Should priests be allowed to marry?

[gryskull]

I really think that priest ought to remain celibate. There are a lot of advantages of a priest being celibate. First is his time. At a moments notice he certainly can administer the sacraments to whomever it is needed. Second is he can focus more on the pastoral care for his parish. Third,…let me think about it. Two will do for now.

St. Paul even recommends it, although it is not a commandment from God, in 1 Cor 7. Please read the whole chapter, it’s a good one. I think St. Paul also saw the advantages of being celibate for the service of God.

Contrary to popular belief allowing priest to marry won’t increase vocations or decrease the abuse that has given the church a stigma in the last 3 years. Looking at the survey that the John Jay College we can see that there are a greater number of abuse in the lay people than in the clergy, percentage wise(4% for lay men and 2% for priest). Basing from the numbers reported marraige is not a solution for the abuse. As CA puts it "If a priest-or any person for that matter-has a disordered sexual desire, marriage is not the cure. Experiencing the redemptive power of Christ in one’s fallen sexuality is the cure. " Again, in regard to the decrease in vocation the vatican says that there has been an increase of vocations to the priesthood since 1975. From 60,142 to 109,828(numbers from CA). Marraige is a sacrament of t’s own and celibacy is a discipline that comes with being a priest and not everyone is called to be one. In the words of Jesus himself “whoever can accept it ought to accept it.”

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

This is an area of discipline rather than dogma. That being said, I don’'t have a problem with the hypothetical of priests being married.

However, the current discipline for those ordained is no marriage.

Blessings
Richard

 

[Forest-Pine]

My answer has nothing to do with the priest shortage. (I think the answer to that is better catechesis and a revival of the faith which will show fruit in more people answering the call to religious life.)

I believe that married men joining the priesthood should be an option. Episcopalian convert priests regularly serve as Latin Rite diocesan priests. My area has a large number of them. I respect the call to celibacy and believe it should remain a strong option as well. Perhaps different orders could allow married men while others remain open to only celibates. I do not know how it works in the Latin Rite, but in the Eastern Rites, married men are not allowed to be more than priests. Bishops are chosen from celibates only. Since there are a number of married Latin Rite priests, and I’ve never heard of one being bishop (in current times), I’m sure such a rule has to be in place at least in practice if not set in stone.

I do not believe that priests should be allowed to marry, though. First, they have made a promise of celibacy if they entered the priesthood unmarried, which they would be breaking. Second, I don’t think a priest should be looking at his flock as possible dates. He is called “Father” for a reason. If there is already a “Mother” present and he then has the addition of us “kids” it is different than becoming the Father first and looking at us kids as possible dates.

In Eastern parishes, the priest’s wife holds a very important role and is often called the church “mother.” This is something that I have NOT seen carried over into the Latin Rite, which I would like to see. It would relieve some of the burden from the priest (a woman can just as easily deliver groceries or drive a person to the doctors or pray the rosary) while also allowing the priest to share his ministerial position and the emotional ups and downs with his wife, who truly understands, as it is just as much her life as it is his. The Episcopalian converts I’ve seen treat the priesthood as more of an 8-5, with on-call status, and their married life as seperate. In this situation, a wife becomes another “burden” or “responsibility.” In the Eastern view (which I do think merits looking at as they have been doing it successfully for 2,000 years), the wife becomes a helpmate and another set of eyes and hands for the priest. It produces quite a different result.
Answers.com:

Priests, and deacons have always been men only because they represent Christ, who chose to be male. Nevertheless, Orthodox consider men and women equal before God. A priest’s wife is therefore called “Presbytera” (Gr. Πρεσβυτερα, literally Priestess) and a deacon’s wife “Diakonissa” (Gr. Διάκονισα, literally deaconess) for the same reason. A married man cannot accept ordination without his wife’s approval, and it is common for these dedicated women to be just as busy ministering to the faithful as their husbands.

As someone pointed out the need for more permanent deacons, I thought I would throw this out as well. It is interesting, to say the least.
Answers.com:

There also existed in the early church the official position of deaconess, which most Orthodox historians agree was not identical to the male diaconate. It is not known why the position of deaconess has mostly fallen out of use; there is no official reason why a woman could not occupy that position. Modern examples do exist: Saint Nectarios, Bishop of Pentapolis established a convent on the Isle of Aegina in Greece in 1904 and reportedly had a deaconess there.

 

[ScottH]

What does 1 Timothy say on the matter? Lets consult scripture moreso than tradition.

 

[Forest-Pine]

ScottH:

What does 1 Timothy say on the matter? Lets consult scripture moreso than tradition.

Timothy says that married men can be bishops or deacons (there were no intermediate priests at the time IIRC) and that women can be deacons.

ETA: It even appears in Timothy’s time that the person would be expected to be married. Nonetheless, no one (that I know of) argues that married priests are not *allowable *(after all, we have plenty), but the argument is that they are not desirable. In this circumstance, tradition is where we would look for guidance.
1 Timothy 3:

1 This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.
2 Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,
3 not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.
4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity;
5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?
6 He should not be a recent convert, so that he may not become conceited and thus incur the devil’s punishment.
7 He must also have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, the devil’s trap.

8 Similarly, deacons must be dignified, not deceitful, not addicted to drink, not greedy for sordid gain,
9 holding fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
10 Moreover, they should be tested first; then, if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
11 Women, similarly, should be dignified, not slanderers, but temperate and faithful in everything.
12 Deacons may be married only once and must manage their children and their households well.
13 Thus those who serve well as deacons gain good standing and much confidence in their faith in Christ Jesus.

14 I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon.
15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
16 Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion, Who was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed to the Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

 

[Orionthehunter]

ScottH:

What does 1 Timothy say on the matter? Lets consult scripture moreso than tradition.

I’m sure he is referring to the references to bishops and deacons only being married once. While appropriate to a religion growing so fast that it was necessary to draw Priests from all walks of life even the vocation of marriage, it is not an afront to Scripture to separate the vocations of Priesthood and family life. Personally, I think that we get better Priests and better fathers with the separation.

While it might work for Protestants, to require Priests to do daily Mass, run schools, catechise nearly every evening and be available 24-7 for unscheduled Confessions and Annointings of the Sick and balance being a good husband and father is too much to ask of a mere human.

Last week, this was my Priests schedule (where is there time to be even a bad husband and father?):

Every day he does the Liturgy of the hours in the morning and evening, spends an hour in Eucharistic Adoration/prayer time in our chapel, and tries to call/visit at least one homebound parishioner a day.

Monday: Day off but had two meetings that evening

Tuesday-Thursday a.m and p.m…: Daily Mass, administer the parish. Every evening there was either a meeting for couples getting married, RCIA candidate interviews, CCD or Baptism preparation meetings.

Friday a.m.- Daily Mass with the grade school kids
Friday p.m.- Funeral
Friday evening- Spiritual Direction and Confession at a weekend retreat

Saturday a.m.- Spiritual Direction and Confession at a weekend retreat.
Saturday p.m.- Funeral
Saturday p.m.- Confessions
Saturday evening- Mass

Sunda a.m.- Three Masses
Sunday p.m.- visit the sick at the hospital
Sunday evening- RCIA class

Let me tell you a story. A friend of mine was on a pilgrimage to Germany and Poland that included some Priests. While on the pilgrimage, they toured one of the concentration camps with a group that included a Lutheran pastor. On one of the plaques, it talked how 175 Catholic Priests and 5 Lutheran Ministers were executed (my numbers may be slightly off but the proportion is approximately right) at this camp. The Lutheran pastor came over to my friend’s group and he told them that he was a Lutheran pastor and he noticed everyone remarking about how this could be in a country that is 4:1 Lutheran to Catholic.

He explained to them that it is a testament to the Catholic policy of celibacy in the priesthood. He admitted that althought he would have wanted to have stood up to Nazism as these Priests did but because he has a family, he would have been afraid to do so while these Priests were more free to preach the Gospel as opposed to water down the message out of fear for what the Nazi’s would do to his family as this was the “threat” the Nazi’s used to coopt the Lutheran Church during these dark days of Germany’s history.

 

[a_pilgrim]

Catholic4aReasn:

Well, either way you end up with a priest who is married. I don’t much see the difference.

Actually, Nancy, there is a very big difference… simply put, one scenario is currently acceptable and allowed within our Catholic Church (certainly in the Eastern Catholic Church and, in numerous cases, in the Latin Catholic Church as well), while the other is not.

I fear I cannot respond to your poll at all in the form in which it’s worded. If I were to choose “Yes!” as my response, I’d be saying that I believe that an ordained priest should be allowed to marry (which I do not). If I were to choose “No!” my response would almost certainly be intrepreted as a vote against the practice of a married man being ordained to the priesthood (which it is not). If I were to choose “I have mixed feelings on that” I’d be lying because my feelings on this topic are specific and not at all mixed.

Now, if you really and truly intended to ask if a man already ordained to the priesthood should be allowed to marry, my guess is that your results would show an overwhelming “No!”… even those of us who belong to sui iuris Churches that allow married men to become priests would be forced to vote “No!” on that one… but I don’t think that’s quite what you were looking for here, right?

…and no, I’m not just picking on you because you’re a Packers fan (GO BEARS!)

 

[Dan-Man916]

I used to think it was a slam dunk, of course they should be allowed to marry.
But after a simplistic reasoning and educating myself a little on the reasons why the Church saw fit to impose the discipline of celibacy, I am of mixed feelings. After really thinking about this and studying a little, I would now be in total favor of a non-married clergy except I see it is working for Deacons and it has worked in the Eastern traditions for priests. So I am trying to learn why it works there to educate my opinion better.

As I learn more about Eastern Christiainity, I am seeing that we western Christians can sometimes out things too much in a box when it is not warranted.

 

[a_pilgrim]

I just stumbled upon a very apropos statement made by a good friend of mine on another thread. I trust he won’t object to my sharing it with you in this thread…

What has been most tragically lost in the churches with mandatory celibacy is the tradition of sons following their fathers or grandfathers into the priestly ministry. It has always been a rich source of vocations for the eastern church and interfering with that is like shooting ones own foot.

 

[RobNY]

Della:

I think the way out of the priest shortage (which only really exists in the industrialized world) would be for the dioceses to promote more vocations to the permanent diaconate. A permanent deacon can conduct communion services, read the Gospel, preach, visit the sick, witness marriage vows, baptize, and so take some of the liturgical burdens off the pastor, especially if there is only one priest at a parish or one priest who is covering several parishes.

Sorry, but this idea is 100% false. The priest shortage is due to a lack of orthodoxy, not a lack of calling. God is calling plenty, just people aren’t listening. They’re tuning out. The only way to return respect to the priesthood and interest in it among young men is to pound Eucharistic theology into our young men. When people realize that it is through the priest’s role that the Holy Sacrament is consecrated, they’ll have much more respect for the priesthood. The answer is vibrant orthodoxy and intense concentration on Eucharistic theology.

–Spoken as a young Catholic man who must discern whether or not he has a calling to the priesthood or not, God Bless,
Rob

Originally Posted by Answers.com
There also existed in the early church the official position of deaconess, which most Orthodox historians agree was not identical to the male diaconate. It is not known why the position of deaconess has mostly fallen out of use; there is no official reason why a woman could not occupy that position. Modern examples do exist: Saint Nectarios, Bishop of Pentapolis established a convent on the Isle of Aegina in Greece in 1904 and reportedly had a deaconess there.

There is a big difference here: deaconesses were **not **female deacons! They were not ordained. This Catholic.com tract covers it:

Council of Nicaea I

“Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity” (Canon 19 [A.D. 325]).

Council of Laodicea

“[T]he so-called ‘presbyteresses’ or ‘presidentesses’ are not to be ordained in the Church” (Canon 11 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius of Salamis offers strong words against ordination, and then gives the reasoning for the deaconesses:

Epiphanius of Salamis

“Certain women there in Arabia [the Collyridians] … In an unlawful and blasphemous ceremony … ordain women, through whom they offer up the sacrifice in the name of Mary. This means that the entire proceeding is godless and sacrilegious, a perversion of the message of the Holy Spirit; in fact, the whole thing is diabolical and a teaching of the impure spirit” (Against Heresies 78:13 [A.D. 377]).

"It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess" (ibid.).

Essentially, to avoid scandal in the Church. Some final quotes:

The Apostolic Constitutions

“A virgin is not ordained, for we have no such command from the Lord, for this is a state of voluntary trial, not for the reproach of marriage, but on account of leisure for piety” (Apostolic Constitutions 8:24 [A.D. 400]).

“Appoint, [O Bishop], a deaconess, faithful and holy, for the ministering of women. For sometimes it is not possible to send a deacon into certain houses of women, because of unbelievers. Send a deaconess, because of the thoughts of the petty. A deaconess is of use to us also in many other situations. First of all, in the baptizing of women, a deacon will touch only their forehead with the holy oil, and afterwards the female deacon herself anoints them” (ibid., 3:16).

“A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women” (ibid., 8:28).

As the practice of full immersion baptism, as far as I know, isn’t widely in practice in the West, I can see why the practice of deaconesses died out.

-Rob

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ScottH:

What does 1 Timothy say on the matter? Lets consult scripture moreso than tradition.

Scripture is nothing other than written Tradition. Small “t” tradition is something entirely different:

What is Sacred Tradition?- Mark Shea

1 Tim is often misinterpeted to mean that a bishop MUST be married when in reality the writer was saying that a bishop could only be married once.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

a pilgrim:

Actually, Nancy, there is a very big difference… simply put, one scenario is currently acceptable and allowed within our Catholic Church (certainly in the Eastern Catholic Church and, in numerous cases, in the Latin Catholic Church as well), while the other is not.

I fear I cannot respond to your poll at all in the form in which it’s worded. If I were to choose “Yes!” as my response, I’d be saying that I believe that an ordained priest should be allowed to marry (which I do not). If I were to choose “No!” my response would almost certainly be intrepreted as a vote against the practice of a married man being ordained to the priesthood (which it is not). If I were to choose “I have mixed feelings on that” I’d be lying because my feelings on this topic are specific and not at all mixed.

Now, if you really and truly intended to ask if a man already ordained to the priesthood should be allowed to marry, my guess is that your results would show an overwhelming “No!”… even those of us who belong to sui iuris Churches that allow married men to become priests would be forced to vote “No!” on that one… but I don’t think that’s quite what you were looking for here, right?

…and no, I’m not just picking on you because you’re a Packers fan (GO BEARS!)

It was just a simple poll on married clergy. Again, I wasn’t speaking of ordained converts to the faith just on married Roman Catholic priests. I didn’t specify if I meant men who because priests and then got married or married men who became priests because, for my poll, it doesn’t really matter. You’re making this far more complicated than is necessary.

In Christ,
Nancy

PS GO PACKERS!

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

RobNY:

Sorry, but this idea is 100% false. The priest shortage is due to a lack of orthodoxy, not a lack of calling.

Have you read Goodby! Good Men?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[otm]

WanderAimlessly:

No, Never.

PF

Then what do you have to say about all the married Catholic priests?

 

[otm]

seagal:

I feel very strongly that priests should not be allowed to marry, for a couple of reasons.

I’ve heard the argument that priests would be better able to serve their parishoners if they were married because they could relate to and counsel married couples. My answer is, if a counsellor had to experience everything that his/her clients went through in order to help them properly, they would be thoroughly messed up. Would a counsellor have to go through an abusive relationship or be depressed and suicidal before they could offer comfort to someone who has? Obviously not. Could a married counsellor help someone who was single? Of course.

The other reason is that the call to priesthood is a vocation. So is the call to marriage or single life, at least that’s what I hear every Vocation Sunday. Some people are called to be priests or religious, others are called to marriage, and others are called to be celebate singles. I believe that you cannot divide yourself and devote your efforts to 2 entirely different ways of life. A married priest would be divided in his loyalties to his parish and his family. One or the other will suffer, and that simply isn’t right.

So are you saying that all the parishes which have a married priest are poorly served, and that the married priests we have are poor pirests because they have dividied loyalties?

 

[otm]

Apostle X:

No, I don’t believe that priest should be allowed to marry. I am going to be a priest, and I am perfectly fine with not being able to marry. There’s nothing wrong with it.

Are you making the assumption that someone is saying there is something wrong with celibacy if one suggests that there might be married priests?

 

[otm]

Catholic4aReasn:

Well, either way you end up with a priest who is married. I don’t much see the difference.

In Christ,
Nancy

The difference is that the Church has a 2000 year tradition of ordaining priests who are already married, but has little or no tradition of allowing priests who are unmarried at the time of ordination to marry subsequently.

 

[otm]

Church Militant:

I agree with priestly celibacy because of these two New Testament scriptures:

Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

1st Corinthians 7:6-9
“6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.”

The Lord’s own words seem to sum it all up best, and I think that most priests know it. The real answer is to pray for and encourage vocations…something that a lot of Catholics have long since ceased doing…just like diligently praying for our clergy and religious.

None of the quotes say that priests should only be celibate, however, and neither does the 2000 year tradition of the Church.

While the post, as was pointed out above, should have been written differently, the question is not so much whether you agree with priestly celibacy, but rather, should the Church ordain any married men (it already does)?

 

[otm]

HappyCatholic01:

And for what Priests is this a major issue? The only ones who even say thias is an issue are the ones who also teach that we can vote our conscience on abortion, that women should also eb Priests, or any other misguided theories.

Deacons can be married, and it isn’t as though the deaconate is busting wide open at the seams!

Most Priests I have spoken too don’t rate this as a major issue.

May I suggest that you are not talking with many priests? To suggest that only priests who run counter to the Magisterium are making any comments is simply a sign that you have not listened much to the conversation.

And as to your comment about married deacons, the program hasn’t been around that long, and as a matter of fact, it is acknowledged to be growing rapidly.

Further, while I might agree that this is not as major an issue, say, as the issue of homosexual men in the priesthood, much of the conversation is not from priests but from laity.

 

[Ghosty]

I want to point out, as I did on another thread, that deaconesses would be what’s called a sacramental rather than a Sacrament. Equivalents today are extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. Not long ago we had a number of such positions in the Church, including the exorcist and acolyte, which were laymen blessed with certain ministries within the Church.

There would be no problem in blessing women into the role of deaconess again, as it’s done in the Orthodox Church to this day, but such a role is a totally different ball game from the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Peace and God bless!