Rethinking married priests to end vocation shortage

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I am brand new here. I just posted the Apologist about this issue. I am very confused just now. My 16 year old son has just finished summer workouts with his Catholic High School football team. Turns out the new school chaplain, a former football player at college, is alao the new linebacker coach. The kids including my son love him. At the end of summer training the athletic department held a Mass followed by a BBQ. The new chaplain celebrated. At the BBQ following Mass I met the new chaplain and his wife! I and many other parents were shocked. I did some checking around and it turns out our new chaplain was an Anglican priest in Canada for six years. He has a BA and MA in Religious Studies from a Catholic University in Toronto, and a M.Div from the Toronto School of Theology, a union theological seminary. He and his family became Catholics only two years ago. I am not happy. I wonder what kind of example to high school Catholics this man can be. My brother in-law tells me to relax and that almost all Catholic priests in the Middle East are married. What is going on and should I complain to the school or my bishop about this. Confused Mom.

Complaining to the Bishop will do no good as the Bishop is most likely the man who ordained him after petitioning to Rome and receiving a dispensation from the Canon that states only single men can be ordained.

It is not a dogma, it is a matter of discipline. The Eastern Catholic Church (some are in the Middle East) ordain married men and they do so here in the United States. The Latin Catholic Church, by discipline, does not regularly ordain married men but converts who were married ministers do sometimes receive a dispensation from Rome to be ordained.

There is nothing to be upset or confused about.

 

[JReducation]

Why does the laity keep saying that priests are married to the Church? This is not true. They are not married to anyone: church, virgin mary, their ministry or anything else.

The priesthood is a sacrament and the sacrament DOES NOT involve any kind of spiritual marriage to the Church. That is why a married man can be a deacon. Or he can be a priest in the Eastern and Orthodox Churches, because there is no double jeopardy. He’s married only once, to his wife.

Religious men and women, on the other hand, by virtue of their vow of chastity are married to Christ. They bind themselves in a marital covenant with Christ. Therefore, it is dogmatically impossible for a religious to contract marriage without a dispensation from the vow.

Take this scenario. A priest goes off to get married, his marriage is valid, but ilicit. A religous brotheg goes out to get married, his marriage is invalid. Guess why? Because the brother is married.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mnealon1]

I think Brendan ( back in th threads) spoke very correctly about the lack of vocations in Ireland. The Celtic Tiger destroyed us, but especially our young people, spanning a large age group. A lot of parenrts no longer teach their children the Faith, mostly because they are no longer bothered themselves and many because they do not know it.
It is amazing to see parents and children at the childs first Holy Communion. The Parents do not know when to stand up or sit dowm. After a first Holy Communion Mass recently the Priest asked the CHILDREN to bring their PARENTS to Mass.
In past times in Ireland which would include some of our aging Priests they were their mothers vocation i.e. every family must have one.
However there are many wonderful groups and organisations springing up among our young people, who seem to be no longer satisified with “things” and are searching for something deeper.
God has not stopped calling souls to the Religious life ,but for the moment His words are falling on deaf ears. But just for the moment. Jesus told the Apostles that he would be with them all times, even to the end of the world , and He will. Take heart and pray hard in this the year of the Priests and vocations
On the issue of lay persons thinking that Priests are married to the Church it is my understanding that Christ Is the Bridegroom and the Church the Bride.
Therefore they are not “married to the church” but rather through their Ordination called as Jesus called the Twelve to be Shepherds of His flock, and in so doing taking their vows to God to do this ministry in the Eucharist. confession, and all the Sacraments, to help us to save our souls. It is a big, big commitment and needs no distractions. Things may seem desolate, but Jesus promised the Church would not fail so who elses opinion matters?
Get out the Rosary beads and pray to Mary who gave birth the the Son of God and was such a comfort to the Apostles after the Assension until the Holy Spirit came.
It is to Heaven we neeed to turn our gaze.

 

[Dr_Mark_Sayers]

I appreciate that this is a recurring topic notwithstanding the current impossibility of any practical resolution. I therefore approach the topic as a window into the theology of priesthood and ask questions not in the hope of change but in the hope of the Holy Spirit bringing us to a deeper love of priests’ service.

My question de jour is: I note the reactions of some of us in this forum to the phenomenon of married clergy who have converted to the Latin rite. I also note the distinction of many apologists to the effect that those who convert are somehow sui generis. But how is this so if celibacy is said to be both so ancient, fundamental and universal?

Does the shocked reaction of some laity to married priests who have converted from other communions tell us something about our theology of priesthood? Does the fact that Rome can (and does) dispense select individuals from clerical celibacy tell us something about our theology of priesthood?

I find it difficult to reconcile much of our popular understanding of priesthood (eg. married to the church, dedicated to being completely free to attend to the cure of souls, no loss of focus by being married) with the fact that Rome so freely provides dispensation to some. Does the phenomenon of dispensation risk breeding a kind of dishonesty ?(eg. I trained in an ecumenical college and some Roman Catholics jokingly toyed with the idea of first “converting” to a Protestant communion, becoming ordained and married, and then second, after a discrete interval, “converting” back with dispensation)

What are our thoughts?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I appreciate that this is a recurring topic notwithstanding the current impossibility of any practical resolution. I therefore approach the topic as a window into the theology of priesthood and ask questions not in the hope of change but in the hope of the Holy Spirit bringing us to a deeper love of priests’ service.

My question de jour is: I note the reactions of some of us in this forum to the phenomenon of married clergy who have converted to the Latin rite. I also note the distinction of many apologists to the effect that those who convert are somehow sui generis. But how is this so if celibacy is said to be both so ancient, fundamental and universal?

Does the shocked reaction of some laity to married priests who have converted from other communions tell us something about our theology of priesthood? Does the fact that Rome can (and does) dispense select individuals from clerical celibacy tell us something about our theology of priesthood?

I find it difficult to reconcile much of our popular understanding of priesthood (eg. married to the church, dedicated to being completely free to attend to the cure of souls, no loss of focus by being married) with the fact that Rome so freely provides dispensation to some. Does the phenomenon of dispensation risk breeding a kind of dishonesty ?(eg. I trained in an ecumenical college and some Roman Catholics jokingly toyed with the idea of first “converting” to a Protestant communion, becoming ordained and married, and then second, after a discrete interval, “converting” back with dispensation)

What are our thoughts?

My thought is this. Where does the Church say that celibacy is universal?

I would answer that it does not as many of the Eastern Catholic Churches have the tradition of a married secular clergy.

 

[JReducation]

I appreciate that this is a recurring topic notwithstanding the current impossibility of any practical resolution. I therefore approach the topic as a window into the theology of priesthood and ask questions not in the hope of change but in the hope of the Holy Spirit bringing us to a deeper love of priests’ service.

My question de jour is: I note the reactions of some of us in this forum to the phenomenon of married clergy who have converted to the Latin rite. I also note the distinction of many apologists to the effect that those who convert are somehow sui generis. But how is this so if celibacy is said to be both so ancient, fundamental and universal?

Does the shocked reaction of some laity to married priests who have converted from other communions tell us something about our theology of priesthood? Does the fact that Rome can (and does) dispense select individuals from clerical celibacy tell us something about our theology of priesthood?

I find it difficult to reconcile much of our popular understanding of priesthood (eg. married to the church, dedicated to being completely free to attend to the cure of souls, no loss of focus by being married) with the fact that Rome so freely provides dispensation to some. Does the phenomenon of dispensation risk breeding a kind of dishonesty ?(eg. I trained in an ecumenical college and some Roman Catholics jokingly toyed with the idea of first “converting” to a Protestant communion, becoming ordained and married, and then second, after a discrete interval, “converting” back with dispensation)

What are our thoughts?

The Church has never said that celibacy is universal or an essence to Holy Orders. She has praised celibacy for its own merits and has found that the merits of celibacy are compatible with Holy Orders and have much to enrich the life of clerics. Therefore, it is desireable that clerics in the Latin Rite continue to observe the discipline of celibacy as has been the case for centuries.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

My thought is this. Where does the Church say that celibacy is universal?

I would answer that it does not as many of the Eastern Catholic Churches have the tradition of a married secular clergy.

You are correct (thanks).

 

[Dr_Mark_Sayers]

Re: the responses to the effect that the Church has not or does not regard celibacy as a universal requirement for ordination.

Please forgive me as I am not in the library just now and don’t have details to hand but I recall reviewing a new book on celibacy which came out this year. Part of it spent a great deal of time stressing patristic and early conciliar statements in order to prove that celibacy is both fundamental and intrinsic to priesthood and its discipline has been ancient and universal in the Latin rite.

My question: is it fair to say that such arguments are often selective?

For example, there were at least 2 French or Spanish councils that focussed on Manichean and Catharist heresies with their emphatic dualism and strict asceticism (including a fierce teaching on chastity in marriage and celibacy). The council’s rejoinder was that a bishop ought only ordain married men who had not put their wives away in a convent as it was probative of them not being heretics of that kind. Again, I am out of the library and without details to hand but assuming my memory is accurate, what does that council’s position say to us?

 

[catharina]

Re: the responses to the effect that the Church has not or does not regard celibacy as a universal requirement for ordination.

Please forgive me as I am not in the library just now and don’t have details to hand but I recall reviewing a new book on celibacy which came out this year. Part of it spent a great deal of time stressing patristic and early conciliar statements in order to prove that celibacy is both fundamental and intrinsic to priesthood and its discipline has been ancient and universal in the Latin rite.

My question: is it fair to say that such arguments are often selective?

For example, there were at least 2 French or Spanish councils that focussed on Manichean and Catharist heresies with their emphatic dualism and strict asceticism (including a fierce teaching on chastity in marriage and celibacy). The council’s rejoinder was that a bishop ought only ordain married men who had not put their wives away in a convent as it was probative of them not being heretics of that kind. Again, I am out of the library and without details to hand but assuming my memory is accurate, what does that council’s position say to us?

It’s more fair to say that the only fact in place is this:

The Church in the Latin Rite does not allow for marriage (Matrimony) of its priests.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Re: the responses to the effect that the Church has not or does not regard celibacy as a universal requirement for ordination.

Please forgive me as I am not in the library just now and don’t have details to hand but I recall reviewing a new book on celibacy which came out this year. Part of it spent a great deal of time stressing patristic and early conciliar statements in order to prove that celibacy is both fundamental and intrinsic to priesthood and its discipline has been ancient and universal in the Latin rite.

My question: is it fair to say that such arguments are often selective?

For example, there were at least 2 French or Spanish councils that focussed on Manichean and Catharist heresies with their emphatic dualism and strict asceticism (including a fierce teaching on chastity in marriage and celibacy). The council’s rejoinder was that a bishop ought only ordain married men who had not put their wives away in a convent as it was probative of them not being heretics of that kind. Again, I am out of the library and without details to hand but assuming my memory is accurate, what does that council’s position say to us?

I do not see how anyone can make a claim that it is “universal” even in only the Latin Church as there are a number of married priests within the Latin Church. For it to be universal, at least how I define the word, there could be no married priests in the Latin Church.

 

[JReducation]

The question in my mind remains the same. Why are we beating a horse that is dead and that John Paul II burried? I don’t see any change on this policy coming up. I don’t believe that the discussion is even on the table at the Vatican and the Vatican does not want it on the table. I’m not one to spend a great deal of time trying to persuade the Vatican to discuss something that it does not want to discuss. That could take 20 or more years of my life that I can spend in something more fruitful.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[catharina]

The question in my mind remains the same. Why are we beating a horse that is dead and that John Paul II burried? I don’t see any change on this policy coming up. I don’t believe that the discussion is even on the table at the Vatican and the Vatican does not want it on the table. I’m not one to spend a great deal of time trying to persuade the Vatican to discuss something that it does not want to discuss. That could take 20 or more years of my life that I can spend in something more fruitful.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Amen to that.

 

[diggerdomer]

My question: is it fair to say that such arguments are often selective?

Yes, obviously.

There have always been married Catholic priests. Mandatory celibacy for the priesthood is not divine law, and is limited in applicability.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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.

 

[theladyiscrazy]

Just a note here, vocations are on the rise. The seminaries have the highest number of young men starting classes on their way to priesthood, than it has had in a few decades. The numbers are INCREASING. It will take time for it to show the full effect of it.

Perhaps teaching children that they don’t have to be doctors and lawyers and make huge bucks to be happy in life would be a start in increasing the numbers even more. Teaching them that money isn’t everything and serving God is a wonderful calling instead of putting that life down as society as a way of doing.

 

[anode]

latest stats here:

cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/index.htm

You can download a 27 page .pdf on the breakdown, as to race, location, output of the hs and diocesan seminaries, the lot, by clickin g on the link Statistical Overview

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Just a note here, vocations are on the rise. The seminaries have the highest number of young men starting classes on their way to priesthood, than it has had in a few decades. The numbers are INCREASING. It will take time for it to show the full effect of it.

Perhaps teaching children that they don’t have to be doctors and lawyers and make huge bucks to be happy in life would be a start in increasing the numbers even more. Teaching them that money isn’t everything and serving God is a wonderful calling instead of putting that life down as society as a way of doing.

While this is great, we really can not call it a rise in vocations until these men make it to the end and the Church, through the bishop or religious superior, actually calls them to ordination.

We must always remember that a call is not present until it is recognized by the proper authority within the Church.

Some men do not persevere.

Which is not a bad thing.

 

[theladyiscrazy]

Okay, I will reword my statement then, the number of individuals entering the seminaries are on the rise. Thus, if it continues, we will have an increase number in priestly vocations.

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).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Okay, I will reword my statement then, the number of individuals entering the seminaries are on the rise. Thus, if it continues, we will have an increase number in priestly vocations.

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).

They can be just as “concerned”. To deny a married priesthood is to deny the traditions of the Eastern Catholic Churches (and the Orthodox Churches) who have the married secular priesthood as normative.

The other question, compensation, is a valid one and needs to be addressed, along with many others, before the Latin Church could change the discipline.

Remember though, the Holy See just says no for the Latin Church and then it grants dispensations to turn that no into a yes in some situations.

 

[Leonius]

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.

The problem is the families of the laity not that the priest is not running programs for the youth. AS my priest pointed out recently, priests come from us, the laity.

Parents are failing in their duty to educate their children in the Catholic Faith and secular society is only to happy to fill in the gap left.

We are not going to die out, Catholicism is growing everywhere except for Europe. You want to do something about it then be a good Catholic marry another good practicing Catholic have lots of children and raise your children to be priests.

We never had married priests in the 50’s either but the seminaries were packed.

Another thing that has changed is that the priesthood is no longer respected, people still become soldiers even though they know they might be killed, or that they might be separated from their family for years because it is seen as an honourable profession.

Restore the honour of the priesthood and there will more men wanting to be priests. The kind of men you want as a priest are ones who are wiling to sacrifice, making things more appealing by making it easy to become a priest will have the opposite effect.