a priest is out there in the parish from before sunup to after sundown. I do know many priests who put in 60 hour work weeks, but not many at 80 hour work weeks; however, I also know others who put in the 80 hours. Don’t make it into something it is not.

Why do you find priestly celibacy so offensive? (My tone is not haughty but genuine concern). Just because the discipline *can *be relaxed doesn’t mean it should.

 

[dixieagle]

Interesting opinion, but that’s all it is. Women tend to be more religious than men, should women become priests? Other ecclesial communities do very well with women pastors. With your reasoning, why not start to ordain women? they might “be called?”

Moot point, different thread entirely. The Church does not allow ANY women to be ordained, and that won’t change. The Church does allow SOME married men, however, to be ordained, both in the Eastern and Latin rites. There can be no real comparison between the two situations.

 

[dixieagle]

Well, as I said above, I was thinking of more of a part time thing, like permanent Deacons. I know this isn’t as good as a full-time Priest, but I’d need no financial support from the Church.

For example, there is a poor Parish near me that has a wonderful, orthodox Msgr. in his 80’s as the only priest. It is very hard on him, and they don’t have the resources to bring in an extern or order Priest to help. If, “part-time” married priests existed, who worked regular jobs as well, one could be assigned to his parish.

If it were me, I could spend Sundays at his parish, and during the week I could help a couple of evenings with pre-marriage counseling, confession etc… I could also serve (Mass or confessions) during my lunch hour at a church near work.

It wouldn’t be easy, or as much as a celibate Priest does, but if you had a fair number of these Priests, it would help a lot.

God Bless

I think, and have for a long time (being especially familiar with the idea of married priests in the Eastern Church, as my husband is Ruthenian) that your suggestion is eminently sensible, and I fully believe that, at some point, this will come to pass. I know, for a fact, that were Ruthenian Rite men in the US able to marry prior to ordination, my husband would likely have become a priest. (It seems things in the Eastern Rites are moving in that direction, thank God…)

 

[dixieagle]

Why do you find priestly celibacy so offensive? (My tone is not haughty but genuine concern). Just because the discipline *can *be relaxed doesn’t mean it should.

You have jumped to an absurd conclusion in assuming that any of us find priestly celibacy “offensive.” It is a special calling and a great sacrifice.

 

[latinmasslover]

You have jumped to an absurd conclusion in assuming that any of us find priestly celibacy “offensive.” It is a special calling and a great sacrifice.

I truly do not mean to accuse; most people I’ve talked to who encourage marriage among priests happen to be very loathsome toward celibacy. My previous comment was made on that assumption based on past experience with people. I didn’t mean to offend anyone.

 

[otjm]

Why do you find priestly celibacy so offensive? (My tone is not haughty but genuine concern). Just because the discipline *can *be relaxed doesn’t mean it should.

And where do you get the idea that I find celebacy offensive? Read through the posts I have made here; read through any posts I have made elswhere in these fora on this issue and point out to me where I have said anything whatsoever about celibacy being offensive, please. And when you read them, read what I actually have said, not what you presuppose me to say because of whatever prejudices you might have.

In other words, read what I actually say, instead of getting ready to defend against what you seem to think I said.

I am not offended by your comment, because I have a fairly thick skin, to begin with, and secondly, because I have had so many people in other situations and other discussions fail to liste to what I actually say.

I find that critical thinking - the ability to actually listen to what is said and analyze it before responding, is in general in short supply. Instead of having discussions, people have a tendency to go off half cocked, **hearing what they want to hear **instead of hearing what is actually said, so I am no longer surprised when it happens.

What I do find offensive is that the Church in the Roman rite has ordained men who were Protestant pastors and married and who then converted, but they won’t ordain married men who were Catholic all along and may have the same calling to the vocation to priesthood. I think it is duplicitous. I think if there is a valid reason to ordain an Epsicopalian, or a Methodist or even a Presbyterian (Father Stuernol in our Diocese was Presbyterian, and by all accounts from people I know and respect, is a wonderful pastor), then I fail to see why a married Catholic man cannot also be ordained. That is the issue, not any hatred of celibacy, or disdain for it, or fear of it, or offense by it. Ceilbacy is a gift, and it is not a gift given to all, and it is an entirely separate and distinct calling from the priesthood. I am particularly in awe of the monks (I am familiar with both Trappists and Benedictines) who devote their life to God and are not ordained, but are celibate. I have met some truly holy men as such.

What I get especially tired of is the laundry list of reasons that a married priesthood won’t work - when in fact it has been working for 2000 years. The same exact argument applies to anyone who works more than a 40 hour work week, for crying out loud. I have yet to meet a priest who is available 24/7; that is a figment of imagination. And I know a lot of priests.

Are their ministires demanding and time consuming? Are a doctor’s profession? Does either cut into family time? Yes. Is that a reason not to ordain someone? Not any more than it is to refuse to allow doctors to marry…

You are more than entitled to think that priests should not be married; and I’d lay odds you have not met one. You are certainly not at odds with Roman rite practice. But please, try to look beyond your own prejudices, and don’t project on to others what you presume them to say.

I am really, really tired of hearing, if the subject comes up, that any mention in favor of married priests means that I or anyone else suggesting so is automatically in favor of doing away with celibacy. What a crock! Try listening instead of jumping to conclusions where there is no evidence.

 

[mlchance]

I’m confused. As a normative rule, the Church requires priests to be celibate. This requirement has existed for quite a long time, and it has scriptural justification.

At the same time, the Church allows a few exceptions to this normative rule, and there are some married priests within the Church. This has also existed for quite a long time, and it also has scriptural justification.

If the Church sees fit to allow a married man to receive the Sacrament of Ordination, it isn’t any of my concern. The Church is doing as she sees fit in this matter just like she has long done.

The more I read the threads in this forum, the more I am amazed at the level of vitriol and dissent present among a handful of traditional catholics.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Where did you get that? Are you simply being peurile, or what?

“Married people need to remember that marriage isn’t the end-all be-all of their existence, and that while their devotion to each other and to God is great, it still needs purification.”

All people need purification, which is simply not doing sin, and if sin is done, to seek the sacraments to deal with that sin.

That would include everyone who sins,… which would be,… wait for it,… wait for it,… EVERYONE…!

It doesn’t mention the need for purification in conection with the celibates.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I did say there are exceptions, but that still doesn’t change the fact that it shouldn’t be encouraged, especially when there’s a shortage of priests.

I love how I hear from the Latins how dropping the ban on ordination of married men will decrease or increase the number of priests, depending on who you ask.

We have a Church full of “exceptions.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Personally, I don’t believe that converts should become priests in the Church if they’re married. The problem is the exception becoming the norm. If married men are allowed to become priests, the next step is to get rid of priestly celibacy. Married men have responsibilities to their families, priests to their parish. To be distracted by one while helping the other isn’t fair to either , *especially *with a shortage of priests (as one will definitly get the short end); it makes perfect sense. Ordaining married men is a false answer to a real problem. The seminaries need to get back on track and start becoming seminaries. Priests need to start preaching Catholicism instead of a watered-down Christianity, say Mass reverently and start behaving like priests. Then, and only then, will there be an attraction to the vocation of the priesthood, and thus the problem solved. Caving in has done no good for the Church.

But converts can become priests if unmarried?

The problem is the mandate on celibacy made the exception the rule, with disasterous results.

On another thread in the Easterrn Christianity forum, a Coptic uniate argues that ban on married uniate clergy is “temporary” (now a century of being “temporary”). The Father of Orthodoxy in America, Abhp Ireland, became so because he refused to accept Fr. St. Alexis Toth, who was just a widower. Like you, in his eyes St. Alexis was a “false” solution to the real need of the parish for a priest.

From what you said, I take it that the agreements with that formed the uniates are “caving in,” and should be revoked. That of course would prove us Orthodox right.

 

[latinmasslover]

I love how I hear from the Latins how dropping the ban on ordination of married men will decrease or increase the number of priests, depending on who you ask.

We have a Church full of “exceptions.”

To encourage marriage for priests is making the exception the norm, and that is the only problem. This Church has gotten lazy, and to keep giving in is only going to make to problem worse. Exceptions aren’t bad, when they stay exceptions.