One can’t say that it isn’t allowed, since we have married priests now. They just happen to be married converts to Catholicism who were priests/ministers in their own denominations (Episcopal, Lutheran, Baptist). On a case by case basis they were looked at, deemed suited for the priesthood and ordained after an appropriate period of study.Well I’ll be darned.
So why can’t married men become priests now?
Do you know why that practice is not allowed in Roman Catholicism anymore, especially now that we have a shortage of priests?
Where can I learn more about this intriguing topic?
What you seem to be ignoring is the fact that many celibate Latin Rite priests have two vocations: i.e. priest/teacher, and there are celibate pastors who would much rather be doing something other than being pastor. So it’s not a given that a celibate priest will focus solely on being ‘priest’.Lastly, I have been around a few married priests (former Anglicans)…and believe me, as good and dedicated as they are (we have and are getting some terrific Anglican priests into the Catholic church), it is a big…big spiritual, corporal and temporal challenge for all concerned…one surely blessed by God’s graces on everyone…but I must honestly say…very selfishly and probably very childishly…I like/want our Latin Rite priests focused on one vocation…In Persona Christi…not two…“Father/Husband”.
ASTONISHING!Facts:
(1) There is in fact a significant groundswell among current clergy to make celibacy optional for diocesan priests prior to their ordination. The thinking on this is that priests are tired of seeing the faithful regularly denied frequent sacraments, which is the chief function of the priesthood. Large numbers of priests believe that this unavailability of sacraments is a grave injustice which is not offset by the positive aspects of mandatory celibacy.
(2) These priests would like the initiative in this respect to come from bishops, not lay people.
(3) The introduction of married RC priests would undoubtedly have to consider many of the problems named above: housing, financing, and time requirements. Thus, it is unlikely that a very traditional (large family, non-working-mother) Catholic household would be an ideal situatiaon. With dollars for parishes already stretched thin, a married priest would have to enter with a financially sound household, such as a smaller family, a partly self-supporting wife, off-site housing such as rabbis & ministers have, etc.
(4) Many current RC clergy consider it a grave injustice that converted Anglican priests and married imported foreign priests are able to keep wives while they are not. This has become a distraction to them and has affected morale.
(5) Some priests have stated that they believe that marriage would have provided them an additional purifying opportunity for their priesthood, given the sacrifices and generosity and forgiveness essential to all healthy marriages. Many priests also believe that being married would give them much more credible authority when talking about marriage to lay people.
I don’t think there are easy solutions about this, or it would be an easy process. However, i really like what one poster said about divided loyalties. While that is often brought up as an argument against a married priesthood, the reality is that priests often already have divided loyalties as someone correctly pointed out: they are often, due to shortages, forced to be pastors against their temperaments, and it doesn’t work, & priest & parish suffer for it. It creates an impeding distraction for a priest to be given assignments he is unsuited for.
Finally, there is no definitive evidence that all married priests in the early church always lived celibately with their wives. There are written indications that this was suggested and implemented from time to time, not necessarily permanently & universally.
I have to admit I am a bit surprised about these facts. Do they apply to priests the world over or was this data taken from priests only in specific countries? Did the age of the priests make a difference as to what their opinion was on these matters? I am looking at points 1, 2 and 4 specifically.Facts:
(1) There is in fact a significant groundswell among current clergy to make celibacy optional for diocesan priests prior to their ordination. The thinking on this is that priests are tired of seeing the faithful regularly denied frequent sacraments, which is the chief function of the priesthood. Large numbers of priests believe that this unavailability of sacraments is a grave injustice which is not offset by the positive aspects of mandatory celibacy.
(2) These priests would like the initiative in this respect to come from bishops, not lay people.
(3) The introduction of married RC priests would undoubtedly have to consider many of the problems named above: housing, financing, and time requirements. Thus, it is unlikely that a very traditional (large family, non-working-mother) Catholic household would be an ideal situatiaon. With dollars for parishes already stretched thin, a married priest would have to enter with a financially sound household, such as a smaller family, a partly self-supporting wife, off-site housing such as rabbis & ministers have, etc.
(4) Many current RC clergy consider it a grave injustice that converted Anglican priests and married imported foreign priests are able to keep wives while they are not. This has become a distraction to them and has affected morale.
(5) Some priests have stated that they believe that marriage would have provided them an additional purifying opportunity for their priesthood, given the sacrifices and generosity and forgiveness essential to all healthy marriages. Many priests also believe that being married would give them much more credible authority when talking about marriage to lay people.
I don’t think there are easy solutions about this, or it would be an easy process. However, i really like what one poster said about divided loyalties. While that is often brought up as an argument against a married priesthood, the reality is that priests often already have divided loyalties as someone correctly pointed out: they are often, due to shortages, forced to be pastors against their temperaments, and it doesn’t work, & priest & parish suffer for it. It creates an impeding distraction for a priest to be given assignments he is unsuited for.
Finally, there is no definitive evidence that all married priests in the early church always lived celibately with their wives. There are written indications that this was suggested and implemented from time to time, not necessarily permanently & universally.
Good grief, yourself. Not rambling. These are published facts. You just have to do the research to confirm it. Not interested in doing research for others that was previously widely published within the church.ASTONISHING!
You’re presenting as “facts” a bunch of statements that are no more than your own opinions and conclusions. The ordinary standard in use on CA is that one supports actual facts with appropriate documentation (sources). Of course you are free to ramble and a CA moderator will seldom step in, but members who read posts might wonder why you would present your own ideas as “facts.” Obviously, I wonder why.
Good grief.
Good grief, yourself. Not rambling. These are published facts. You just have to do the research to confirm it. Not interested in doing research for others that was previously widely published within the church.
Please provide references for these “published facts”. It is forum policy that you the poster need to provide references. You made the statements and it is up to you to show the references to back it up.
Peace.
However, when it is happening that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church, there always seem to be those who are absolutely sure that is not the case…The Holy Spirit could lead the Church to dispense with this discipline at any time --but it is (always) the Spirit who leads the Church, and not the Church which attempts to lead the Spirit.
That may or may not be true - and we could argue all day about what the term “large” means. However, given the number of unused rectories, it may be not a problem.One does have to remember that along with having married clergy come a host of difficulties. Housing is one --remember, married clergy, even using NFP, are probably going to have LARGE families all things considered.
Gee, what a scary thought. The Church might actually be challenged to practice justice - wage justice - which it preaches to everyone else? Wow, what a thought. The money will come from the same source the rest of the money comes from.Increase in salary (diocesean priests are salaried, but if they have families to support they’ll need to be paid more–quite a bit more. Where is that money going to come from?) Increase in benefits (kids are going to need health insurance, dental insurance, everybody needs life insurance, etc.).
And the source of that statistic??? More likely, there are few women sitting around sighing “If only I could be married to a priest…”There are not all that many ‘married men’ who are sitting around sighing, “Oh, if only the church permitted a married man to be a priest, that’s what I would do”.
Remember, most priests need to spend several years in theology seminaries (and if they’re married, what about married student housing–we’ll need LOTS more of that. After all, a man would have to be married BEFORE he became a priest–as you have seen, he cannot marry AFTERWARD). No. There are plenty of opportunities for a theology degree without having to live in a seminary. Married clergy now - those who “crossed the Tiber” didn’t leave their families while they studied theology, and neither do the thousands of permanent deacons who are married.
Tantum ergo;4613287:
And let’s not get into the idea that celibacy will be done away with (and that is not directed to Tantum Ergo). The two - celibate and married clergy - have existed side by side in the Church for 2000 years (Eastern rites). I for one would much prefer to have a married holy priest than some of the scalawags I have come across in the last bunch of years. But marriage is no more a guarantee of holiness than is celibacy.Clerical celibacy IS a current discipline, and it is mandated by the Holy Spirit --therefore, above all, it is good.
IF the discipline were to change it would NOT be because celibacy was NOT good, or because of priest shortages, or any other ‘need’. It would not be ‘righting a wrong’. It would not be making something BETTER.
The issue of mandatory continence was not universal from the beginning; it came slowly to be applied to all in the Latin/Western rite.There has always been mandatory continence for all ordained since apostolic times, even though they were allowed to be married.
That makes about as much sense as positing that homosexuality is unicversal in the celibate priesthood.If not just imagine what’s going to happen: married priests who are using contraceptives, who divorce and commit adultery, priests wives who abort.
and that is a simplistic statement of a complex issue. It took centuries for celibacy to become absolute in the Western rite. Whether the discipline was imposed because of apostolic origin, or apostiolic origin was used in part to justify mandatory celibacy is open to discussion. And you seem to be ignoring 2000 years of married clergy in the Catholic Church - those Eastern rite Catholics are every bit as Catholic as a Roman rite one.The discipline of sexual continence is of apostolic origin, that’s what the early councils say, of course it was hard for men to keep it especially if they lived with their wives. That’s why we have celibacy today.
My recollection is that historically the rule was introduced at various times in various places. One would think that if the law were introduced once and followed, then it would not have to be re-introduced.I don’t know the scholarship on the issue, but from the current debate going on about diaconal continence I gather that the eminent Cdl. Stickler argued for the antiquity of clerical continence and the novelty of the Levitical situation, first - he avers - brought about by the Quinisext council, whereby clerics withdrew (and still withdraw) from their wives while “serving in the Temple.” Did it take a while for this to be enshrined as a universal papal command? Sure. Does this detract from the legitimacy of the Eastern tradition? No one’s questioning the holiness of their men. But the idea that married clerical continence was a minority report that slowly took over seems suspiciously like a Whig history written once people felt we’d “moved beyond” it. I think at best the jury is out on just how strong the tradition was from the very beginning, and I hope to read Stickler’s work on the subject.