Pro and Cons of Priests being married

[LSK]

Life4Christ:

Valid point…but how can St. Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy:3 be understood?

The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; 5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil; 7 moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Again, not an argument, just trying to figure out how can St. Paul’s instructions to the Timothy be conveyed in modern times. And why would the idea of a priest or bishop beign married back then, change in our present society (I know times are different)? Are deacons not ordained to a life of service to the bishop and the church, yet also allowed to raise a family (I know priests and deacons have different duties)?

Help me out here. Thanks

I don’t know if this will help but I was taught to understand this passage in this manner: St. Paul was making suggestions at a time when those people most suited to the Priesthood in the area he was addressing were men who were married. There was also areas of the world where polygamy was still practiced. He was offering guidelines for married men who were called to the priesthood - guidelines tht are valid today for those men who receive permission to become priests and are already married.

I also have been taught that this is one of the reasons celibacy is a DISCIPLINE rather than a doctinre. Dogma? One of the two. My dyselxia is kicking in…

 

[BibleReader]

Life4Christ:

Could someone please explain the pro and cons of allowing priests to be married, or should I say newly ordained priests? It’s my understanding that St. Peter and a few other disciples were in fact married. Also, St. Paul instructs in his letter to the Thessolonians (I believe?) that all bishops should be married and manage their own family. And it wasnt until the Council of Elvira? was this rule establised, then strengthened during the Council of Trent. And of course, as we all know, the Eastern Orthodox church allows priests to be married.

Anyway, please let me know what you guys think. Thanks!

Malcolm Muggeridge referred to Western Civilization as a “sexually manic” society. This is more true than ever. The great unspoken message of our contraceptive, baby-killing culture to our young people is, “Gotta have nookie!”

One of the things my wife and I discovered, as we made use of Natural Family Planning in our marriage, is that sexual self control, needed during the “off” periods required by NFP, is easy – precisely contrary to the “Gotta have nookie!” message of our culture.

Whereas the Church can have married priests, I really, really would hate to see the Church cave-in to the “Gotta have nookie!” theme of our culture for the sake of vocations. Our culture is murdering children in abortion to keep sex convenient, for Heaven’s sake!

 

[mercygate]

BibleReader:

. . . Whereas the Church can have married priests, I really, really would hate to see the Church cave-in to the “Gotta have nookie!” theme of our culture for the sake of vocations. Our culture is murdering children in abortion to keep sex convenient, for Heaven’s sake!

What a magnificent reason to retain clerical celibacy: if every priest accepted hsi gift and burden of celibacy in protest of the mass murder of abortion, what spiritual power would be set forth on the earth!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

mercygate:

What a magnificent reason to retain clerical celibacy: if every priest accepted hsi gift and burden of celibacy in protest of the mass murder of abortion, what spiritual power would be set forth on the earth!

That would be nice, that is if every priest was celibate but they are not.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have married priests, many more in America than there used to be.

The Latin Catholic Church has married priests, converted protestant ministers.

Sacraments of Holy Orders and Marriage are not incompatable if done in the right order. Celibacy is only a discipline.

I want to add though, all bishops are celibate, even in the Eastern Churches but it was not always the case.

 

[MamaGeek]

It seems like the duties of a diocesan priest would preclude him from getting married. I don’t see, however, why a married priesthood would be a hindrance to a new priestly order, specifically designed for such, especially for Josephite (celibate) marriages. Even with a conjugal marriage, I can imagine a priesthood in which the couple would act as marriage counselors, parental counselors, and living examples of Catholic family life. A priestly order built on the family, not just with marriage tacked on, but an integral part of the duties, maybe even with a missionary perspective. St. Peter was definitely a missionary, but of course he had to abandon his family for martyrdom. I don’t know. I think such an order would have to be founded by a Saint, and inspired by God for it to work, not just thought up (as I have) for means of allowing marriage to priests.

 

[mercygate]

ByzCath:

Celibacy is only a discipline.

Only? As in “insignificant,” “inconsequential,” “take-it-or-leave-it”?

Byz, I am sure you would be the first to acknowledge that celibacy is a profound charism given to individuals by the Holy Spriit for the building up of the Church. As a witness to the Kingdom, it is a gift to be cherished (as those celibate Eastern bishops witness). We do not lightly hand it back to the Giver and say, “No, thank you.”

You make the discipline of celibacy seem arbitrary rather than the generous response to God’s love that it is – although I am certain you do not intend to come across that way.

 

[Pete2]

Celibacy was required of priests in 1200 to prevent nepotism within the Church.

I don’t buy the argument that priests are too busy with their jobs to have time with their families. There are many, many people who have busy and demanding jobs that are also very good at balancing time with their families.

In and around urban areas in this country, people commute an hour or more to get to work, each way. They travel away from home for days on business, are on call at night, and work long hours. Priests, by contrast have no commute, and their travel is typically limited to the borders of their parish community.

Pete

 

[David_B]

MamaGeek:

Even with a conjugal marriage, I can imagine a priesthood in which the couple would act as marriage counselors, parental counselors, and living examples of Catholic family life. A priestly order built on the family, not just with marriage tacked on, but an integral part of the duties, maybe even with a missionary perspective.

I’ve thought about this idea too. We expect our lay people to follow church teachings regarding birth control, invitro-fertilization, etc. It seems to me a way the church can PROVE to the average contracepting Catholic Joe is that it is possible to live the good life following church teaching. And what better way to do that than a priest’s family.

I wonder if the example of married priests say with the Melkites or other Eastern Catholics has that affect in the US or other places in the world.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Pete2:

Celibacy was required of priests in 1200 to prevent nepotism within the Church.

Pete,
While I have heard this arguement, there are those who refute this.

Anyways, this was only done in the Western Church.

Celibacy was never placed up the Eastern Church until the Byzantine Church in America in the 1930’s.

 

[mercygate]

Pete2:

Celibacy was required of priests in 1200 to prevent nepotism within the Church.

I don’t buy the argument that priests are too busy with their jobs to have time with their families. There are many, many people who have busy and demanding jobs that are also very good at balancing time with their families.
Pete

I agree that the “busy” argument is thin.

Just as the Council of Trent did not create the canon of Scripture, clerical celibacy wasn’t invented in the middle ages to prevent nepotism. **Abuses **against celibacy had led to nepotism and inheritance of lands and titles, so the discipline needed to be reinforced.

But celibacy was normative, if not universal, long before it was mandated. See Christian Cochini’s excellent book *The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy. *Continence is mentioned as normative in the canons of Nicea.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

mercygate:

Only? As in “insignificant,” “inconsequential,” “take-it-or-leave-it”?

Byz, I am sure you would be the first to acknowledge that celibacy is a profound charism given to individuals by the Holy Spriit for the building up of the Church. As a witness to the Kingdom, it is a gift to be cherished (as those celibate Eastern bishops witness). We do not lightly hand it back to the Giver and say, “No, thank you.”

You make the discipline of celibacy seem arbitrary rather than the generous response to God’s love that it is – although I am certain you do not intend to come across that way.

Yes, Only a discipline. As in, the proper authority, Rome, can set it aside.

While it is a profound charism, it is not one that is required of all secular priests. I believe the charism is best expressed in the monastic environment but that it can be a great gift to a secular priest but we must recall the words of St Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:11.

1 Cor 12:11 All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

Not all recieve the same gifts and as celibacy is a gift I find it strange that the Western Church requires this of all (most really) of its secular priests. But that being said, I do understand it is one of the traditions of the West and I do not advocate scrapping it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

mercygate:

But celibacy was normative, if not universal, long before it was mandated. See Christian Cochini’s excellent book *The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy. *Continence is mentioned as normative in the canons of Nicea.

This just bothers me.

It was never normative nor universal for the Church. It was normative, and possibly universal, for the Latin Church.

I am sorry but it just bothers me at times when Latin Catholics throw around these terms. I know most do not mean it to sound this way (but some do) but when tossing these terms around in this manner makes it sound like the Latin Church is the only Church.

Celibacy has never been mandated in the East. The only time it was mandated was for us Byzantines in America (in the 1930’s) and it was forced upon us by Rome, it was not something we did for ourselves. This is why, today, we are restoring our tradition of a married secular priesthoood.

 

[David_B]

I guess this thread begs the question, what kind of historical analysis is availible to discuss the history of celibacy of clerics in the Christian Church? Whether it be for Deacons, Priests, or Bishops.

Forgive me if my memory is bad, but I recall Karl Keating saying a long while back, perhaps it was on the EWTN forum that the East got the whole marriage of priests thing wrong and that the Western Church is authentically following the long held tradition in the Christian Church.

Anyone else recall this?

 

[Pete2]

I don’t see how Rome can hold Western priests to a vow of celibacy, and at the same time, recognize Eastern ordinations as valid. I also can’t see how Rome can accept cross-over Protestant ministers into the priesthood and provide an exception if they are already married. Seems extremely hypocritical to me.

Either celibacy is a requirement or it’s not. Apparently, it’s not all that important, because such a significant percentage of priests recognized by Rome are married with families.

It’s only a matter of time, I think. Eventually a more forward thinking pope will be elected, and will move to relax the Church law. In my view, there is shaky support for priestly celibacy in bible and in Tradition.

Pete

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

David B:

Forgive me if my memory is bad, but I recall Karl Keating saying a long while back, perhaps it was on the EWTN forum that the East got the whole marriage of priests thing wrong and that the Western Church is authentically following the long held tradition in the Christian Church.

If he did say it then he was gravely mistaken as the Early Church (both East and West) did not practice celibacy exclusively.

Celibacy in the West did not become mandated (I say mandated because it may have actually been the norm before it was mandated) until the 7th or 8th century.

 

[mercygate]

David B:

I guess this thread begs the question, what kind of historical analysis is availible to discuss the history of celibacy of clerics in the Christian Church? Whether it be for Deacons, Priests, or Bishops.

Forgive me if my memory is bad, but I recall Karl Keating saying a long while back, perhaps it was on the EWTN forum that the East got the whole marriage of priests thing wrong and that the Western Church is authentically following the long held tradition in the Christian Church.

Anyone else recall this?

Get the Cochini book for history. I’m not going to address the East-West argument because I don’t have the resources at my fingertips. Clearly, if Nicea mentions continence, this is not a late invention of the West.

 

[David_B]

Pete2:

I don’t see how Rome can hold Western priests to a vow of celibacy, and at the same time, recognize Eastern ordinations as valid. I also can’t see how Rome can accept cross-over Protestant ministers into the priesthood and provide an exception if they are already married. Seems extremely hypocritical to me.

Either celibacy is a requirement or it’s not. Apparently, it’s not all that important, because such a significant percentage of priests recognized by Rome are married with families.

It’s only a matter of time, I think. Eventually a more forward thinking pope will be elected, and will move to relax the Church law. In my view, there is shaky support for priestly celibacy in bible and in Tradition.

Pete

I’m not sure a “forward thinking” pope would be necessary to decide this. I think if the Holy Spirit guides the Western Church in the direction of allowing married men to become priests it won’t matter if the pope is Pius X or Rembert Weakland.

 

[Khoria_Anna]

In the West, the charism of celebacy has been dragged through the mud by the popular culture and by the media that jumps to condemn the entire celebate community for the sins of a very few perverts.

When there is a proper respect for those few who dare to “become eunichs for the sake of the kingdom” then the western church will be ready to accept married men into the priesthood on a more regular basis. But then, the married priesthood wouldn’t be necessary because more men will have the guts to embrace their calling to celebacy.

For now, in the West, the few converts who have been ordained as married priests stand in defiance of the popular misconception that the Church believes marriage (and the marital act) so evil that married men are not eligible for ordination.

In the East, the tradition is different and married and celibate men serve in the priesthood together (some exemplifying the monastic ideal, some the married ideal).

 

[Pete2]

David B:

I’m not sure a “forward thinking” pope would be necessary to decide this. I think if the Holy Spirit guides the Western Church in the direction of allowing married men to become priests it won’t matter if the pope is Pius X or Rembert Weakland.

I’m not discounting the Holy Spirit’s role. But although the Church on earth is guided by the Holy Spirit, it is still a heirarchy of human beings who have free will and their own viewpoints. The pope is at the top of the heirarchy, and the current pope’s leanings are of significant consequence to the direction of the Church.

Pete

 

[mercygate]

Khoria Anna:

In the West, the charism of celebacy has been dragged through the mud by the popular culture and by the media that jumps to condemn the entire celebate community for the sins of a very few perverts.

When there is a proper respect for those few who dare to “become eunichs for the sake of the kingdom” then the western church will be ready to accept married men into the priesthood on a more regular basis. But then, the married priesthood wouldn’t be necessary because more men will have the guts to embrace their calling to celebacy.

For now, in the West, the few converts who have been ordained as married priests stand in defiance of the popular misconception that the Church believes marriage (and the marital act) so evil that married men are not eligible for ordination.

Note also that the married converts who have been ordained as Priests in the Catholic Church are among the staunchest and most vocal proponents of the rule of celibacy. Ray Ryland is among the most articulate. But so is the former Anglican Bishop of London, Fr. Graham Leonard.