Should the Church allow married Priests?

[fix]

On the other hand, it’s certainly not a dogma. Couldn’t the question perhaps be negotiated one day in the direction of a free choice between a celibate and a noncelibate form of life?

No, it’s certainly not a dogma. It is an accustomed way of life that evolved very early in the Church on good biblical grounds. Recent studies show that celibacy goes back much farther than the usually acknowledged canonical sources would indicate, back to the second century. In the East, too, it was much more widespread than we have been able to realize up until now. In the East it isn’t until the seventh century that there is a parting of the ways. Today as before, monasticism in the East is still the foundation that sustains the priesthood and the hierarchy. In that sense, celibacy also has a very major significance in the East.

It is not a dogma. It is a form of life that has grown up in the Church and that naturally always brings with it the danger of a fall. When one aims so high, there are failures. I think that what provokes people today against celibacy is that they see how many priests really aren’t inwardly in agreement with it and either live it hypocritically, badly, not at all, or only live it in a tortured way. So people say …

… it ruins them …

** The poorer an age is in faith, the more frequent the falls.** This robs celibacy of its credibility and obscures the real point of it. People need to get straight in their minds that times of crisis for celibacy are always times of crisis for marriage as well. For, as a matter of fact, today we are experiencing not only violations of celibacy; marriage itself is becoming increasingly fragile as the basis of our society. In the legislation of Western nations we see how it is increasingly placed on the same level as other forms and is thereby largely “dissolved” as a legal form. Nor is the hard work needed really to live marriage negligible.** Put in practical terms, after the abolition of celibacy we would only have a different kind of problem with divorced priests.** That is not unknown in the Protestant Churches. In this sense, we see, of course, that the lofty forms of human existence involve great risks…

Mustn’t celibacy be dropped for the simple reason that otherwise the Church won’t get any more priests?
**
I don’t think that the argument is really sound.**…

**JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0633.html**

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

On the other hand, it’s certainly not a dogma. Couldn’t the question perhaps be negotiated one day in the direction of a free choice between a celibate and a noncelibate form of life?

No, it’s certainly not a dogma. It is an accustomed way of life that evolved very early in the Church on good biblical grounds. Recent studies show that celibacy goes back much farther than the usually acknowledged canonical sources would indicate, back to the second century. In the East, too, it was much more widespread than we have been able to realize up until now. In the East it isn’t until the seventh century that there is a parting of the ways. Today as before, monasticism in the East is still the foundation that sustains the priesthood and the hierarchy. In that sense, celibacy also has a very major significance in the East.

Yes, it was something practiced in the early Church, along with a married priesthood. It was not the only way in the early Church, it has never been the only way in the Eastern Churches. It was not until the fourth century or so that it became the only way in the Western Church.

 

[fix]

ByzCath:

Yes, it was something practiced in the early Church, along with a married priesthood. It was not the only way in the early Church, it has never been the only way in the Eastern Churches. It was not until the fourth century or so that it became the only way in the Western Church.

Certainly in the Western Church there were more celibate, than married priests in the early years, agree?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

fix:

Certainly in the Western Church there were more celibate, than married priests in the early years, agree?

I do not think we can even know this for sure so I can not agree.

I can only agree that secular clergy were both married and celibate and that all monastics were celibate in the early Church.

 

[IesusDeus]

Naphali:

For the first 800 years of church history there were married priests – not just because they converted that way but because it was acceptable – It changed because the church couldn’t afford to support families when the priests died – and celebacy didn’t seem like that bad a way to go since monks were already celebate, and naturally Jesus was –

Thanks for the info, I was doing a search to look at the history of the celibacy requirement. How it originated. (Regardless of the reasons. Personally, I think that celibacy is good for a priest.)

What pope actually establish this dicipline? In what document?

Edited to say that I just read “**Recent studies show that celibacy goes back much farther than the usually acknowledged canonical sources would indicate, back to the second century.”

**My question about how it came about still stand.

 

[Island_Oak]

I have to admit to enjoying several articles I’ve read recently about widows/widowers joining religious orders. They can maintain the celibacy vow, yet come with a wealth of marital/family experience.

Personally, I am much more in favor of celibate women priests than opening up ordination to currently married or to-be-married folks. (Spare me the you’re-a-heretic-going-to-hell lecture–the poll asks opinions–I’m giving mine.)

 

[Brendan]

I’m not against it, mostly becuase there has never been a time in the history of the Church where we have NOT had married priests.

That said, the acceptance of any given canidate to Holy Orders is a matter strictly left to the Holy See and his delegated Ordinaries; I will accept as a priest any man whom the Pope has declared to be a priest.

 

[fix]

ByzCath:

I do not think we can even know this for sure so I can not agree.

I can only agree that secular clergy were both married and celibate and that all monastics were celibate in the early Church.

Answer by Karl Keating on 10-23-2000: I recommend that you read Fr. Christian Cochini’s book “The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy.” He demonstates that it is NOT true that in the early centuries most priests were married. In fact, he lists by name ALL of the priests of the early centuries who were known to have been married, either while they were priests or before they became priests–only about 200 in all. The fact is that the rule of celibacy (which St. Paul endorsed) was the rule from the first. The Eastern Orthodox usage actually came along much later. KK

 

[otm]

matthias:

I was unable to vote in this pole because it didn’t provide an option for the obvious.

The Church ALREADY ALLOWS married priests.

The question aught to be, “should the Latin Rite Catholic Church change it’s discipline regarding priestly celibacy”.

To which I would answer… No. Not at this time. Especially when our culture is so “oversexed” as it is. We need the celibate priests in the Western world to provide a witness to the virtue of chastity and celibacy.

If our culture had a healthy perspective on sex and family life I could understand why the ecclesial authority might allow for some married priests. (presuming it was within the accepted tradition of marriage before ordination)

However, a married priest can be and is also a witness to the virtue of chastity. We sometimes forget that chastity is not simply something to be exercised by those in the single life.

 

[otm]

matthias:

Also…
What’s wrong with the diaconate?
If the problem with vocational numbers was a problem of not allowing married men to be ordained wouldn’t there be an overwelming number of deacons? Well I don’t see men beating down the cathedral doors to get ordained to the diaconate. The problem is our screwed up culture and how much we have allowed modernism to subvert our faith. Orthodox diocese have far more priestly vocations than the “modernist” “enlightened” “relevant” “hip” “?liberal?” diocese.

No, there would not necessarily be an overwhelming number of deacons; some are called to the deaconite, some to the priesthood. While they are both ordained, they are different vocations.

As far as men beating down the door, the deaconite is a quite new (as well as old) position as it was only recently instituted, and so it will teak time ofr deacons to be ordained, give witness to the vocation, and provide the “leaven” for more vocations.

And as an aside, we have one deacon just recently ordained in our parish, and another one well along the way in his studies.

 

[otm]

On the other hand, it’s certainly not a dogma. Couldn’t the question perhaps be negotiated one day in the direction of a free choice between a celibate and a noncelibate form of life?

No, it’s certainly not a dogma. It is an accustomed way of life that evolved very early in the Church on good biblical grounds. Recent studies show that celibacy goes back much farther than the usually acknowledged canonical sources would indicate, back to the second century. In the East, too, it was much more widespread than we have been able to realize up until now. In the East it isn’t until the seventh century that there is a parting of the ways. Today as before, monasticism in the East is still the foundation that sustains the priesthood and the hierarchy. In that sense, celibacy also has a very major significance in the East.

It is not a dogma. It is a form of life that has grown up in the Church and that naturally always brings with it the danger of a fall. When one aims so high, there are failures. I think that what provokes people today against celibacy is that they see how many priests really aren’t inwardly in agreement with it and either live it hypocritically, badly, not at all, or only live it in a tortured way. So people say …

… it ruins them …

** The poorer an age is in faith, the more frequent the falls.** This robs celibacy of its credibility and obscures the real point of it. People need to get straight in their minds that times of crisis for celibacy are always times of crisis for marriage as well. For, as a matter of fact, today we are experiencing not only violations of celibacy; marriage itself is becoming increasingly fragile as the basis of our society. In the legislation of Western nations we see how it is increasingly placed on the same level as other forms and is thereby largely “dissolved” as a legal form. Nor is the hard work needed really to live marriage negligible.** Put in practical terms, after the abolition of celibacy we would only have a different kind of problem with divorced priests.** That is not unknown in the Protestant Churches. In this sense, we see, of course, that the lofty forms of human existence involve great risks…

Mustn’t celibacy be dropped for the simple reason that otherwise the Church won’t get any more priests?
**
I don’t think that the argument is really sound.**…

**JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0633.html**

I fail to see why then Cardinal Ratzinger sets up the straw man of “abolishing celibacy”. Celibacy openly chosen has more credibility than celibacy required.

 

[otm]

Brendan:

I’m not against it, mostly becuase there has never been a time in the history of the Church where we have NOT had married priests.

That said, the acceptance of any given canidate to Holy Orders is a matter strictly left to the Holy See and his delegated Ordinaries; I will accept as a priest any man whom the Pope has declared to be a priest.

Actually, it isn’t the Pope who declares someone a priest; it is the ordaining bishop.

 

[otm]

Island Oak:

I have to admit to enjoying several articles I’ve read recently about widows/widowers joining religious orders. They can maintain the celibacy vow, yet come with a wealth of marital/family experience.

Personally, I am much more in favor of celibate women priests than opening up ordination to currently married or to-be-married folks. (Spare me the you’re-a-heretic-going-to-hell lecture–the poll asks opinions–I’m giving mine.)

Actually, it is not about opening up ordination to married folks; it is already open. It is about opening it more widely.

 

[otm]

Answer by Karl Keating on 10-23-2000: I recommend that you read Fr. Christian Cochini’s book “The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy.” He demonstates that it is NOT true that in the early centuries most priests were married. In fact, he lists by name ALL of the priests of the early centuries who were known to have been married, either while they were priests or before they became priests–only about 200 in all. The fact is that the rule of celibacy (which St. Paul endorsed) was the rule from the first. The Eastern Orthodox usage actually came along much later. KK

If there was a “rule” of celibacy, then it was a rule that was not followed.

It might be better to say that ceilibacy as a charism was practiced in the Church within the priesthood from the earliest days. I don’t know anyone who has produced a rule from the earliset Church; my recollection is that the first rule was in Spain, for priests in Spain (and that appears not to have been absolute).

And Karl’s comment is a bit disingenuous coming from an attorney; he should know that the fact that we have names listed as married does not, in fact, indicate that the lists were complete or exhaustive.

Both married an celibate clergy existed from the early Church; and the rule of requiring ony celibacy was some time in coming, and then not absolutely enforced for a long time.

 

[joshua1]

I think an open priesthood in general to married men would be a mistake. With all the circumstances that have already been mentioned here, there are definitely more minuses than pluses. I think it would only be a band-aid solution. Priests, unless they belong to a specific religious order do not take vows. They only promise to be obedient to their Bishop and observe all the disciplines and canon laws of the Church. A Diocesan priest told me this about twenty years ago, so I think I am remembering correctly.

 

[fix]

otm:

I fail to see why then Cardinal Ratzinger sets up the straw man of “abolishing celibacy”. Celibacy openly chosen has more credibility than celibacy required.

I see no merit in changing the discipline. At this time there is such a crisis in the vocation of marriage all changing things would due is cloud Church authority in the minds of many.

We do not need more married priests. We need more holy priests and more holy lay folks. Christ was celibate and He is the ideal for a priest.

 

[IesusDeus]

I found the answer to my question about the history of celibacy of the clergy HERE

Thanks

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

fix:

I see no merit in changing the discipline. At this time there is such a crisis in the vocation of marriage all changing things would due is cloud Church authority in the minds of many.

fix, I agree that the discipline should not change in the Latin Church, at least not for any of the reasons put forward so far but I disagree with the reason you put. That it would cloud Church authroity in the minds of many. Those who this would happen to are already having problems with that sort of thing. It could be done with proper cathesis, which is needed anyways.

I think the current way things are done does more to cloud Church authority in the minds of many. That is some of the Churches that make up the Catholic Church having the discipline of a married clergy and the Latin Church granting dispensations from Rome to ordain married men. That causes more clouds than changing the discipline could ever do.

We do not need more married priests. We need more holy priests and more holy lay folks. Christ was celibate and He is the ideal for a priest.

This statement strikes me as odd. You seem to be saying that married priests are not holy and that a celibate is ideal for the priesthood. Both could not be farther from the truth. I think St Peter was an excelent priest, bishop, and pope.

 

[fix]

ByzCath:

fix, I agree that the discipline should not change in the Latin Church, at least not for any of the reasons put forward so far but I disagree with the reason you put. That it would cloud Church authroity in the minds of many. Those who this would happen to are already having problems with that sort of thing. It could be done with proper cathesis, which is needed anyways.

I think the current way things are done does more to cloud Church authority in the minds of many. That is some of the Churches that make up the Catholic Church having the discipline of a married clergy and the Latin Church granting dispensations from Rome to ordain married men. That causes more clouds than changing the discipline could ever do.

Here, I agree with you.

This statement strikes me as odd. You seem to be saying that married priests are not holy and that a celibate is ideal for the priesthood. Both could not be farther from the truth. I think St Peter was an excelent priest, bishop, and pope.

I am not saying married priests cannot be holy. I was speaking to those who think the abuse crisis would be solved by having married men become priests.

As for Peter. Do you have evidence he was still married when he was a priest or pope?

Yes, celibacy is the ideal.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

fix:

I am not saying married priests cannot be holy. I was speaking to those who think the abuse crisis would be solved by having married men become priests.

That was my point, none of the reasons put forward will be solved by changing the discipline. The top two are the abuse crisis and the vocation crisis.

As for Peter. Do you have evidence he was still married when he was a priest or pope?

No, just as you do not have any evidence to say he wasn’t.

Yes, celibacy is the ideal.

I just don’t agree with this. I do not believe there is an ideal as Christ picked Peter, a married man, and none of us know about the other apostles.