Questions from a Non-Catholic about a Celibate Clergy

[RyanBlack]

Any man with dual-vocationscan apply for seminary in the Eastern Rites.

It’s not that simple. A man in the Latin Church cannot just decide to pursue Holy Orders in one of the Eastern Catholic Churches. He must first be granted a transfer of membership to the particular Church in which he wishes to pursue Holy Orders. Then, he must be accepted as a candidate for Holy Orders by his bishop. If his reason for seeking a transfer of membership is so he can be married and ordained to the priesthood, his request for transfer will not be granted, unless he is dishonest in stating his reason for requesting the transfer.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

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.

This might make more sense if parishes were able to do as many Protestant churches do, and have some say in selecting their priest and in getting rid of priests whose lives didn’t fit the needs of the parish. In many Protestant denominations, the minister is chosen somehow by the congregation, and if he doesn’t work out they get a new minister or they decamp to another church.

Catholics are stuck with whatever priest the bishop sends. If Father Marriedpriest with his six kids gets sent to St. Elsewhere, then they’re stuck with him even if he pays no attention to them, and they might also have to take on some burden of supporting Mrs Marriedpriest and the six kids. Meanwhile, the parish up the road gets Father Singlepriest who has much more time to spend on his priestly duties and a lower overhead.

I am sure there are parishes with resources and/or a lot of parents who might love getting a priest with a family, at least until the priests’ kids get some benefit their kids don’t (like free tuition to the Catholic school). Other parishes aren’t going to be so thrilled.

 

[DivineMercy01]

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.

The Roman Rite has a celibacy requirement for men entering seminary, excluding Protestant ministers who converted to Catholicism and already have families. It’s a rare exception.

And the Roman rite has married clergy now - although that is limited to Protestant pastors who have converted, and been ordained.

Yes-this is a very limited number of married priests in the Roman rite. I’ve only met one my whole life.

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).

Are you aware that Roman Catholic priests work with time off each week if they are lucky? My pastor rarely gets a day off. Even if the day off and vacation are guaranteed, they work all the time on the other six days. Married men should not be ordained for the same reason that married men frequently don’t choose certain careers (i.e. no time to spend with your family when I was a traveling college rep I had forty people on my team and zero of them had children. Too much travel and not enough time for family). I feel strongly that the ordination of married men in the Roman Rite is an attack on the family because it belittles the importance of the role of the husband and father.

 

[DivineMercy01]

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?

One of the issues discussed at the Amazon Synod in October 2019 was the possibility of ordaining viri probati (elderly married men who had shown virtue in the community). Pope Francis ruled against it, at least for now. Final Document of the Synod on the Amazon: Full Text - Vatican News

 

[babochka]

I don’t know if I would say it’s “not a big deal to them.” Married Eastern priests exist but they have a different role. They cannot become bishops and have different responsibilities due to having a wife and family.

It is not a big deal to us.

Married priests have the exact same role as celibate priests. They pray the Divine Liturgy, they hear confessions, anoint the sick, baptize (and chrismate), and offer spiritual counsel. Pastors have the additional responsibilities of administration of parishes.

In countries where monasticism is strong and monks are widely available to the faithful, it is common to choose one’s spiritual father from among them. This doesn’t mean that he married priest can’t be a spiritual father, though. In those same countries, parish priests are almost exclusively married. Bishops, of course, are chosen from among the monastic clergy.

Having a wife and children does not change a priest’s responsibility to his parish. How those responsibilities are accomplished will vary from priest to priest, and is influenced by the needs of his family, but the responsibilities as a priest are the same.

 

[babochka]

Also, as for the Eastern Churches - one must inevitably notice, that they did not and do not have the same missionary activity among their clergy, and they never could, thus the global spread and dominance of the Latin/Western Church… because of celibacy. For what it’s worth (as I hear this objection from time to time).

Sts. Cyril and Methodius come to mind. Celibate (usually monastic) priests do exist in the east. The global spread and dominance of the Latin church has as much to do with Spanish colonialism as anything else.

 

[babochka]

I am aware that Eastern rites allow married men to be ordained, but only with permission of the wife and only if the priest agrees not to marry again if his wife dies.

The way you put it, it is like this is an exception, and only under certain circumstances. A married man can be ordained. An ordained man cannot marry. The priest doesn’t make a special promise not to marry, he just knows he cannot. Yes, a wife must give her permission for her husband’s ordination. This is also true for the ordination of a married man to the diaconate, in any rite.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Actually, we just had a thread on “the priest’s bride is the Church” as well as a past thread. On these threads, several people including religious and some priests noted that the statement “the priest’s bride is the Church” or “the priest is married to the Church” is incorrect for various reasons. One reason expressed is that only Bishops are considered “married to the Church” as shown by their being permitted to wear a ring, which priests are technically not allowed to do even though some of them apparently do it anyway.

However, it is certainly true that even if the marital metaphor is not correct, a priest is committed to the Church and to carrying out his duties as a priest. So that sets up a conflict of commitments, since a husband and father’s first commitment is typically to his wife and children, whereas a diocesan priest’s first commitment is typically to the Church. (A priest who was a member of a religious order would typically be committed to his order, but that’s not so relevant, as priests who are members of orders are not going to be getting married.)

Still, we do have married Catholic priests to a great degree in the Eastern Churches and to some lesser degree in the Latin Church, so they manage to make it work somehow.

 

[babochka]

How do you reconcile these two opposing ideas?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

How do you reconcile these two opposing ideas?

It’s not necessary to reconcile them because “A priest is married to the Church” is not correct. As confirmed by at least three priests and religious on here in the past)

Here is one post where SerraSemper, who is apparently doing a doctoral dissertation on this matter, discusses it:

Celibate priests and religious “married to...” Vocations

The Roman Pontifical describes the consecrated virgin as Bride of Christ. Repeatedly. This is her very identity. This is not the case for religious sisters who merely describe themselves as such. I suggest you read the liturgical ritual for the consecration of virgins contained in the Roman Pontifical (bishop’s ceremonial book; read the entire ritual not just the section for virgins living in the world) and the liturgical ritual for religious profession contained in the Roman Ritual. If yo…

Here is another post where a former poster who is a Carmelite friar discusses it:

priest's ring Liturgy and Sacraments

The ring is a sort of tradition some priests and religious have taken up. I do not know when it started. I do not wear a ring for the fact that it gives the mistaken impression that a priest or religious is “married” to the Church. Which is not true. It has been my experience that wearing a ring attracts advances as much as not wearing one does.

I note that some other posters like Br JR Education said the bishop’s ring was simply a sign of office and not espousement to the Church, so even that’s not universal. However, as pointed out below, if priests were married to the Church, it would seem to make the many married priests we have in the Catholic church into bigamists, which is not the case.

 

[babochka]

The other thought that comes to mind is that the priest is part of the Church, which is the bride of Christ. Yes, he stands in persona Christi, but he is still a member of the Bride of Christ.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Right, and then you have priests like St. John of the Cross describing themselves as mystically married to Christ. Which makes sense if they’re part of the Church and thus part of the Bride of Christ, even though they’re males, but makes no sense if they themselves are married to the Church and then somehow they’re going to be married to Christ as well who is also married to the Church.

 

[felsguy]

“Ask a celibate priest. He will tell you that celibacy is a gift.”

I think that’s kind of like asking people who drive Fords if they like Fords.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There was a person posting in one of those threads that said her brother in seminary says the same thing and apparently maybe they are taught that there.

I’m just pointing out that there’s apparently theological problems with it. In addition to the practical problem of the metaphor not working very well for the (many) Catholic priests who are married to human wives.

 

[otjm]

The Roman Rite has a celibacy requirement for men entering seminary, excluding Protestant ministers who converted to Catholicism and already have families. It’s a rare exception.

Which has nothing to do with my quote - the statement about “eliminating” celibacy. Allowing both a celibate and a married clergy is not “elimination”.

Yes-this is a very limited number of married priests in the Roman rite. I’ve only met one my whole life.

Not sure what this ahs to do with the discussion. And I have met three times as many as you personally - not that it makes any difference.

Are you aware that Roman Catholic priests work with time off each week if they are lucky?

Luck ahs nothing to do with it, and from the multitude of priests I have known, all have taken time off; and out archbishop requires it.

Married men should not be ordained for the same reason that married men frequently don’t choose certain careers

Perhaps you have met a number of men who have chosen to not take such careers; I have met a multitude who do. And they have been great parents.

I feel strongly that the ordination of married men in the Roman Rite is an attack on the family because it belittles the importance of the role of the husband and father.

And I feel that a married priest brings two sacraments in his life to the parish - lived out publicly. Given that the Eastern rites have managed it for 20 centuries, there does not appear to be adequate proof that being a priest and being a parent is in conflict.

Everybody has personal opinions, and you are not alone with yours. I am however reminded of the saying that the work will take up the time allotted to it -which is another way of saying that the presumption that a priest has something close to 16 hours of work may be in part dictated by having 16 hours; much could be accomplished in les time with effective time management. Further, much of the administrative work could be done without having to have the priest do all of it - in fact, the model of having deacons and pastoral associates has solved some of the issues.

And before we bring up the need for a priest to be available in the evening and night hours for the Sacrament of the Sick, our archdiocese has the priests in the various vicariates rotating on “night duty”. Again, revolving an issue others “see” but don’t actually have knowledge about in terms of actual demand shows that matters are not really 24/7/365.

 

[dochawk]

during the middle ages, Bishops could be married

Both east and west turned away from married bishops in the second century.

It was about church property, not the office.

To be fair, even in the eastern churches, it’s not like priests have to be married.

That actually varies from church to church.

At least until somewhat recently, the Russian Orthodox would not ordain an unmarried man as diocesan clergy. One of their saints is a dying woman who married a promising candidate so that he could be ordained.

Married clergy is normative in the East (at least the byzantine priest). While most (maybe now all) will ordain an unmarried man, that is the “exception”, common as it may be.

Also, as for the Eastern Churches - one must inevitably notice, that they did not and do not have the same missionary activity among their clergy, and they never could, thus the global spread and dominance of the Latin/Western Church…

You do realize, don’t you that the Eastern church used to be larger than the latin church? The number of bishops in what is today China alone was impressive. Between that and the mohamadan conquests, today’s eastern church is smaller than the west. But to claim larger size of the latin church over failure of the east to evangelize and spread is nonsensical, let alone attributing it to celibacy.

Just offhand, superior advances in military technology and tactics is a better explanation for the western church now being larger . . .

If I hear one more claim that elimination of celibacy would eliminate the sex abuse scandals I’m going to lose my mind.

An academic study a decade or so ago found the pedophilic abuse rate higher for married than unmarried clergy. Also, the Catholic church had the lowest rate among the churches studied (I don’t think any EC or EO churches made it into the study do to size)[in the US].

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

The last time I had that conversation with an RC priest, that’s not what he said.

He said that he had the gift, and that it was precious. And he added that the presbyterate should not be limited to those with the gift, and that the western church was being harmed by the vocations it loses to celibacy. He very much did not see a threat to celibate clergy from the ordination of married men.

• Any man with dual-vocationscan apply for seminary in the Eastern Rites.

no, that just isn’t true.

In fact changing ritual for the purpose of ordination is disqualifying. (although changing for spiritual reasons while aware of a possible vocation is not–but this is very recent).

 

[kapp19]

You do realize, don’t you that the Eastern church used to be larger than the latin church? The number of bishops in what is today China alone was impressive. Between that and the mohamadan conquests, today ’s eastern church is smaller than the west. But to claim larger size of the latin church over failure of the east to evangelize and spread is nonsensical, let alone attributing it to

Ok… I have not heard of the millions of Chinese Maronites. Can you please provide a source?

And I assume such missionaries will have been celibate, of course…

 

[DivineMercy01]

Which has nothing to do with my quote - the statement about “eliminating” celibacy. Allowing both a celibate and a married clergy is not “elimination”.

I am not even going to go down this rabbit hole. The truth of the matter is that celibacy, right now, is required for priestly ordination in the roman rite except for protestant ministers who have converted to Catholicism.

Not sure what this ahs to do with the discussion. And I have met three times as many as you personally - not that it makes any difference.

My point here was that it is the exception, not the rule

Luck ahs nothing to do with it, and from the multitude of priests I have known, all have taken time off; and out archbishop requires it.

You are right-luck has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the fact that priests HAVE to be available and, in my opinion, do not have enough time off to have a young family (nor can the Church pay them be open to having a lot of children if that is God’s will). You might be blessed to live in a diocese where there is a surplus of priests (not sure where that is in the world as the U.S. seems to have a shortage in nearly every diocese), but in my city our priests rarely ever get time off.

Perhaps you have met a number of men who have chosen to not take such careers; I have met a multitude who do. And they have been great parents.

We could debate the specifics of this one all day, every day. All I know is that I know many men who have walked away from (very lucrative) careers because they were required to work hours in which they never saw their kids. This is a legitimate reason for priests, on a practical level, to remain celibate.

And I feel that a married priest brings two sacraments in his life to the parish - lived out publicly.

You can’t do both and do them well. Ask any celibate priest, or married priest for that matter

much could be accomplished in les time with effective time management. F

Time management has nothing to do with the fact that priests have to be available all the time.

And before we bring up the need for a priest to be available in the evening and night hours for the Sacrament of the Sick, our archdiocese has the priests in the various vicariates rotating on “night duty”.

How blessed your diocese must be to have so many priests with this luxury. We don’t have this in my diocese-if priests are needed, they have to be available.

 

[DivineMercy01]

The first is the rule, the second is the exception.

 

[babochka]

The first is the rule, the second is the exception.

I dispute that a priest is married to the church, but for the sake of the discussion, let’s suppose it is true.

Then this is more of a practical explanation than a theological explanation? Only priests who are not already married to a woman become married to the church and those who are married to a woman stay as they are?

It seems that this sets up two tiers of priesthood. You already said that the duties of a married priests are different than those of a celibate priest. Can you elaborate on that? What duties does a celibate priest have that a married priest does not? (Across all rites and in all counties, not just in western countries.}