Priests were allowed to marry at first

[Layman]

What if your bishop was tradition-minded?
What if he demanded that you be righteous in the sight of God first and a social-worker second?
What if he encouraged the TLM and ad-orientem Masses i.e. let a priest be a priest first and a performer second?
What if there were no lay incursions into the sanctuary e.g. EMHCs, lay lectors and group photographs, so that it really was a sacred, set apart area?
What if he excluded modernists and homosexuals from the selections process?
What if he excluded homosexuals from his seminary, so normal men would be happy to go there?

I’ve read that the vocations crisis is manufactured. That there are those who hope it will lead to married priests and an even greater liberalisation in our Church. Tradition-minded Bishops and orders don’t seem to want for vocations.

 

[ConstantineTG]

what if the deacon was retired and had a pension coming in

Is the Church interested in ordaining older men? I mean, I’ve known of priests who were almost in their 40s when they received ordination. But 65 or older? Shouldn’t we be encouraging younger men to become priests?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’ve read that the vocations crisis is manufactured. That there are those who hope it will lead to married priests and an even greater liberalisation in our Church. Tradition-minded Bishops and orders don’t seem to want for vocations.

I’ve started a thread in the L&S forum which came from a conversation with a friend. My theory was that in most industrialized nations, part of the reason that there are less priests is because of the low birth rate. Less kids means more pressure from parents that the kids marry and produce grand kids. Its a theory but it seems there’s good evidence to support it. Because in nations that are poorer but have higher birthrates, the seminaries are full. Africa for one.

I don’t think that the vocations crisis is a lie. Clearly in the first world nations there is indeed a crisis. Both my Roman parish priest and Ukrainian parish priests are immigrants here to Canada. Also when I see recent ordinations in the local seminary here in the Vancouver area, its been usually Chinese.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Is the Church interested in ordaining older men? I mean, I’ve known of priests who were almost in their 40s when they received ordination. But 65 or older? Shouldn’t we be encouraging younger men to become priests?

I know of three retried men who have pensions that were ordained to the priesthood. Two were permanent deacons and the third actually went through the whole seminary experience.

 

[notredame_999]

I don’t see any chance of the Orthodox churches coming back to Rome if clerical celibacy is mandated. That’s something to think about.

 

[StTommyMore]

I don’t see any chance of the Orthodox churches coming back to Rome if clerical celibacy is mandated. That’s something to think about.

I don’t see why it would be. Clerical celibacy is not mandated for the eastern rites, and exceptions have been made in the Latin Rite

 

[notredame_999]

I don’t see why it would be. Clerical celibacy is not mandated for the eastern rites, and exceptions have been made in the Latin Rite

You’re right it wouldn’t be mandated but it would be highly encouraged in North America where the majority of Catholics of are latin.

I have read numerous orthodox works to suggest that mandatory celibacy was one of the reasons for the schism, although not a major one.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I don’t see why it would be. Clerical celibacy is not mandated for the eastern rites, and exceptions have been made in the Latin Rite

Actually until the most recent Code of Canons for Oriental Churches clerical celibacy was mandated for the Eastern Catholic Churches in North America.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The Ukrainian Patriarch-Confessor Joseph Cardinal Slipyj spent 18 years in Siberia because he refused to repudiate union with Rome.

He was also very pro-celibate (and tried to get my father to sign a document when he was in seminary to ensure my father would remain celibate as a priest).

His years in Siberia changed him, however, and at the Vatican Council he spoke about this soon after his release (he had to be treated for broken ribs - the soviets tied him to the ground and an entire military unit walked over him, stepping on him and breaking several of his ribs).

He saw how the UGCC married priests were supported by their families in the times of soviet persecution. He sadly commented how celibate priests readily rejected Catholicism. He expressed his view that the Latin Church allow the OPTION of ordaining married men.

Married Latin Rite priests are already around via conversion of married ministers from various Protestant denominations. (I wonder if they are excused due to “invincible ignorance?” ).

I will also express my individual opinion that I believe the Church should allow the thousands of Roman Catholic priests who left the active priesthood to get married back into active ministry. Yes, they broke canon law. But the Church has the power to change that law, if it wished. I know that is radical, but the marriage issue for these thousands was important and they, in their majority, wish to return to active ministry. They would not expect a salary from the Church and would not pose a financial burden on the Church as they are already self-supporting.

There is an attitude among some that suggests that married priests will usher in religious liberalism. In the tradition of the Eastern Catholic Churches, it is quite the opposite and the married priests and their families are the bastions of Tradition. I have known celibate priests who are, simply put, a disgrace to the priesthood. Their prayer life and service to the Church is weak as they have too much free time on their hands that they don’t know what to do with. I’ve heard many traditional, married Roman Catholic laity expound on the virtues of celibate priests - they should try and get out to see what some seminaries are all about. I think they might change their minds in a hurry.

Nor is it plausible to think that with married priests, the next things on the “agenda” are female priests and the like. It is true that those who want liberalization of the Church promote married priesthood, but that is in no way a denigration of married priests as symbols of “liberalism.” If anyone also believes that married priests will remove their focus on Christ and serving His Church - I have firsthand, life-long experience with married priests and can tell them it is quite the opposite.

Alex

 

[StTommyMore]

The Ukrainian Patriarch-Confessor Joseph Cardinal Slipyj spent 18 years in Siberia because he refused to repudiate union with Rome.

He was also very pro-celibate (and tried to get my father to sign a document when he was in seminary to ensure my father would remain celibate as a priest).

His years in Siberia changed him, however, and at the Vatican Council he spoke about this soon after his release (he had to be treated for broken ribs - the soviets tied him to the ground and an entire military unit walked over him, stepping on him and breaking several of his ribs).

He saw how the UGCC married priests were supported by their families in the times of soviet persecution. He sadly commented how celibate priests readily rejected Catholicism. He expressed his view that the Latin Church allow the OPTION of ordaining married men.

Married Latin Rite priests are already around via conversion of married ministers from various Protestant denominations. (I wonder if they are excused due to “invincible ignorance?” ).

I will also express my individual opinion that I believe the Church should allow the thousands of Roman Catholic priests who left the active priesthood to get married back into active ministry. Yes, they broke canon law. But the Church has the power to change that law, if it wished. I know that is radical, but the marriage issue for these thousands was important and they, in their majority, wish to return to active ministry. They would not expect a salary from the Church and would not pose a financial burden on the Church as they are already self-supporting.

There is an attitude among some that suggests that married priests will usher in religious liberalism. In the tradition of the Eastern Catholic Churches, it is quite the opposite and the married priests and their families are the bastions of Tradition. I have known celibate priests who are, simply put, a disgrace to the priesthood. Their prayer life and service to the Church is weak as they have too much free time on their hands that they don’t know what to do with. I’ve heard many traditional, married Roman Catholic laity expound on the virtues of celibate priests - they should try and get out to see what some seminaries are all about. I think they might change their minds in a hurry.

Nor is it plausible to think that with married priests, the next things on the “agenda” are female priests and the like. It is true that those who want liberalization of the Church promote married priesthood, but that is in no way a denigration of married priests as symbols of “liberalism.” If anyone also believes that married priests will remove their focus on Christ and serving His Church - I have firsthand, life-long experience with married priests and can tell them it is quite the opposite.

Alex

I don’t thing a married priesthood will usher in liberalism, but it is a discipline dintinctive to the Latin Rite, and I don’t see a need to change it.

 

[Layman]

• Our seminaries are in a state because of a liberal/homosexual selection process. Get pious, normal men in, led by a tradition-minded Bishop, and you’ll have no problem with vocations. I vaguely recall a bishop was asked what the foremost quailty should be in a successful Bishop. The answer was: “He should be a candidate for canonization”.
• Let former priests, who left to get married, back in? That would open up a can of worms. What is the probability that such men could bring some of the same problems, which caused them to leave in the first place, back with them? Second time lucky?

Celibate priests can be bad priests.
Married priests can be good priests.

What’s missing is what would happen to the Roman Catholic Church, as an entity, were married R.C. priests to be allowed.

Celibacy is a higher estate in the Church. It’s a sacrifice, an offering, if undertaken by a man with normal urges. It’s normal amongst religious.

I don’t see abandoning that as offering anything good to the Church, never mind to God.

 

[Seamus_L]

And don’t forget that no matter how crazy and offensive it may sound (and it certainly does) that a married priesthood is now thought of by a surprising number of Catholics, as a solution to pedophilia.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

And don’t forget that no matter how crazy and offensive it may sound (and it certainly does) that a married priesthood is now thought of by a surprising number of Catholics, as a solution to pedophilia.

Certainly, that is nonsense.

Pedophiles are not interested in women . . .

However, I don’t know how to get around the popular misconception that there is something now wrong with all celibate priests (a friend of mine who is a celibate priest has complained to me how mothers don’t let their children come anywhere near him etc.). Perhaps that will heal in time.

Celibacy is a discipline of the Latin Church and as such it can be adapted. I don’t know what the answer is to the vocations problem and how this impacts Catholics and certainly a married priesthood won’t solve it.

Married priests bring a different perspective to church life and the reason for the Eastern Churches having them is related to the idea that priests are ordained from among men in the community, celibate or married. Historically, this has meant that parish priests are often married while monastic priests are … in monasteries ie. white and black clergy.

The Eastern Churches are enriched by the presence of both monastic and married clergy. In my case, not only was my grandfather a married priest, but my grandmother’s family had 14 married priests, all with doctorates in theology (I found one of my relative’s doctoral theses on the internet last year).

The married clergy I know are extremely devoted to their parish and their presbyteras/wives are likewise involved. Very often, young people and the women of the parish will go to the wife of the priest and not to the priest himself - I know my wife refused to receive pre-marriage lessons from the celibate priest in our parish and only went to the married priest. It didn’t matter to me, but it did to her.

I remember fondly my grandfather (who was tortured as a Catholic priest under the Soviets - they didn’t distinguish between married or unmarried priests). He used to walk the halls of our family home with his breviary which was well-worn. My grandmother would say two rosaries daily, in addition to her long morning and evening prayers and would attend Mass when she could still walk. I would go to confession to my grandfather who, I don’t mind saying, would severely chastise me if he saw that my prayer life was weak.

He told me that prayer is central to the Christian life and that there can never be any excuse for not observing daily prayer. His penance in such a case was always a set form of prayers to be said, “after confession, tonight, tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon and evening, the day after and for the next three weeks.”

My grandmother came from a priestly family and only dreamed about becoming the wife of a priest. Her uncle was the Redemptorist Archbishop Vladimir Sterniuk, the Locum Tenens of the underground Catholic Church in Ukraine who was in Siberia for ten years and then under house arrest 18 times. I met him when he was in Canada just before he died (and was praised by Pope John Paul II for his lifelong commitment to the Church).

Although he was a Redemptorist, he regularly ordained married men as priests in accordance with our tradition.

I think the Roman Catholic Church would benefit greatly from the presence of marrried clergy, especially in these times when solid examples of marital fidelity etc. are needed.

This is not a “giving in” to the base elements of human nature. Anyone who would think that doesn’t know what a Catholic marriage is all about.

Cheers,

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

• Our seminaries are in a state because of a liberal/homosexual selection process. Get pious, normal men in, led by a tradition-minded Bishop, and you’ll have no problem with vocations. I vaguely recall a bishop was asked what the foremost quailty should be in a successful Bishop. The answer was: “He should be a candidate for canonization”.
• Let former priests, who left to get married, back in? That would open up a can of worms. What is the probability that such men could bring some of the same problems, which caused them to leave in the first place, back with them? Second time lucky?

Celibate priests can be bad priests.
Married priests can be good priests.

What’s missing is what would happen to the Roman Catholic Church, as an entity, were married R.C. priests to be allowed.

Celibacy is a higher estate in the Church. It’s a sacrifice, an offering, if undertaken by a man with normal urges. It’s normal amongst religious.

I don’t see abandoning that as offering anything good to the Church, never mind to God.

No one is asking anyone to abandon celibacy - celibacy will always exist as a radical form of commitment to the Kingdom of God and it reflects the future life of us all as member of the Kingdom of God, it is primarily an eschatological witness to Christ’s salvation.

Celibacy as such is higher but that doesn’t mean that saints and even great saints cannot be had among married people. It is how we cooperate with the grace of our state in life and how we avail ourselves of the means of Grace that is what sanctifies us and makes us saints. The problem facing the West is not, I agree, the issue of married priests, but the problem of the life of the seminarians and celibate priests. Certainly, traditional, Tridentine priests have quite the full spiritual daily agenda. And no wonder that their seminaries are full. They are a minority, however.

In my experience as an Eastern Catholic, the most pious and observant priests have been married ones. Perhaps their wives keep them on a short leash, I don’t know.

Alex

 

[Layman]

It’s not children they were going after: it was young men. Pubescent boys. An important distinction. These men were homosexuals.

I read in the old days a seminarian who exhibited such tendencies would be ‘sent home’. I think post-1940 ‘niceness’ was confused with charity and ‘broad-minded’ Bishops and seminary directors couldn’t or wouldn’t just show these guys the door as soon as it became apparent that not marrying was no sacrifice for them.

 

[malphono]

It’s not children they were going after: it was young men. Pubescent boys. An important distinction. These men were homosexuals.

I’m quite sure the female victims would find that remark highly amusing. To repeat what I said some weeks ago in another thread:

No, the scandal is about pedophilia. To say otherwise discounts and disrespects the case of the woman in the UK, (among many others), who was raped as a little girl. I stand by my original remark. In any case, I exit this tangent of the thread. There’s no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[ProVobis]

In my experience as an Eastern Catholic, the most pious and observant priests have been married ones. Perhaps their wives keep them on a short leash, I don’t know.

Alex

So they’re better priests because they’re married? Or better people, for that matter? This seems to be a deeper issue than just celibacy within the priesthood.

 

[Layman]

I’m quite sure the female victims would find that remark highly amusing. To repeat what I said some weeks ago in another thread:

What I’ve read is that female, child victims were very much a minority. Most were pubescent, male, teenagers, or near it (11+ yo).

The proper name for this perversion is pederasty, not pedophilia.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No one is asking anyone to abandon celibacy - celibacy will always exist as a radical form of commitment to the Kingdom of God and it reflects the future life of us all as member of the Kingdom of God, it is primarily an eschatological witness to Christ’s salvation.

Celibacy as such is higher but that doesn’t mean that saints and even great saints cannot be had among married people. It is how we cooperate with the grace of our state in life and how we avail ourselves of the means of Grace that is what sanctifies us and makes us saints. The problem facing the West is not, I agree, the issue of married priests, but the problem of the life of the seminarians and celibate priests. Certainly, traditional, Tridentine priests have quite the full spiritual daily agenda. And no wonder that their seminaries are full. They are a minority, however.

In my experience as an Eastern Catholic, the most pious and observant priests have been married ones. Perhaps their wives keep them on a short leash, I don’t know.

Alex

There was a lady who had a talk here at the UGCC Cathedral (in the parish hall) about the role of women in the Church. He’s the niece of a UGCC priest and also is married to a priest right now, so she talks about that life. Too bad we couldn’t make it that day. But maybe she’ll come visit your parish? She’s from another part of Canada, I forgot.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually until the most recent Code of Canons for Oriental Churches clerical celibacy was mandated for the Eastern Catholic Churches in North America.

Isn’t this because of that rule in the past that Rome dictates that married priest can only be ordained in the traditional territories of the Eastern Churches? Since America is not their traditional territories, the only married priests there are immigrants. I think that has changed.