Scottish Cardinal Suggests Priests Should Marry

  • Thread starter Thread starter braidwood
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Elizabeth502 said:
No. Definitely not “foundation of our Belief,” according to the Church herself. Celibacy is discipline, not doctrine, and thus can be changed as prudence indicates (or does not).

It may be doubtful that it would be immediately, let alone universally, implemented, but it may gradually become an option, if cautious experimentation is positive.

Virtually all heterosexual rabbis marry/are married. Being married to a rabbi or a minister is challenging to the wife/mother, but then rabbis and ministers generally choose women who are up to the task and are realistic about shared time. 🙂 I have never met a married rabbi who short-changed his congregation, and I’ve met a lot of them.
Click to expand...
True, not a “foundation of our Belief” and it can change, but the Catechism does say:

1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to “the affairs of the Lord,” they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church’s minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.

It seems to me the Church holds celibacy in high regard for good reason…even if the rule can change.
 
Can anyone give me a document that clarifies what is doctrine and what is discipline? When the German bishops said that contraception is okay in cases of rape, big alarm bells rang in my head.
 
InThePew said:
As a current seminarian it’s been interesting to read people’s view on this. I should say at the outset though that any change probably isn’t going to have much affect on me. I would expect any change to be introduced after an extended period of consultation and discussion, even before the proposed wording of any changes was drafted. Let’s just say that time is not on my side!

That aside, I made my choice when I applied to enter the seminary and I have no intention of going back on that choice. For me, celibacy allows be to be fully committed to ministerial life without the responsibilities associated with family life. In saying that, I’m simply expressing my own, person view and mean no disrespect to married clergy in the Latin-rite, other rites or other Christian denominations. I once had an interesting conversation about this with an Anglican (Episcopalian) transitional deacon and his wife, who described their situation very well, saying it was a “joint ministry”. As I understand it, this is not too dissimilar from permanent deacons. I’d also note that while Christ was not married, St Peter was!

However, one of the important things to remember is that permanent deacons are often in full-time employment outside of the Church and thus not reliant on it for support. Of course, as another poster has pointed out, a married priest’s (or deacon’s) wife would of course be able to work and provide for their family. In any event, similar criteria would likely be applied to married applicants for the priesthood as are currently applied to applicant for the permanent diaconate (e.g. wife’s consent and participation, higher minimum age). Issues such as dependent children would probably be addressed based on the individual circumstances of each candidate.

I would also take issue with the suggestion that being married would somehow make priests more “rounded”. Just because a priest isn’t married doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily ignorant of married life.

Finally, it would be a mistake to see a relaxation of the celibacy rule as being some sort of magic solution for all vocations problems. While it’s human nature to look for easy answers to complex problems the reality is that only easy problems have easy answers and if it was that easy to solve it would have ceased to be a problem a long time ago!
Click to expand...
Having served many years as the diocesan priest for Marriage Encounter I make these observations:
Catholic Marriage encounter says that the priest is spouse to his church. That works in an inspiring way to point out the sacrifices that result from love. But it also says that the church is spouse to their priest, and that doesn’t work. The church is more like the children of the priest (No wonder we use “Father.”) A priest cannot get the kind of support that he may require for a balanced life from his church. Likewise, after seeking honesty and intimacy in relationships with fellow priests, I found that they were incapable of offering what was required, and hastened to run away (Pshchologically as well as in actuality) when I brought up troubling issues . Priests seem to be kept in a state of emotional adolescence, perhaps as a result of the hierarchical structure of the church, which does not encourage maturity, but rather dependence on external authority.
I also witnessed many fellow priess resorting to means of achieving self-determination in their lives that, while not necessarily sinful, were certainly not in keeping with the ideals of priesthood.
 
RevDon said:
Having served many years as the diocesan priest for Marriage Encounter I make these observations:
Catholic Marriage encounter says that the priest is spouse to his church. That works in an inspiring way to point out the sacrifices that result from love. But it also says that the church is spouse to their priest, and that doesn’t work. The church is more like the children of the priest (No wonder we use “Father.”) A priest cannot get the kind of support that he may require for a balanced life from his church. Likewise, after seeking honesty and intimacy in relationships with fellow priests, I found that they were incapable of offering what was required, and hastened to run away (Pshchologically as well as in actuality) when I brought up troubling issues . Priests seem to be kept in a state of emotional adolescence, perhaps as a result of the hierarchical structure of the church, which does not encourage maturity, but rather dependence on external authority.
I also witnessed many fellow priess resorting to means of achieving self-determination in their lives that, while not necessarily sinful, were certainly not in keeping with the ideals of priesthood.
Click to expand...
RevDon,

Having served as a priest?

Are you still a priest?

Are you in conformity with the Church?
 
However, what will be the case if a wife wishes to end the marriage - it’s not beyond the realms of possibility. Or if a wife dies and a priest remarries, in either of these two cases, and then has two sets of children?

As I said, earlier, I believe this will reduce the virtue of chastity for unmarried lay people and has the potential to lead to other secular problems, legal and otherwise, e.g. custody of children if a wife wishes to end the marriage, possibly civil divorce proceedings if the wife decides to leave the church.
 
RevDon said:
Having served many years as the diocesan priest for Marriage Encounter I make these observations:
Catholic Marriage encounter says that the priest is spouse to his church. That works in an inspiring way to point out the sacrifices that result from love. But it also says that the church is spouse to their priest, and that doesn’t work. The church is more like the children of the priest (No wonder we use “Father.”) A priest cannot get the kind of support that he may require for a balanced life from his church. Likewise, after seeking honesty and intimacy in relationships with fellow priests, I found that they were incapable of offering what was required, and hastened to run away (Pshchologically as well as in actuality) when I brought up troubling issues . Priests seem to be kept in a state of emotional adolescence, perhaps as a result of the hierarchical structure of the church, which does not encourage maturity, but rather dependence on external authority.
Click to expand...
I think you bring up some good points, and of course, these points have been brought up in the past, as well, by other priests (who remained as priests, with their faculties, and in communion with Rome). The fact is, it is definitely a challenge for anyone – priest or not-- to mature in life, satisfactorily, without various kinds and levels of relationships which promote maturity, because we do not grow, ever, in a vacuum. Man is a social animal. Licit intimate relationships test us and transform us, allow us to self-reflect, to change, to prosper emotionally, and to expand: spouse-spouse, parent-child, friend-friend. Not just emotionally/psychologically, but spiritually as well. (None of it, of course, is “separate” from the other.)

Not every priest has found alternatives to the built-in model of marriage/family, but many have. They have had to work hard at it, in cooperation with superiors and Orders (if they are in Orders). Non-sexual friendships with other clerics, relgious, lay people have helped. I notice also that those priests who happen to have large families of birth, and who maintain regular & happy communication with those members, tend to be better off emotionally, in the priesthood. Also, it is definitely true that the more mature and integrated a particular seminarian is when he enters, the much better chance he will have of maintaining that maturity through the trials of priesthood. Candidates with a compromised emotional base have a very difficult time staying in the priesthood, even unhappily. (Not a comment about you! :))

It’s also important to distinguish past examination for candidacy with current practices, which are much more oriented toward psychological health than in previous times. Major seminaries these days not only examine the applicant for an integrated self-assessment (including but not limited to sexuality), but follow up with that candidate after entrance.

I will admit that I am in favor of optional celibacy and believe it can work in selective parishes and with selective situations, such as for a priest whose marriage was already well-established and stable, his paternal responsibilities not being extreme, the couple’s financial status being healthy, and the parish assignment not being one of Extreme need, such as being the solo priest/pastor. It would probably be better if married priests were not pastors, given that responsibility.

Note also that those are a lot of conditions, making it probably not the norm for every parish!

Can you elaborate on this?
RevDon said:
I also witnessed many fellow priess resorting to means of achieving self-determination in their lives that, while not necessarily sinful, were certainly not in keeping with the ideals of priesthood.
Click to expand...
 
pepipop said:
A thought that comes to mind is, what happens if a wife wishes to get out of her marriage, obviously she cannot divorce within the Catholic Church - so lets say the marriage is annulled and/or the husband the priest (ex-husband) then remarries, which could also occur if the wife died and the priest was widowed. If there were children from the first and second marriages, where is the money sought to look after both families. I can only assume the courts could also be involved in relation to child custody for the first marriage. Personally, I could envisage priests getting marrying devaluing the church and its’ teachings, particularly in the times we currently live in.

Also, although not in keeping with the thread’s subject, what if nuns wished to marry and set up an order that allowed this?

IMO it opens a can of worms and devalues the virtue of chastity for the unmarried section of the Catholic congregation.
Click to expand...
You have raised some excellent issues.
Clergy support through the Middle Ages and until fairly recently in history was managed through the possession of a manse (usually a farm on which parishioners donated some time to provide for their pastor). There were questions raised about ownership of the manse following the priest’s death. Should his family still have it to provide for them? Should the next priest have it? Requiring celibacy solved that problem.
You have brought the issue of clergy families into a 21st century arena, and the prospect of dealing with the social and economic issues you raised has not, I’m sure, escaped the notice of Rome. The “trial” situations that have come about through the reception into Catholicism of married Anglican and Lutheran priests seems to be pointing a way, but wide-spread adoption of married clergy would make economic support a real strain.
Your other point, about the value of chastity, is good, too. Catholicism always valued the example of saints and holy people as a way of clarifying virtues and showing that a virtuous life is possible. It would be harder to urge chastity with fewer examples of that to point to. But in no way does it negate the value.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
I think you bring up some good points, and of course, these points have been brought up in the past, as well, by other priests (who remained as priests, with their faculties, and in communion with Rome). The fact is, it is definitely a challenge for anyone – priest or not-- to mature in life, satisfactorily, without various kinds and levels of relationships which promote maturity, because we do not grow, ever, in a vacuum. Man is a social animal. Licit intimate relationships test us and transform us, allow us to self-reflect, to change, to prosper emotionally, and to expand: spouse-spouse, parent-child, friend-friend. Not just emotionally/psychologically, but spiritually as well. (None of it, of course, is “separate” from the other.)

Not every priest has found alternatives to the built-in model of marriage/family, but many have. They have had to work hard at it, in cooperation with superiors and Orders (if they are in Orders). Non-sexual friendships with other clerics, relgious, lay people have helped. I notice also that those priests who happen to have large families of birth, and who maintain regular & happy communication with those members, tend to be better off emotionally, in the priesthood. Also, it is definitely true that the more mature and integrated a particular seminarian is when he enters, the much better chance he will have of maintaining that maturity through the trials of priesthood. Candidates with a compromised emotional base have a very difficult time staying in the priesthood, even unhappily. (Not a comment about you! :))

It’s also important to distinguish past examination for candidacy with current practices, which are much more oriented toward psychological health than in previous times. Major seminaries these days not only examine the applicant for an integrated self-assessment (including but not limited to sexuality), but follow up with that candidate after entrance.

I will admit that I am in favor of optional celibacy and believe it can work in selective parishes and with selective situations, such as for a priest whose marriage was already well-established and stable, his paternal responsibilities not being extreme, the couple’s financial status being healthy, and the parish assignment not being one of Extreme need, such as being the solo priest/pastor. It would probably be better if married priests were not pastors, given that responsibility.

Note also that those are a lot of conditions, making it probably not the norm for every parish!

Can you elaborate on this?
Click to expand...
To what you have posted, I elaborate only AMEN!
 
dontknow said:
Conversely, I take issue with the notion that being a single priest is a better choice.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say that either one - single or married - is better than the other. My apologies if my original post suggested otherwise. While I believe that celibacy is better for me each person is of course different.

As Elizabeth502 has already observed, psychological testing was part of the application process for the seminary and candidates for priesthood today are often older than in the past. Here, the youngest is 20 and the oldest in his 50’s. Some have also had several years in the workforce before applying to the seminary.

I think that married priests could be effective pastors but may also remain attached to a parish for longer than would otherwise be the case.
 
Lucky7 said:
RevDon, she was asking you to elaborate on your comment below it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Elizabeth wants me to elaborate on
I also witnessed many fellow priess resorting to means of achieving self-determination in their lives that, while not necessarily sinful, were certainly not in keeping with the ideals of priesthood.

What I was referring to might be call sublimation.

One became actively alcoholic
One built a mini real estate empire
One adopted two teenagers from Ethiopia who lived in the rectory
One took class after class in civil law (paid by the diocese) and left priesthood to become a married attorney.
I have seen golf-aholics
Party-aholics
I must admit, though, that I have known priests who have maintained a high degree of service to their churches. As I reflect on it (and I can’t say if this has anything to do with it) the ones who come to mind all lived in multi-priest rectories.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top