Questions from a Non-Catholic about a Celibate Clergy

[otjm]

Do Catholics consider priestly celibacy a part of the “Rule of Faith” that was handed on by the Apostles or is it something the Catholic church ruled on because of other reasons?

No. The Roman rite has had married clergy; for several centuries in the beginning (with more maintaining celebacy as the Church grew) until finally the discipline of celibacy was imposed on all. In addition, the Eastern rites have had both a married and a celibate clergy since the beginning and still does. And they are just as Catholic as the Roman rite.

Additionally, the Roman rite has seen fit recently to allow married Protestant pastors, who have converted to Catholicism, to be ordained, so once again the Roman rite has married clergy.

If this is indeed the case, do any Catholics believe a celibate clergy is an outdated rule, as simony is no longer an issue?

Most Catholic are not likely to know the issue of simony and how that impacted the discipline of celibacy.

As to how many Catholics either would support allowing married men to be ordained or how many would oppose it, I am not sure there is any accurate polling on the matter.

 

[RobertAdams]

Ask a celibate priest. He will tell you that celibacy is a gift. The world desires to take that gift from the priests.

You’re right of course. But that does not speak to the question of whether some of those who don’t have that gift of celibacy can still have a vocation to the priesthood.

Right now the answer is “yes if they are born in the right culture.”

 

[otjm]

Elimination of clerical celibacy would not solve the numbers issue because we don’t have enough people who care about the Church in the first place.

Who, besides yourself, is waxing eloquent for the “elimination” of celibacy? The Catholic Church (as in. not exclusively the Roman rite) has had married clergy from the beginning. And the Roman rite has married clergy now - although that is limited to Protestant pastors who have converted, and been ordained.

Since you are a non-Catholic Christian, I must also inform you that Catholic priests are asked to work ALL the time.

No, actually, they are required to work with time off each week, and with vacations. And much of the work they do is administrative work, which could be at least partially moved to others (and in numerous circumstances, has been).

 

[otjm]

These priests are Anglican or Lutheran ministers who converted to Catholicism after having children. This is the only exception in the Latin rite> Blockquote

Well, actually, that is incorrect. There have been Methodist ministers who have been ordained, and at least one Presbyterian - Father Slider Stuernol, who was ordained by then Archbishop Levada (who was not exactly what one would call a “liberal”).

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You will not see much support for, or thoughtful consideration of this change here, in part because there is response associating any change with liberalness and opposing because it must be the sort of thing the “wrong” kind of Catholics like.

Actually there’s a ton of past threads where people freely say they support a married priesthood. And quite a few of them contain thoughtful discussion. It’s not even that much of a hot-button topic here. Many of us have known some married Roman Catholic priests who converted from another faith with their wives, and seen that they do just fine as priests. I think it helps that by the time these priests and their wives convert, they are generally pretty mature and far along in their faith journey, with stable marriages.

Other people, including myself, have legitimate concerns such as parishioners and dioceses being made to support not only one priest, but also his wife and their 6 kids. Or that the priest will not have sufficient time for his duties at a parish, because most priests are stretched thin already without having the added burden of spousal and familial responsibilities. It’s not just a matter of “we hate and fear change”.

Also, some of the people who support a married Roman Catholic priesthood are doing so because they think it will reduce the number of gay men in the priesthood (possible, but not a guarantee, as men can marry women and still be gay) and/or they think it will reduce the number of sexually abusive priests (unlikely, since there are plenty of married pedophiles and sexual abusers, as shown by the married clergy of other faiths as well as schoolteachers, coaches etc.; also, pedophilia and sexual abuse are not caused by the lack of a legitimate sexual outlet, rather they are power crimes). A married priesthood should not be viewed as the surefire “solution” to either of these issues.

 

[otjm]

The world desires to take that gift from the priests.

Given the number of men who have openly said they feel a call to both the vocation of priesthood and of marriage, I find that to be a bit of an overstatement.

I do know that there are people - both Catholic and non-Catholic - who feel that if a man is married, there is a fairly low likelihood that he is homosexual, and that would address what the John Jay report identified as an issue in the sexual abuse crisis, as over 80% of the sexual abuse was between men (priests) and male teenagers. I would grant that is not particularly high in my idea of reasons to ordain married men, but it is hardly the “world desiring to take away a gift” - no one I have ever met has ever proposed that celibacy be done away with, and I am not only someone who attended seminary for several years, but also in my seventh decade. I think I would have heard of that issue by now.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

We really need to get past associating being gay with being an adult who is sexually abusing a minor, or sexually abusing anyone else over whom he has power (such as a bishop abusing seminarians in their 20s).

It’s been proven again and again that being married does not stop a man from committing sexual abuse, whether it’s of his adult employees/ underlings (male or female) or of minors (male or female).

 

[RobertAdams]

It’s not just a matter of “we hate and fear change”.

We’ll I certainly wouldn’t say you just “hate and fear change” but I can’t say I’ve found it to be a balanced discussion here.

 

[RobertAdams]

A married priesthood should not be viewed as the surefire “solution” to either of these issues.

Probably would be a reasonable solution to the problem of men being called to both married life and the priesthood though…

 

[lanman87]

You’re right of course. But that does not speak to the question of whether some of those who don’t have that gift of celibacy can still have a vocation to the priesthood.

In the traditions I’m most familiar with, we call it the gift of singleness. If called into the ministry, to marry or not is a matter of personal devotion/calling. There are single pastor and missionaries, especially in places that are dangerous to live.

However, the current norm is for Pastors and missionaries to be married. We have a young couple at my church who both felt the call to missions (before they met) and now they are married and we are raising money to send them to missionary training. Their goal is to be a missionary to an unreached people group.

In most evangelical traditions that man is the Pastor of the church with the wife role varying from having little to do with church ministries to being almost a co-pastor who helps with many of the administrative duties and organizational duties. It mostly depends on the size of the church and how much the wife feels called to participate.

In many smaller/rural churches pastors can be bi-vocational. They work a full time job as well as being pastor of the church.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It might get us a few more young men who are struggling with marriage vs. priesthood. It might also encourage some older second-career priests among men who have been married for a while. These men would typically be looking at the diaconate, but some of them might look at the priesthood instead if that option were available.

However, the situation that I have seen most frequently, and that wouldn’t be helped by this, is the situation of the priest who is already ordained and has been a priest for some years and then falls in love with a woman he meets in the course of his priestly career.

 

[po18guy]

1. Any man with dual-vocationscan apply for seminary in the Eastern Rites.
2. Any qualified married man can enter the Latin Rite as it is.
3. Very strangely, a married priesthood is often called up by the secular world as a “cure” for the homosexual abuse, which the John Jay report placed at 81% of incidents.
4. Clerical celibacy - any form of chaste life - is generally hated by the world.
5. Over statement? Like the Lord used? Guilty, I hope!
6. My post was simple and not intended to address each and every situation. That would be impossible, if not plain silly, no?
7. Some days, you just can’t post anything on CAF without anti-aircraft fire shooting it down.

 

[phil19034]

Do Catholics consider priestly celibacy a part of the “Rule of Faith” that was handed on by the Apostles or is it something the Catholic church ruled on because of other reasons?

Yes and no. Obviously this is not a dogma, because married Eastern Catholic men are allowed to become priests. Also, in the Latin Church, we allow married men to become Deacons and allow SOME married men (select ministers from other denominations) to become priests.

However, in the Bible, both Jesus and St. Paul hinted that it’s good to have a celibate clergy because married men cannot focus 100% of their energy on the concerns of Heaven because they also have to take care of their families here on earth.

So there are advantages to celibate clergy. Now, perhaps there is room for the Church to allow older, married men (like the ones who are becoming Permanent Deacons) to become priests (with a similar schedule and status as the Permanent Deacons). But that’s above my pay grade.

If this is indeed the case, do any Catholics believe a celibate clergy is an outdated rule, as simony is no longer an issue?

I don’t think it’s outdated. Afterall, the dogma is that after a man is ordained, he cannot marry. But a married man can be ordained. But as I mentioned above, I do think there MIGHT be room for select married men to become priests through a formation program akin to the one for the Permanent Diaconate. In my mind, it would work like this:

• The married men would first go though the same formation as the Permanent Diaconate & become a Deacon.
• Then, they would serve as a Deacon in a parish for a set period of time (perhaps a couple years) and would be mentored by their pastor and a priest in charge of their formation, continuing to take formation & theology courses.
• Finally, (if approved) they would eventually be ordained a priest and have the same arrangement with the Church as the Permanent Deacons. And if the candidate is not ordained a priest, they would simply continue to serve as a Deacon

God Bless

 

[otjm]

Having practiced in domestic relations and juvenile law, I was aware of the issues of sexual abuse back in the 1970’s - you are not telling me something I don’t know.

There are still people denying that we have had priests who have SSA and have abused male teenagers; and I am not going to jump through the hoops of that obfuscation. I will happily stand by my comment.

A priest I am related to and I had a conversation concerning priests with SSA; I asked him if he had any idea how many of his brother priests had SSA as, at the time, it was a fairly hot topic. He estimated around 490%. I asked him how he came to that estimate, and he said that yearly the diocesan priests had a weekly retreat, and during breaks it was fairly clear which group individuals gathered in - and the groups were fairly consistent. I am not trying to make a major issue of the matter; there was a reason that Benedict 16 issued his edict as to who should be admitted to seminary and to ordination.

And none of that is to presume that if a priest is continent, that he is not capable of being a great priest. If he is not continent, that may well spill over into his ministry, or not. We all have our struggles with sin and most certainly not everyone’s struggle is with sexual sin.

I certainly do not suggest that power is not part of the issue of sexual abuse, whether one is straight, bisexual or homosexual in their orientation. Nor do I question that in the abuse by priests, that power was not a factor. It is not, however, the prime factor in sexual abuse between men and teenage boys.

I gladly stand by my post.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Having practiced in domestic relations and juvenile law, I was aware of the issues of sexual abuse bck in the 1970’s - you are not telling me something I don’t know.

I have sufficient “practice experience” as well that I think we can just leave this one where it is. I do not intend to get into any sort of argument about it beyond what I said. It’s been my experience that people also do not change their minds at all on this topic.

I also stand by my post. Good day to you.

 

[HeDa]

None of the wives married to “former protestant priest/pastor now convert to the Catholic Church and ordained as priest” recommends that Catholic priests (Latin Church) could be married in my diocese.

I have heard Lutheran priests complain that they have to work every 6th weekend to baptise, do weddings and celebrate services/Mass on those Sundays. And they have a 40 hour work schedule.

 

[lanman87]

Sorry Folks. I didn’t mean to stir anything up.

I was just wandering that since Simony was the major reason to change Celibacy from a personal devotion and personal choice among Priest/Bishops to a rule of the church and that since our culture has change and bishoprics can no longer be “purchased” or passed on to children that maybe it wasn’t time to turn it back into a personal devotion/choice.

 

[Peeps]

In most evangelical traditions that man is the Pastor of the church with the wife role varying from having little to do with church ministries to being almost a co-pastor who helps with many of the administrative duties and organizational duties. It mostly depends on the size of the church and how much the wife feels called to participate.

Ianman87, I’m now 63 years old, and I spent the first 47 years of my life as an Evangelical Protestant before converting to Catholicism in 2004.

My pastor growing up was Harold Christenson, and his wife was Evelyn Christenson, the author of What Happens When Women Pray. My associate pastor was Gary Smalley. One of my Sunday school classmates was John Ortberg.

It’s possible those names mean nothing to you, but if you have any association at all with Evangelical Protestantism, they are beloved “heavies” in that world. I consider myself privileged, blessed, to have been around these great Christians for many years (and I’m still friends with John).

My husband came from an Assemblies of God background–his childhood church has become a megachurch now, very active in our city.

We moved around the U.S. and were always associated with amazing Evangelical Protestant churches, and were incredibly involved, many would say overinvolved! But we loved it, and I still associate with more Evangelicals than Catholics because it’s a group I feel more comfortable with.

That being said–I have seen and read about many pastoral marriages that were miserable and that failed because the couple could NOT reconcile the heavy duties and responsibilities of a pastor with the duties and responsibilities of a husband.

I have listened with sadness to many pastoral wives who are now divorced talk about how they never saw their husbands, how many times family plans were upended because of a call to the hospital bed of a beloved church member, or because of a call to a crime scene by the Police Chaplain’s organization…always a “call,” and the pastor’s duty (he was paid, after all) was to answer that call.

Family members had to wait almost every time. Kids grew up without much relationship with dad. And pastor’s wives have to smile and Praise the Lord about it, or else the congregation shuns them and they are even more alone.

Now don’t get me wrong–there were plenty of strong pastoral marriages–Pastor Chris and Evelyn were amazing! But there were others that didn’t work out at all.

Allowing a pastor to marry does not guarantee happiness to the pastor.

I have seen married pastors and/or their wives become involved in extramarital affairs–being married and having the opportuniry to have a sex life with a spouse was NOT ENOUGH to keep a man or woman from “straying.”

And I have seen married pastors get caught up in perversions, including abusing young people and children. Being married and having access to sex with a wife was NOT ENOUGH to stop a man from indulging in dark desires.

A lot of young men just can’t imagine a life without sex, but most men will tell you that being married does not mean sex twice a day and 3x on Saturdays and Sundays.

 

[jeannetherese]

Christ and Saint Paul both encouraged celibacy.
The Catholic priest acts a alter Christus and Christ was unmarried.
An unmarried priest is not juggling two vocations.
These seem good reasons to continue the discipline of an unmarried clergy.

 

[lanman87]

That being said–I have seen and read about many pastoral marriages that were miserable and that failed because the couple could NOT reconcile the heavy duties and responsibilities of a pastor with the duties and responsibilities of a husband.

There is no doubt that many pastoral marriages are miserable. Just as many non-pastoral marriages are miserable. Being called to the ministry doesn’t take away the fact we are in a fallen world and are capable of getting off track, be it in a marriage or anything else.

I realize there are many good reasons for a Priest to be unmarried. My question was from a historical perspective. For the first 1000 years or so of the church celibacy was a personal devotion in the priesthood. While many priest (and pretty much all Monastics) practiced celibacy out of personal conviction, it was still common for a Priest/Bishop to be married.

This all came to head in the early 11th and 12th Centuries, during the middle ages Bishops started arranging for their sons to become bishop after they died. This, or course, was because of a larger problem. Bishoprics were being appointed by the King instead of the church and many Bishops paid off the King to get their position and Kings put people who were loyal to him in as Bishops, often these men were not Godly men at all, and sometimes they were simply corrupt.

Making celibacy a rule for pretty much all priest/bishops was enacted to put a stop to the practice of leaving the bishopric to a son. Priest who were married during this time were forced to put away their wives in order to remain a priest. And the Popes ordered that you couldn’t take the sacraments from a married Priest, in particular in those countries that where the King was openly defying the Pope.

My point being, that while there certainly are good reasons for a Priest to be unmarried and many have argued from fairly early in church history that priest should be unmarried. However, the “straw that broke the camels back” was corruption due to the abuse of the system by the powerful. And not problems with your average local priest being married.

That is the impetus behind my question. Since “the system” has changed, is there a thought or movement in the Catholic church to go back to the way it was before the 11th Century?