Should priests be allowed to marry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hitherwood1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Priestly Celibacy in the Latin Rite has been part of our Tradition for centuries- it has served the Church very well. The rule can change, but changes should never be made on something like that without a good reason. Celibacy is a beautiful vocation, and example of self-sacrifice for the Church. It is not the curse or burden that secular society would have you believe it is.
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
Yes, it does.

I’m sure some people would also love for the Church to embrace abortion, artificial contraception, and homosexual ‘marriage.’ Ain’t gonna happen either.
Click to expand...
Clerical celibacy is a discipline, it can change. It is only in effect for the Latin Church. To make the statement you do is to attempt to raise clerical celibacy to a dogma which these other things are. It does a disservice to the Church as it is only the Latin Church that has the discipline. The Eastern Catholic Churches ordain married men to the priesthood. Your statement makes it appear that they are doing something wrong which they are not.

Not only that, but there are a number of married priests in the Latin Church today. They are converted ministers from other Christian denominations.
 
m134e5 said:
Priestly Celibacy in the Latin Rite has been part of our Tradition for centuries- it has served the Church very well. The rule can change, but changes should never be made on something like that without a good reason. Celibacy is a beautiful vocation, and example of self-sacrifice for the Church. It is not the curse or burden that secular society would have you believe it is.
Click to expand...
I can agree with you on this but do not forget that if the discipline does change that it will only be for the secular priesthood. Celibacy will still be there in the religious life and some of those going for the secular priesthood will still be called to it.

The biggest thing that needs to happen is a discussion on how a married priesthood would be implemented. Like seminary housing, parish housing, financial concerns. It is not an easy thing to do.
 
It seems to me the issue of celibacy has been settled. Why is it continuously brought up for discussion? Didn’t the Pope make the postion of the Church rather clear? We can talk about it all we want but the Churche’s decision should be the final answer.
 
abukamoon said:
No, they have enough to worry about.
Click to expand...
I agree, I couldn’t imagine trying to balance the two vocations. Being a Priest isn’t just a job. The same way I would never want to be a married nun.

Never mind if the marriage turned out to be bad. In example, I know (very well) of a minister that had to admit to his church that he had been physically abusing his wife amoung a couple other not so great things. He was “let go” of course. In these cases it’s not just the family involved that is affected. A whole community was. The community never would have imagined that their pastor would do such a thing.
 
JReducation said:
There has never been a practice of clerics marrying in any of the Catholic Rites or the Orthodox Rites. Why would we want to start that now?

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Forgive me, if I’m not quoting properly. But … it is my understanding that celibacy was not the norm prior to the 15th century. And then it was instituted for political, social and economic reasons; not religious reasons. So we cling to what is relatively recent - 500 yrs and throw out the longer tradition - 1500 yrs - for what? Celibacy was instituted at a time when bishops were handing their bishopics down to their offspring - in essence, creating monarchies. Also, there was the problem of what to do when priest when he died with the home that the church had provided for him. Theoretically, the wife inherited his property, so does the church kick out the family or build a new house for the new priest. Building new houses got expensive. So the Church instituted celibacy. It was a fair response at the time; but I’m not so sure it is today.
 
lynb said:
Forgive me, if I’m not quoting properly. But … it is my understanding that celibacy was not the norm prior to the 15th century. And then it was instituted for political, social and economic reasons; not religious reasons. So we cling to what is relatively recent - 500 yrs and throw out the longer tradition - 1500 yrs - for what? Celibacy was instituted at a time when bishops were handing their bishopics down to their offspring - in essence, creating monarchies. Also, there was the problem of what to do when priest when he died with the home that the church had provided for him. Theoretically, the wife inherited his property, so does the church kick out the family or build a new house for the new priest. Building new houses got expensive. So the Church instituted celibacy. It was a fair response at the time; but I’m not so sure it is today.
Click to expand...
This and many other reasons led the Latin Church to introduce celibacy for secular preists.

But that’s not the point I made. I said there has never been a tradition of clerics marrying. It’s not the same as married men becoming clerics.

Again, as Br. David said, this discipline applies to a very small number of Catholic clerics.

The promise of celibacy applies only to: secular clerics who are Latin Rite.

It does not apply to religious clerics or any secular cleric in any of the other Catholic Rites.

Religious clerics must be celibate, because religious life is built upon celibacy. It has always been that case. The large number of ordained men are also consecrated religious. The number of Latin Rite secular clerics make up about 20% of the clerics in the Catholic Church, East and West.

We’re talking about a very small group here. Most of them are not too concerned about getting married. I see this concern greater among the laity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
ByzCath said:
Clerical celibacy is a discipline, it can change. It is only in effect for the Latin Church. To make the statement you do is to attempt to raise clerical celibacy to a dogma which these other things are. It does a disservice to the Church as it is only the Latin Church that has the discipline. The Eastern Catholic Churches ordain married men to the priesthood. Your statement makes it appear that they are doing something wrong which they are not.

Not only that, but there are a number of married priests in the Latin Church today. They are converted ministers from other Christian denominations.
Click to expand...
All of which has nothing to do with the original question.
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
All of which has nothing to do with the original question.
Click to expand...
Brother was not trying to answer the original question. He was trying to explain that we cannot put celibacy in the same category with abortion, same-sex marriage and so forth. The Church’s answer to these questions is based on dogma.

The Church’s discipline on priestly celibacy is a discipline that is not based on dogma, but on the spirituality of the Latin Rite Church.

He is also making the same point that I made. This discipline only applies to a small number of clerics. It only applies to men who are secular clerics. They make up about 20-25% of the clerics in the Catholic Church.

If you take awy the discipline of celibacy the following would not be affected.
  1. Eastern Rite Catholics
  2. Clerics who are also consecrated religious, because the vow of chastity overrules the discipline of celibacy.
What Brother is saying is that if the poster whom he cited puts celibacy in the same category with abortion, same-sex marraige, or women priests, for example, the message that it sends to others is that the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox Christians are in a state of sin, because they ordain married men and the ordination of married men is being put in the same catagory as these sins that are based on dogma.

That would be very unfair to them. Because the ordination of married men is not a sin, unless it is prohibited by canon law. The canons that prohibit the ordination of married men do not apply to the Eastern Churches or the Orthodox Churches. They have their own canons.

I think that the misunderstanding here is due to the fact that Brother is speaking to the poster before him, not the OP.

Hope this helps.

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Have you tried the following:
  1. Sons of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Claretians)
  2. Marists
  3. Oblates of Mary Immaculate (OMI)
  4. Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata
  5. Carmelites
  6. Dominicans
  7. Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa’s community)
Those are just a few Marian communities

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation…thanks for your posts. They are very educational & I agree with almost everything you say…I am tired about the debates about married priests as well…especially in the secular media. It seems to me the strongest arguments come from Jesus & St. Paul himself.

We have a lot of deacons in our Archdiocese. 90% of them are old and retired–why? Because they have time to live out their call to be a deacon. The younger ones, with jobs & families–you almost never see them be active in Church–not a criticism but they are putting their responsibilities to their families first.

I once heard a decaon on the radio talk about his problem with porn—so the next thing I know I am looking at every deacon & wondering do they have a problem with porn? You allow married priests, the “problems” aren’t going to go away–you will just create a new set a problems-- a new focus on their sexuality. Are they practicing birth control; are they having affairs…so on, so on?

The fascination with the sex lives of our clergy is becoming obsessive. We shouldn’t be surprised though–because it seems for about the last several hundred years of so everyonoe has been obsessed with the sex life of the Virgin Mary as well–how many people believe she didn’t remain a virgin after giving birth to Jesus? Well almost all the Protestant denominations as well as a lot of Catholics.
 
Not just yet. But in time itr will happen. A lot of thought has to be put in having a wife and children, and what that might entail. It’s an entirely new ball game. A thousand and one questions come up. Will it produce more problems than solutions to priest shortage. Other ways to foster vocations should be explored before we get into marriage.like having more children; and particularly creating a spiritual atmosphere in the home; and discussing religion at the dinner table. There was a program in Lansing, Michigan where the parents brought a chalice to the dinner table and discussed the priesthood. We probably already have of lot of vocations out there that just need encouragement. Too often parents discourage vocations… and we should start there.
 
Thanks guys for all the postings. As the OP I have a few observations

I am only a teen faced with a BBC broadcast to 60 millions Brits I only asked opinions!
The problem with this forum (as I see it) is that it gets hijacked by the same voices who seem to have nothing else to do and then gets totally useless with a lot of off-topic stuff and not relevant to my original posting.
One adult poster seems intent on crushing a youngster’s inexperience with caustic comments - this chap is a religious brother. I would like to suggest that he reads the Rule of Don Bosco:-
“Speak kindly. When a pupil is convinced that his superiors have high hopes for him, he is drawn back again to the practice of virtue. A kind word does more to encourage a child than a severe reprimand which only serves to dampen youthful enthusiasm.”

I am so dispirited by a certain contributor to this entire forum (Byzantine?) that I will never revisit it again.
Farewell forum - you have been weighed and found wanting.

www.catholicpriest.me.uk
The ONLY teens Vocations Site
 
hitherwood1 said:
Thanks guys for all the postings. As the OP I have a few observations

I am only a teen faced with a BBC broadcast to 60 millions Brits I only asked opinions!
The problem with this forum (as I see it) is that it gets hijacked by the same voices who seem to have nothing else to do and then gets totally useless with a lot of off-topic stuff and not relevant to my original posting.
One adult poster seems intent on crushing a youngster’s inexperience with caustic comments - this chap is a religious brother. I would like to suggest that he reads the Rule of Don Bosco:-
“Speak kindly. When a pupil is convinced that his superiors have high hopes for him, he is drawn back again to the practice of virtue. A kind word does more to encourage a child than a severe reprimand which only serves to dampen youthful enthusiasm.”

I am so dispirited by a certain contributor to this entire forum (Byzantine?) that I will never revisit it again.
Farewell forum - you have been weighed and found wanting.

www.catholicpriest.me.uk
The ONLY teens Vocations Site
Click to expand...
Hmmm, as one of the two religious brothers to have replied to this thread all I can say is that all I have done is state the facts.

There is much more that “youthful enthusiasm” in your posts though I will not get into that.

I am sorry to see you go but there is much that you have to learn about life in general and religious life in particular.
 
Since Hitherwood said that he is leaving and not returning, I will not respond to him. But I would like to post some thoughts for everyone else who is reading this thread. Please accept my words as being expressed in the interest of clarity and charity. I may be wrong, so do not take my words to the bank in the morning.
  1. The first problem with the thread is the question. “Should priests be allowed to get married?” Clerics (deacons, priests and bishops have never been allowed to get married). The only historical evidence that we have of a married clergy was the case of married men who were ordained after their wedding. This includes the Apostles. The better question would have been “Should married men be ordained to the priesthood?”
  2. Another point that has to be taken into consideration when asking this question is the fact that almost half of the priests in the Catholic Church are also religious. When we add the number of priests in the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches, almost half of them are religious. If they belong to a religious order, a religious congregation or an autonomous monastery as is often the case among the Eastern Catholic monasteries, the discipline of celibacy is a non question. Religious life, for men and women, is lived through the Evangelical Counsels of obedience, poverty and celibate chastity. The only exception to celibate chastity are members of secular orders. If you take out the clerics who are religious, those who are bishops, those who are married deacons, those who are married and in the Eastern Rites, you’re left with is a small number of secular or diocesan priests in the Latin Rite. From that group, subtract the priests who are married. That reduces the number of celibate priests who are secular. The discipline of celibacy only applies to secular clerics. It does not apply to anyone else. Everyone else is either married or a consecrated religious for whom celibacy is not a discipline, but a way of life.
  3. One must also consider that the question to allow those who are priests to marry, is one that has already been answered by Sacramental Tradition. In this case we can look to the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox Churches for the answer. Those who are already marked by the Sacrament of Holy Orders have never received the Sacrament of Marriage. Therefore, it would be a deviation from Sacramental Tradition to allow ordained me to marry. Remember, this is not the same as allowing married men to be ordained. The Sacramental Tradition is protected by orthodoxy.
  4. It is the opinion of many secular deacons, priests and bishops who are celibate and many religious who are in vows, that at times SOME lay people cross the lines of propriety. These few people sometimes involve themselves in questions and debates that are not really their problem. If anyone should be asking for the ordination of married men to the priesthood, it should be married men who feel called to the priesthood. When it becomes an open debate where every journalist, every person of every faith and every man and woman in the pew can throw their hat into the ring, then there is no longer a discussion of the pros and cons… The subject becomes a campaign where people draw lines and the Catholic community begins to morph into parties. The priesthood of Jesus Christ is to unite the people of God through the grace of God, not divide the people of God by partisan arguing between a bunch of people who do not want to be priests in the first place or those who cannot be priests or priests who cannot get married, because they are already ordained.
That small group of married men who feel called to the priesthood should be the group who should be in dialogue with the Holy See and the rest of us should let them have a private and peaceful dialogue. Our Church is not opposed to dialogue. But it will pull the sling shot back so far that we will feel as if our heads have snapped off, if we try to commandeer her into doing our will.

To conclude, I suggest that we make use of this thread to learn about celibacy and to ask those who are celibate what their experience is. It would also be good to hear from married men who would like to be priests in the Western Rite. We can’t ask this of married men in the Eastern Rite, because they don’t have mandatory celibacy, unless they join a monastery. Many would argue that it is “our problem” because we have a shortage of priests. There are answers to that. First, the shortage of priests will not be resolved by eliminating celibacy, because we have already stated that it only applies to a small number, maybe 30% of Catholic priests Second, the Eastern Rite Catholics and the Orthodox Christians have no mandatory celibacy and they have a shortage of priests. Third, only married men who want to become priests can offer themselves up as candidates to the priesthood. The rest of us cannot volunteer them. If there were that many married men who wanted to become priests, they could petition the Holy See for an indult, just as was done with the Protestant converts. When a large number makes a legitimate petition, Rome does listen. But the people who must petition the Holy See must be married men who believe they are called to Holy Orders.

I hope that we will be able to learn in peace and charity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
ByzCath said:
Hmmm, as one of the two religious brothers to have replied to this thread all I can say is that all I have done is state the facts.

There is much more that “youthful enthusiasm” in your posts though I will not get into that.

I am sorry to see you go but there is much that you have to learn about life in general and religious life in particular.
Click to expand...
Sorry - but you were 100% the reason I left this forum. You dominate discussions, you are hurtful and patronising (sure I have to learn about life in general, but at 15 there is potential, when you are are crusty old bachelor there is very little scope for change) and I wouldn’t want you anywhere near vocations discernment. Since I posted my comments I have had dozens of complaints about this Forum and members (including myself) who find it negative, not properly moderated, frustrating and totally negative when it comes to helping young people.

Please don’t waste time by posting another totally useless response because I won’t be here to read it. If you have time when you are not posting 5000 replies, just examine your conscience and ask yourself why you have too much time to post here - presumably they won’t let you loose on real pastoral work?
 
hitherwood1 said:
Sorry - but you were 100% the reason I left this forum. You dominate discussions, you are hurtful and patronising (sure I have to learn about life in general, but at 15 there is potential, when you are are crusty old bachelor there is very little scope for change) and I wouldn’t want you anywhere near vocations discernment. Since I posted my comments I have had dozens of complaints about this Forum and members (including myself) who find it negative, not properly moderated, frustrating and totally negative when it comes to helping young people.

Please don’t waste time by posting another totally useless response because I won’t be here to read it. If you have time when you are not posting 5000 replies, just examine your conscience and ask yourself why you have too much time to post here - presumably they won’t let you loose on real pastoral work?
Click to expand...
Thank you for your concern and your post. I think my point is proven.
 
hitherwood1 said:
Sorry - but you were 100% the reason I left this forum. You dominate discussions, you are hurtful and patronising (sure I have to learn about life in general, but at 15 there is potential, when you are are crusty old bachelor there is very little scope for change) and I wouldn’t want you anywhere near vocations discernment. Since I posted my comments I have had dozens of complaints about this Forum and members (including myself) who find it negative, not properly moderated, frustrating and totally negative when it comes to helping young people.

Please don’t waste time by posting another totally useless response because I won’t be here to read it. If you have time when you are not posting 5000 replies, just examine your conscience and ask yourself why you have too much time to post here - presumably they won’t let you loose on real pastoral work?
Click to expand...
I am reminded of my mother. If we had ever addressed a religious, a priest, a rabbi or a minister in such a manner, she would have handed our heads to us on a plastic plate, not even a sylver platter. There was a certain degree of respect that you were to show toward such persons and everyone else too, but especially religious, clergy and rabbis.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top