Rethinking married priests to end vocation shortage

[theladyiscrazy]

Amen Leonius

 

[diggerdomer]

Rather than petitioning for Christ’s one true Church to change to ‘keep up with the times,’ which in itself is a ridiculous proposition - either the Word is Eternal or it is not - we should be praying for an increase in vocations to the priesthood.

It would not be a change to ordain married men.

It would be a change to completely restrict ordination to unmarried men.

 

[JReducation]

Also, how can a married priest be as concerned for their flock if they must divide their time with their concerns for their family? Also, in the Roman Rite, priests are not paid the amount of money that other Christian denominations are paid, so how do you expect them to “provide” for their spouse and/or children? The Holy See is aware of these concerns, as they were also addressed in Jesus’ time. That is why he says, no. (of course, he says no under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as well).

Brothers who are priests are very concerned for their flock, why not marrid priests?

We have brothers who are ordained. Yet, they must submit to the authority of the superior. They must be with the community for the Liturgy of the Hours four times a day. They must spend at least 1 hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament. They must spend one hour in lectio divina. They must be at community recreation every evening. They must be at community meals every evening. They must go away WITH the community on an annual retreat for one week. They must attend all community functions at the motherhouse. They must attend all community meetings. They must wash dishes, cook, clean house, wash cars, cut grass, do shopping, do laundry and other manual labor in the community. They must spend time with sick brothers. They must serve on community committees and hold offices within the community. To do all of these things, the parish must do without them when they’re not available. Does this mean that they are not as committed to their flock as a diocesan priest who is not in vows and is not a consecrated religious?

So what’s the difference between being married to a religious community and having a wife and children?

There are many other religious communities that have priests and they have similar schedules and responsibilities within their religious community, some more and some less. But they can’t be totally divorced from their community.

Actually, a diocesan priest has more time than a priest who is also a religious. On top of that, priests who are religious cannot guarrantee that they will be around for a long time. A religious community can pack up and leave a parish at any time when running the parish is an inconvenience to the religious order or the religious congregation. Their commitment to their order or to their congregation, overrules their commitment to the parish. They did not make vows as priests, but they did make vows as religioius.

A married man who is a secular priest, is obviously a diocesan priest. He’s not going anywhere. He is tied to the diocese. The furthest he can go is to another assignment in the same diocese. The diocese is not going to pull the plug on the parish, if it’s thriving.

Religious orders can pull the plug. They can just leave as has often been done. There was a case of a religious congregation that left four parishes with only one months notice. A married priest would not be able to do that. You can’t just pick up your wife and kids and leave. That’s one reason why married priests in the Eastern Church are very stable in their parishes, because of their families.

The issue has nothing to do with availability. It has to do with the discipline of the Latin Rite. That has already been decided and is not going to change in this day and age, not with this papacy. Why don’t we stop dreaming about it and work on something else, like changing the way that we run parishes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Dr_Mark_Sayers]

The situation may be different where a number of subscribers to this forum live compared with the situation here. Here, due to the shortage of priests, a number of communities are going either ‘priestless’ or ‘Mass-less’. I can only grieve for those for whom regular Sunday Mass, let alone daily Mass, is no longer available. Given the centrality of the Eucharist to our Catholic lives, does that situation cry out for a remedy? Communion services, communal prayer etc (all done by a lay presider) are all well and good but they are not the Eucharist. Doesn’t this situation warrant examining our theology of priesthood and Eucharist either by changing who can be a priest or changing who says Mass?

Or is this lack of access to the Eucharist a suffering that we ask some of us to bear? Would we cheerfully bear such a sacrifice ourselves?

I recall the General Instruction to the Missal which, at one early point, effectively implies that a number of liturgical reforms called for at the time of Trent were accepted in principle per se as sensible but could not be permitted lest the Church seem to be also accepting the erroneous theology used by the reformers. Likewise, are we now asking some of us to live without any or only limited regular access to the Eucharist in order to maintain an appearance of not accepting erroneous calls for a different kind of Mass without a priest-celebrant?

 

[JReducation]

The situation may be different where a number of subscribers to this forum live compared with the situation here. Here, due to the shortage of priests, a number of communities are going either ‘priestless’ or ‘Mass-less’. I can only grieve for those for whom regular Sunday Mass, let alone daily Mass, is no longer available. Given the centrality of the Eucharist to our Catholic lives, does that situation cry out for a remedy? Communion services, communal prayer etc (all done by a lay presider) are all well and good but they are not the Eucharist. Doesn’t this situation warrant examining our theology of priesthood and Eucharist either by changing who can be a priest or changing who says Mass?

Or is this lack of access to the Eucharist a suffering that we ask some of us to bear? Would we cheerfully bear such a sacrifice ourselves?

I recall the General Instruction to the Missal which, at one early point, effectively implies that a number of liturgical reforms called for at the time of Trent were accepted in principle per se as sensible but could not be permitted lest the Church seem to be also accepting the erroneous theology used by the reformers. Likewise, are we now asking some of us to live without any or only limited regular access to the Eucharist in order to maintain an appearance of not accepting erroneous calls for a different kind of Mass without a priest-celebrant?

Obviously, we have to do some problem solving. But changing a discipline of the Church, which several popes have already said will not happen is not the answer.

We have to keep our balance between obedience and our desire to resolve a problem. We cannot resolve a problem at the expense of obedience, even in ordinary matters, such as the discipline on celibacy in the Latin Rite.

That option has been denied. As humble and obedient sons and daughters of the Church, we should obey and put it to rest. That leaves us with the same problem, but we have to find other ways of responding. I do not propose to have the solution, far from it. I simply propose that we remain within obedience while we work with a problem.

As a Franciscan, I can certainly appreciate the desire for the mass in any community. The mass was very sacred to our holy Father Francis and to us, his sons and daughters. Yet, I’ll offer this example of my own community. In order to maintain the lay status of the friars, the order now promotes vocations to the Franciscan life. If you examine any vocation literature in the Franciscan family, it does not mention the priesthood. The focus is to produce more religious men for the Church, more men like Francis.

This means a certain sacrifice. We had mass in every one of our houses. We no longer have that. Some of our houses, the friars have to get up and go to the nearest parish for mass, like everyone else. In some places they drive for an hour or so to attend daily mass.

I bring up this example as the kind of sacrifice that often has to be made when one tries to be obedient. In our case, our intent was to obey Francis’ original charism. In general, the idea is to obey the Church and the Pontiffs.

Like everyone else, we have had to make sacrifices and will probably make many more as the number of non-clerical friars grows, which is growing. We have also had to abandon parishes and left them without priests. But that is the price of obedience. There is always the faith that with interior reform of the family and the individual Catholic, more men will hear the voice of Christ calling them to the priesthood, either as secular priests or religious priests.

I believe this is the big problem. The Catholic family is not as Catholic as it can be. There are too many distractions and too many material things that people want to have and to achieve. Often parents do not consider the priesthood for their sons when helping their sons plan for their future. We have to begin to work with families and young people more intensely than we do now.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Dr_Mark_Sayers]

I do not cavil with your thinking and admire the way you live the charism of obedience. I also accept your point about the extremely limited utility, if any, that there is in having a debate about married priests. I hope there is a way for us all to discuss this and other topics without offending against the Holy Spirit or undermining the unity of our communion.

An anecdote that enforces your point about the seeming lack of fostering of vocations in many Anglophone homes: I have committed Catholic lay friends (some very active in either St Vincent dePaul or in the equestrian orders like Holy Sepulchre knights), who blanch when their sons come back from school retreat experiences and raise the question of being a priest. The response seems to be one of horror. Maybe my circle of friends is unrepresentative but it seems that one of the legacies of the sexual abuse scandals of the past decades is that few people want their sons to be associated with the priesthood. And this seems true, at least in my circle, of Catholic judges, academics and medical specialists: they could not abide the thought that by becoming a priest then their son may be regarded as a closet paedophile.

The solution adopted in many local dioceses here is to import priests from African and Indian dioceses (perhaps the fruits in those countries of similar work to your confreres’ work in South America). Whilst this move has many positives, I fear it may lead to an attitude that priesthood is not a “white man’s job” (just as now many white teenagers won’t do pocket money jobs in industries that are now virtually exclusively staffed by migrants). At the end of the day for a young adult: it is seeing priests who look like you, who are good and respected citizens committed to their faith, it is these men that the Holy Spirit provides as the example that is most likely to prompt you to be a priest too.

 

[Leonius]

The situation may be different where a number of subscribers to this forum live compared with the situation here. Here, due to the shortage of priests, a number of communities are going either ‘priestless’ or ‘Mass-less’. I can only grieve for those for whom regular Sunday Mass, let alone daily Mass, is no longer available. Given the centrality of the Eucharist to our Catholic lives, does that situation cry out for a remedy? Communion services, communal prayer etc (all done by a lay presider) are all well and good but they are not the Eucharist. Doesn’t this situation warrant examining our theology of priesthood and Eucharist either by changing who can be a priest or changing who says Mass?

They are reaping what they have sown, a communities failure to pass on the Faith to its children and to produce the good fruit of priests from within its midst does not warrant diminishing the priesthood still further than has already occurred over the last few decades throughout the entire Church, it is the diminishing of the priesthood in the eyes of the laity that is partly the cause of the priest shortage in certain areas in the first place.

It is better to have a few good priests than many bad ones.

“Bishops and religious superiors should not be deterred from this needful severity by fear of diminishing the number of priests for the diocese or institute. The Angelic Doctor St. Thomas long ago proposed this difficulty, and answers it with his usual lucidity and wisdom: “God never abandons His Church; and so the number of priests will be always sufficient for the needs of the faithful, provided the worthy are advanced and the unworthy sent away.” The same Doctor and Saint, basing himself upon the severe words quoted by the fourth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran, observes to Our purpose: “Should it ever become impossible to maintain the present number, it is better to have a few good priests than a multitude of bad ones.” It was in this sense that We Ourselves, on the solemn occasion of the international pilgrimage of seminarists during the year of Our priestly jubilee, addressing an imposing group of Italian Archbishops and Bishops, reaffirmed that one well trained priest is worth more than many trained badly or scarcely at all. For such would be not merely unreliable but a likely source of sorrow to the Church. What a terrifying account, Venerable Brethren, We shall have to give to the Prince of Shepherds, to the Supreme Bishop of souls, if we have handed over these souls to incompetent guides and incapable leaders.” ** AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII**

Or is this lack of access to the Eucharist a suffering that we ask some of us to bear? Would we cheerfully bear such a sacrifice ourselves?

Gods will be done.

 

[JReducation]

They are reaping what they have sown, a communities failure to pass on the Faith to its children and to produce the good fruit of priests from within its midst does not warrant diminishing the priesthood still further than has already occurred over the last few decades throughout the entire Church, it is the diminishing of the priesthood in the eyes of the laity that is partly the cause of the priest shortage in certain areas in the first place.

It is better to have a few good priests than many bad ones.

Gods will be done.

I agree that a few good priests are better than many bad priests.

I disagree that it is God’s will that people go without the celebration of the Eucharist.

I have a question about your opening. You’re saying that they are reaping the fruit of what they have sown. Who is “they?”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Dr_Mark_Sayers]

I am not disputing the call to sacrifice that Leonius has posted in reply to my observations. It seems that this is the only option open to us. However, I do have one point of dispute and one further observation to make.

First as to the point of dispute: is it ipso facto the case that changes to canon law broadening the existing dispensation that allows for married priests would necessarily create ‘bad priests’? Obviously the answer must be ‘No’ because from the point of view of both canon law and church teaching, a married priest from a different tradition who is received into our communion and continues as a priest is not a ‘bad priest’ (at least in the sense of being unacceptable as a member of the presbyteral order). Therefore, what is the relevance of the quote from St Thomas? Are you suggesting that a married priest is necessarily a bad priest notwithstanding the established exemption of long-standing?

Second as to the further observation: my post was more to do with the long-suffering laity who, in some regions, now live with the kind of access to the Eucharist that was once associated with frontier societies of previous centuries. Does your quote from St Thomas mean to suggest that 1) as the Church cannot provide Mass for these people and 2) if the Holy Spirit will always ensures sufficient priests for the Church’s need, then 3)that the people of those regions somehow fall beyond the pale of the Church in need of priests (ie not really part of the Church for which the Holy Spirit will provide)?

Perhaps those Holy Fathers who promulgate a ban on the speculation about the possibility of either ordained married men or permitting the ordained to marry are wiser than I and hope that the lack of Eucharist will spark a revival of vocations in response to that need. I can understand the logic of such a hope, especially in the short term. What I wonder about is what happens in the medium to long term? For if a community is without the Eucharist for decades (fortunately, not the case just yet in the regions to which I am referring) then will there still be the felt need for the Eucharist as a generation may have grown up knowing nothing more than lay prayer leaders presiding at a Liturgy of the Word.

In short: If we fear the ‘protestant-ization’ of our Church by many of the changes of the last 40 years, don’t we risk falling into the hands of rabid reformers by risking raising a generation of people whose only experience of our rituals is a Liturgy of the Word and no or only very limited experience of the Eucharist? As I say, the scenario which I have outlined has not yet occurred but do we risk it arising in the future if nothing is done now?

 

[JReducation]

is it ipso facto the case that changes to canon law broadening the existing dispensation that allows for married priests would necessarily create ‘bad priests’?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Perhaps those Holy Fathers who promulgate a ban on the speculation about the possibility of either ordained married men or permitting the ordained to marry…

You make an error here. While ordaining married men to the priesthood is a matter of discipline and can change, allowing those ordained to marry is not. One can, and has, changed, the other can not change.

I wish people would understand this.

 

[JReducation]

You make an error here. While ordaining married men to the priesthood is a matter of discipline and can change, allowing those ordained to marry is not. One can, and has, changed, the other can not change.

I wish people would understand this.

With all due respect to the lay person on the thread. This is a good example of why the lay person must study theology, philosophy, Church History, canon law. Without these tools the person with the best intentions in the world often makes statements such as “priests should be allowed to marry.” The average person does not know that priests have never married and that the Church does not have the authority to change this. Every married priest since the apostles was married before the selection to be a deacon.

Discussing the topic without the tools is like planning the construction of a bridge without a knowledge of the laws of physics, the rules of geometry, geology and ecology. Ask St. Maximilian Kolbe. He was a theologian and a scientist.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

Obviously, we have to do some problem solving. But changing a discipline of the Church, which several popes have already said will not happen is not the answer.

We have to keep our balance between obedience and our desire to resolve a problem. We cannot resolve a problem at the expense of obedience, even in ordinary matters, such as the discipline on celibacy in the Latin Rite.

With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely, as I have so greatly benefited from your contributions on these forums), and at the risk of misunderstanding you (which, if I do, please accept by apology and clarify for me):

As you say, this is a discipline of the Church, something that can be changed. I’m not clear on which of several Popes have said…and in what context…that this will not change. Can you help?

I would expect that Popes have said changing this discipline is not “the” answer…and I would agree, simply revising the discipline would not solve the problem. But–I think that’s distinct and separate from saying it couldn’t/shouldn’t happen.

I have to admit, I’m a little confused on your seeming dichotomy of solving a problem vs. obedience. The discipline of celibacy as currently practiced in the Latin Rite is something I consider myself completely obedient of…but I don’t see that obedience as an obstacle to accepting the Church changing the discipline?

thanks.

That option has been denied. As humble and obedient sons and daughters of the Church, we should obey and put it to rest. That leaves us with the same problem, but we have to find other ways of responding. I do not propose to have the solution, far from it. I simply propose that we remain within obedience while we work with a problem.

As a Franciscan, I can certainly appreciate the desire for the mass in any community. The mass was very sacred to our holy Father Francis and to us, his sons and daughters. Yet, I’ll offer this example of my own community. In order to maintain the lay status of the friars, the order now promotes vocations to the Franciscan life. If you examine any vocation literature in the Franciscan family, it does not mention the priesthood. The focus is to produce more religious men for the Church, more men like Francis.

This means a certain sacrifice. We had mass in every one of our houses. We no longer have that. Some of our houses, the friars have to get up and go to the nearest parish for mass, like everyone else. In some places they drive for an hour or so to attend daily mass.

I bring up this example as the kind of sacrifice that often has to be made when one tries to be obedient. In our case, our intent was to obey Francis’ original charism. In general, the idea is to obey the Church and the Pontiffs.

Like everyone else, we have had to make sacrifices and will probably make many more as the number of non-clerical friars grows, which is growing. We have also had to abandon parishes and left them without priests. But that is the price of obedience. There is always the faith that with interior reform of the family and the individual Catholic, more men will hear the voice of Christ calling them to the priesthood, either as secular priests or religious priests.

I believe this is the big problem. The Catholic family is not as Catholic as it can be. There are too many distractions and too many material things that people want to have and to achieve. Often parents do not consider the priesthood for their sons when helping their sons plan for their future. We have to begin to work with families and young people more intensely than we do now.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely, as I have so greatly benefited from your contributions on these forums), and at the risk of misunderstanding you (which, if I do, please accept by apology and clarify for me):

As you say, this is a discipline of the Church, something that can be changed. I’m not clear on which of several Popes have said…and in what context…that this will not change. Can you help?

No offense taken. You are always very kind to everyone. Please allow me to put it in bullets. It’s easier for me, because I can see the progression of my own thoughts.

1. Celibacy is not a dogma. It is a discipline within the Latin Church.
2. The question of making celibacy an option has crossed the desks of popes, probably before Vatican II. But the ones that I remember the most are the ones after Vatican II. The answer has always been that it will not be changed. And the popes have discouraged the laity and the clergy from asking again. That’s where the obedience comes into play.
3. In these sources you can find the decrees of the popes on the question.
   

     a. Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of John Paul II Pastores dabo vobis, n. 29, 44, 50
   
     b. Sacerdotalis coelibatus, nn. 17-34.
   
     c. Decree Optatam totius, n. 8, 10
   
     d. Decree Pastores dabo vobis, n. 44, 50, 70 and 88
   
     e. Educational guidelines of training for priestly celibacy, n. 47.

4. Having been told that this discussion is closed and having been given the reasons why celibacy is necessary in the Latin Rite, it would be disobedient to bring up the issue again.
5. The popes, fron Pius XII to the present hold the following reasons for celibacy in the Latin Church.
   

     a.  christological value
   
     b.  ecclesiological significance
   
     c.  eschatalogical significance

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

No offense taken. You are always very kind to everyone. Please allow me to put it in bullets. It’s easier for me, because I can see the progression of my own thoughts.

1. Celibacy is not a dogma. It is a discipline within the Latin Church.
2. The question of making celibacy an option has crossed the desks of popes, probably before Vatican II. But the ones that I remember the most are the ones after Vatican II. The answer has always been that it will not be changed. And the popes have discouraged the laity and the clergy from asking again. That’s where the obedience comes into play.
3. In these sources you can find the decrees of the popes on the question.
   

     a. Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of John Paul II Pastores dabo vobis, n. 29, 44, 50
   
     b. Sacerdotalis coelibatus, nn. 17-34.
   
     c. Decree Optatam totius, n. 8, 10
   
     d. Decree Pastores dabo vobis, n. 44, 50, 70 and 88
   
     e. Educational guidelines of training for priestly celibacy, n. 47.

4. Having been told that this discussion is closed and having been given the reasons why celibacy is necessary in the Latin Rite, it would be disobedient to bring up the issue again.
5. The popes, fron Pius XII to the present hold the following reasons for celibacy in the Latin Church.
   

     a.  christological value
   
     b.  ecclesiological significance
   
     c.  eschatalogical significance

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you. I will have to do some study. I am aware that most consider the issue of women’s ordination closed, I was not aware that the discipline of celibacy in the Latin Rite was similarly currently considered closed…so, again, I will have to do some reading, gratefully, thanks to your response.

Peace. It helps much (as always)

 

[JReducation]

Thank you. I will have to do some study. I am aware that most consider the issue of women’s ordination closed, I was not aware that the discipline of celibacy in the Latin Rite was similarly currently considered closed…so, again, I will have to do some reading, gratefully, thanks to your response.

Peace. It helps much (as always)

I am sure that many people do not know that the discussion is closed, at least for the time being. The reasons why it is closed are different from the reasons for closing the discussion on the ordination of women.

The question on the ordination of women was closed on the grounds that the Church does not have the authority to do so.

The question to the ordination of married men was closed on the grounds that the fruits born from the celibate priesthood have been good for the faith fo the Church, because they speak to the Church of life in the Kingdom of God where no one has a spouse and all are focussed on adoring the lamb on the throne.

The celibate priesthood also serves as a reminder of Christ’s chastity on the cross, where he dies alone and stripped of everything that is human, even his dignity.

Finally, the celibate priesthood serves as a reminder that Christ the high priest put man’s salvation above his own life.

While celibacy is not a dogma, it is rooted in dogmas: the kingdom, Christ’s chastity, and Christ’s priesthood.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I just saw an interview with one of the bishops of South America, from Peru. He just blew our theory out of the water. He was showing pictures of the number of Catholics in South America. He explained that in most of the South American countries the confession lines are two hours long and that the Churches are packed.

He also said that they were exporting secular priests to the USA, because they have a surplus. The reason for their surplus is because what they really need are missionaries. The missions are run by religious communities. They run the hospitals, schools, catechesis, and other corporal works of mercy.

He explained that diocesan priests are not trained for these kinds of ministries and religious are. They “trade”. They take the offers of the religious congregations and the religious orders and give secular priests to other countries where they are needed. One example that he gave is the southern Spanish speaking states of the USA. He said that they give many priests to the Spanish speaking dioceses in the USA. I found it very interesting.

I think it’s wonderful how God provides, if we are willing to be creative.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

1. Celibacy is not a dogma. It is a discipline within the Latin Church.

Yes, of course. I agree.

      a. Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of John Paul II Pastores dabo vobis, n. 29, 44, 50

I didn’t find this particularly helpful. I was concerned that it exalted the celibate/ordained state of life over the married/lay state of life. I don’t think that would be the correct conclusion to draw from the document, but from the para you referenced that’s the impression I got.

   b. Sacerdotalis coelibatus, nn. 17-34.

Thanks, I was not previously familiar with this document. It helps. Still, though, as the opening para you cite notes:

Virginity undoubtedly, as the Second Vatican Council declared, "is not, of course, required by the nature of the priesthood itself. This is clear from the practice of the early Church and the traditions of the Eastern Churches

It goes on to extol, justify, and praise celibacy—which I of course have no problem with – but it does not raise celibacy over and above marriage regrading ordination.

c. Decree Optatam totius, n. 8, 10

I don’t understand how para 8 applies. I see clearly how para 10 applies, but again it is addressed to “Students who follow the venerable tradition of celibacy” – which is not the same as teaching a preference for or Divine command for exclusive celibacy.

d. Decree Pastores dabo vobis, n. 44, 50, 70 and 88

These para, again, in part addressed celibacy but not (in my reading) in a necessarily preferential or exclusive way. I did not find a para 88.

e. Educational guidelines of training for priestly celibacy, n. 47.

I’m sorry, I couldn’t fine what you were referring to here. I “Googled” it but nothing that came up seemed to fit. Can you give us a link?

1. Having been told that this discussion is closed and having been given the reasons why celibacy is necessary in the Latin Rite, it would be disobedient to bring up the issue again.

I just don’t see anywhere that the discussion has been closed (as, apparently to most, the issue of women’s ordination has). Help?

1. The popes, fron Pius XII to the present hold the following reasons for celibacy in the Latin Church.
   

     a.  christological value
   
     b.  ecclesiological significance
   
     c.  eschatalogical significance

I appreciate and understand and accept all those reasons (along with others). I just don’t see that celibacy is a “sine qua non” or a preferred charism for the Catholic priesthood…mostly because a married priesthood has ALWAYS been part of the Catholic tradition, and even with the current Roman/Latin discipline married priests are still accepted. Look, just this month, a married man was ordained in Nebraska (hardly a “liberal” bastion!): ketv.com/news/19820185/detail.html

Thanks again for your thorough and thoughtful response.

 

[JReducation]

I realize that this is not a Catholic document. However, it is actually accurate. Probably one of the few times that Time Magazine got something right.

**Even Pope John Paul II, who quietly started allowing married Protestant ministers to convert and become Catholic priests, was firmly opposed to reconsidering the celibacy requirement.

As for Benedict, it seems unlikely he will be more inclined to revisit the Church’s celibacy policy. In 2006, he publicly reaffirmed the spiritual purpose of the requirement and made it clear that dissenters on the issue would not be tolerated, excommunicating an African bishop who had ordained several married men as priests. For now, at least, celibacy is not open for discussion. **

time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1906063,00.html

As you see, there are even excommunications for those who dissent on the issue of celibacy. I don’t want to find myself at the end of a decree of excommunication.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[hienieboo]

Hey Everyone,

I’ve been travelling for the past couple of weeks and it has been made very plain to me that the Church in Ireland is dying. All the priests are old enough to be retired but there is no one to replace them so they continue working and then they don’t have enough energy to run programs for the youth and the result is empty churches with the few parishioners being elderly. It seems that in 10 years or so there will be almost no Catholic Church at all…

Then I started wondering about why we have no new priests. And it hit me that more men would become priests if they could still get married and have children. With the church’s authority to bind and loose couldn’t they change it back to the way it was centuries ago that priests could marry? Priests can marry in rites other than the Latin Rite so why don’t we change that? Change is needed or else we’re going to die out!

Surely the drawbacks of having married priests are not worth the slippery slope the Church finds itself in now.

this is very true! i talked to a priest about this about how many priests aren’t looking for discernment cuz of marriage… marriage is a blessing for a lot of people… some priests do happen to want to have children… it’s hard for some who aren’t able to do celibacy for the rest of their lives… the percentage rates of priests are very short… i believe they should let it be a choice to wether or not they want to get married…