Questions from a Non-Catholic about a Celibate Clergy

[BT3241]

What are the dangers of Celibacy ? We tell our children to practice it until they get married - don’t say homosexuality or child molestation those sexual desires are already deep in the person when they formed their sexuality at a young age and every priest know what he is vowing to when he becomes a priest.

 

[otjm]

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.

You may know some priests in your diocese; I seriously doubt you have done a personal survey of them, let alone all of the priests as to ho much time they have off. As to a “surplus of priests”, I doubt there is a diocese in the US which has such; we re currently at about one priest to one parish across the US (CARA statistics), which means that we have a number of priests who cover several parishes. And that in itself is an indictor that a priest does not have to be “available 24/7” to a parish.

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.

And I know many men who have demanding careers and are great parents, and I also know a goodly number of men who have 40 hour work weeks and are poor parents.

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

I have discussed the matter with a number of priests, including those who were in my class in the seminary. To the contrary, they disagree with you.

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

You confuse “available all the time” with doing something all the time". It is simply a Catholic myth that priests are working 12 hours a day 7 days a week. No bishop would allow such as he would know that burnout will reduce further the number of priests he has.

You have your opinion; I have actually talked with a goodly number of people - not just priests - who balance demanding jobs and parenthood, Those who have their priorities straight manage and are good to great parents, and those who don’t have their priorities straight - including those who have plenty of time - are not great parents.

The Church has had married clergy since its foundation. The Roman rite has had the discipline of celibacy for centuries, and has made an exception in the case of converting ministers.

Much the same was said about deacons, that they would not be able to handle matters. History has prove otherwise. And I suspect strongly that at some point the Church will allow married men to be ordained if for no other reason than that we are in the middle of a serious crunch of priests dying faster than they are being replaced. Except for Africa (and not all parts of it) the Catholic Church is not seeing a plethora of vocations, and the need to obtain priests from other countries is not a path we can presume will meet the needs.

So we can agree to disagree.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

we re currently at about one priest to one parish across the US (CARA statistics), which means that we have a number of priests who cover several parishes. And that in itself is an indictor that a priest does not have to be “available 24/7” to a parish.

No, it’s an indicator that some parishes currently have to make do with having the priest be less available because there aren’t enough priests to go around. Just because one priest who’s probably somewhat overworked is managing to cover two parishes because he has to, doesn’t mean that that’s a good thing or how it should be.

In the earlier days of the US, there were areas of the country where priests had to ride around and serve several areas and they did not all get to have a priest present atll the time. They made do, but obviously this isn’t the preferred situation. And it’s similar to the situation where one priest has to cover several parishes that are spaced more than a couple miles apart from each other.

The preferred situation would be that each parish had at least one priest on call who was available to them daily and could celebrate Mass every day. It’s even better if there’s two priests available because it allows them to share the burdens and for one priest to fill in for the other when he needs to be away for a vacation, family funeral, or some other priestly activity.

I am fortunate to be near parishes that tend to have multiple priests, and even then it can be hard to get a piece of the priest’s time because the parishes are quite large or in one case the two priests are handling two parishes. It was definitely a better situation when I was little and almost every parish had three or four priests.

 

[JonNC]

Not necessarily. However, priests are called to be in Persona Christi. Christ was celibate, therefore it makes sense that our clergy be celibate men.

Wasn’t St. Peter married?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Wasn’t St. Peter married?

He was, but one could make the argument that he was likely a widower by the time he was made a priest (given that his mother-in-law was in his house waiting on people and there is no mention of his wife in the Gospels), so if that was the case, he would have been celibate by the time he became a priest.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Wasn’t St. Peter married?

He was, but one could make the argument that he was likely a widower by the time he was made a priest (given that his mother-in-law was in his house waiting on people and there is no mention of his wife in the Gospels), so if that was the case, he would have been celibate by the time he became a priest.

Yes, I’ve heard that argued, too.
It’s an interesting discussion, priestly celibacy.
Some here know my dad was a Lutheran pastor, and while I feel I was truly blessed to be raised in his home, I also know the difficulty he faced balancing his role as husband and father at home, and his role as “father” in his parish.

 

[RobertAdams]

There seems to be a considerable amount of cognitive dissonance in simultaneously knowing that there are married Catholic priests in Eastern Rites, and also believing it isn’t possible to function as both a priest and married man for practical reasons.

 

[otjm]

Well, you are luckier than you may realize. Our Archdioceses has just a bit fewer priests than it has parishes, and some priests even have three parishes to cover on a weekend. One parish near me has two priests, and over 3,000 families; prior to the virus they had 11 Masses on the weekend, with at least two other priests who came to celebrate, in part because thre are two communities - Vietnamese and Hispanic.

 

[otjm]

There well may be dissonance, but it does not appear to be in the Eastern rites - just the Roman rite.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Given that we haven’t had many married priests in the Roman Rite for hundreds of years, and all the structures for educating priests, housing priests, administering parishes etc weren’t set up with married priests in mind, it’s not surprising there is dissonance. Young Latin Catholic priests don’t have any sort of good models for how to function as a married priest, unless of course they were already a married Protestant minister before converting. The Latin Church also has a lot of cognitive dissonance over what a wife and mother’s role should be, so there are issues of what role a young priest’s wife should play as well. Should she stay in the background, mind the kids and support her husband? Or is it okay if she goes out to work to help make ends meet, or pursues her own career that may have nothing to do with the Church?

I agree that the easiest way to implement this to begin with would be to start with the virii probati. Older men are more likely to have stable marriages, their kids are more likely to have reached the age to leave the nest or at least be more self-sufficient, and the wife’s role (SAHM, co-breadwinner, etc) has already been determined by the time the man is applying. The large number of older married deacons in the US church provides a model in this regard.

 

[RobertAdams]

Given that we haven’t had many married priests in the Roman Rite for hundreds of years, and all the structures for educating priests, housing priests, administering parishes etc weren’t set up with married priests in mind, it’s not surprising there is dissonance.

The means of and opportunities for communication have advanced considerably in the past several centuries. It is now possible for men in the Roman Rite to encounter, meet, speak with, ask questions of and learn from previously inaccessible entities such as Eastern Rite Priests, Orthodox Priests, Anglican Priests and protestant ministers.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Yes, I know it is possible, but I do not get the impression the Latin Church is really facilitating this in its training for priests.
If I am wrong, then hopefully a member of the clergy will correct me.

 

[RobertAdams]

If I am wrong, then hopefully a member of the clergy will correct me.

I maintain that clergy can not post on CAF as they are too busy. The fact that some do doesn’t convince that it’s possible for them to post because in my life I have personally met priests who don’t post on the internet.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It seems like you’re now playing games in the thread, so that means it’s time for me to bid you adieu.

 

[JonNC]

also believing it isn’t possible to function as both a priest and married man for practical reasons.

I certainly wouldn’t argue that it is impossible for a married man to be a priest. I presented my story because as a PK (preacher’s kid), I saw how difficult it was.
From my perspective, difficult is not impossible.
My perspective helps me have an understanding as to why priestly celibacy can be defended from a practical standpoint.

 

[RobertAdams]

My perspective helps me have an understanding as to why priestly celibacy can be defended from a practical standpoint.

I appreciate your perspective, it’s a helpful one.

 

[DivineMercy01]

Moot point. Persona Christi is not “persona Peter” or “persona apostle.” You should take a class in semantics before making such claims.

 

[JonNC]

Moot point. Persona Christi is not “persona Peter” or “persona apostle.” You should take a class in semantics before making such claims.

Wait. The power of the keys was given first to Peter. Does that not make him a priest? And therefore, does he not act in persona Christi?

That was my point.

 

[dochawk]

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

I didn’t say “Maronite”. I really don’t have a source offhand (Church of the East, maybe? I don’t recall. Byzcath would be a good place to look it up).

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

Why in the world would you come to such a conclusion? Outside of the monastery, the East generally only ordained married men.

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

no, very much not the case in the east, where the rule and norm for non-monastic priests is married. You won’t find many unmarried eastern priests outside the diaspora in the US.

in the east, married is the rule, and celibate is the exception.

(although I believe that due to . . . Western Church influences . . . , celibacy is the overwhelming majority for maronites).

 

[Le_Cracquere]

At this particular point, we moderns see voluntary celibacy as incomprehensible, almost freakish … and I’d say that’s PRECISELY why this is not the time to end it as a discipline. If we could understand & sympathize more instinctively with celibacy as an ideal, then I’d be tempted to say it’d be okay for the Church to relax her strictures. But anything that’s so utterly contra mundum strikes me as EXACTLY the thing that the Church most needs to model at this moment.