The Future of the Celebration of the Mass

[Solomonson]

This quote from now Pope Francis continues to make me think:
*
"…Our sociologists of religion tell us that the influence of a parish has a radius of six hundred meters (about 1/3 of a mile.) In Buenos Aires there are about two thousand meters (about a mile and a quarter) between one parish and the next. So I then told the priests: “If you can, rent a garage and, if you find some willing layman, let him go there! Let him be with those people a bit, do a little catechesis and even give Communion if they ask him.” A parish priest said to me: “But Father, if we do this the people then won’t come to church.” “But why?” I asked him: “Do they come to Mass now?” “No,” he answered. And so! Coming out of oneself is also coming out from the fenced garden of one’s own convictions, considered irremovable, if they risk becoming an obstacle, if they close the horizon that is also of God…" – Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 2007.

Rf. catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=17308*

I have come to the conclusion that in time, the manner in which men are chosen and formed to celebrate the Mass will change in the Roman Rite.

First, the Pope and the rest of the bishops aren’t going to change. Nor is the celibate priesthood as we know it. But I do believe there will be another “class” (for lack of a better word) of priests that will augment the existing priesthood. The focus of this new form of priest will be to celebrate the Mass on Holy Days of obligation and to otherwise provide catechesis.

These priests will be either married or celibate, but they won’t be able to be married once they are ordained. They also won’t be eligible to be made bishops. One key will be their age which is probably best answered by retirement schedules and actuarial tables.

I think if married priests were accepted on even a modest scale in the Latin Rite that it would cause havoc with the current celibate/seminary trained priesthood. However, I think the existing priesthood would tolerate this new class of priest if they were not able to begin their ministries until they were somewhere between 55 and 60 years old. They would be men (retirees or otherwise) that were financially set, with their own health insurance, in good health. They would be paid a stipend if necessary to cover their hard costs.

Their formation, key #2 would be via directed study and praxis with their existing pastors, rather than seminary. While some might become pastors themselves, I would envision most would become parochial vicars/curates. They could be active as long as their health and spirit allowed them to be.

Key #3 (and perhaps most important), would be the selection of men. Men would not apply. They would have to be chosen. Very carefully chosen at that. I cannot overstate how important the selection process would need to be. Individuals would have to prove years of being faithful Mass goers, with strong ties to their communities, suitable secular education, etc., etc. If this process became political or was minimized, the whole program could well fall apart. I think the only real resistance would come from permanent deacons, but that’s something that could be overcome.

I have seen this to some degree with our Orthodox brethren. Their priests are often married and employed or they are secularly retired. They are formed as priest right in their parishes by their pastors and not via seminary.

While there would no doubt be plenty of resistance by the existing guard, I think it could work well in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. I think it could also attract millions to or back to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which would truly be awesome.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Pope Francis is known as The Bishop of the Slums.

Why?

Because Pope Francis went there. As Priest, Bishop, and I believe, ArchBishop, Pope Francis took Mass into the Slums himself.

So when reading this

“And so! Coming out of oneself is also coming out from the fenced garden of one’s own convictions, considered irremovable, if they risk becoming an obstacle, if they close the horizon that is also of God…” – Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 2007."

Think of the Bishop and Archbishop and Priests taking Mass into the slums.

abc.net.au/radionational/programs/religionandethicsreport/5317996

google.com.au/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/274201/

Think of that wonderful man now our Pope.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Solomonson you say these priests would “not apply but be chosen”. Who exactly would choose them, though? Based on your past comments, I really wonder who you would trust in the Church hierarchy to make such decisions.

I can’t quite put a finger on why, but Solomonson, this post as well as your many prior posts, give me the impression you see priests the way many people see politicians and civil servants in the secular realm. The idea that “You guys are paid with taxpayer money, so WE the taxpayers and citizens, are your bosses and have the right to expect and demand high quality work, and we have the right to criticize you if you don’t do a good job”.

I’m not even Catholic but I do not think of the office of the priesthood as just another job, and that priests are fair game to be critiqued as harshly as you’d critique some low level bureaucrat at the Motor Vehicles office, and does not have any real authority attached to it. Maybe you don’t actually think that about priests, but that’s the impression I get. That they have to earn your respect individually, not due to their office.

 

[Solomonson]

Solomonson you say these priests would “not apply but be chosen”. Who exactly would choose them, though? Based on your past comments, I really wonder who you would trust in the Church hierarchy to make such decisions.

That’s really a good question. It would have to be their pastors (or another priest that knows them well), which would need to then be approved by a team that included the local ordinary and then either a national review team from the USCCB or an international team from the Holy See. To be honest, I’m not really sure how good this process could be made, only that it could be better than the sole one is use today.

I can’t quite put a finger on why, but Solomonson, this post as well as your many prior posts, give me the impression you see priests the way many people see politicians and civil servants in the secular realm. The idea that “You guys are paid with taxpayer money, so WE the taxpayers and citizens, are your bosses and have the right to expect and demand high quality work, and we have the right to criticize you if you don’t do a good job”.

Nope, but I have experienced too high of a percentage of ineffective (or worse) clergy and realize there needs to be another away, or at least a parallel way. I do very much reject one thing – the belief during non-controversial times that the ordained need to be lifted-up as being effectively superior to the non-ordained, YET when something bad happens, these individuals are merely men, merely sinners like the rest of is.

I’m not even Catholic but I do not think of the office of the priesthood as just another job, and that priests are fair game to be critiqued as harshly as you’d critique some low level bureaucrat at the Motor Vehicles office, and does not have any real authority attached to it. Maybe you don’t actually think that about priests, but that’s the impression I get. That they have to earn your respect individually, not due to their office.

It’s not a “job”, it’s a God-given vocation. Like it or not however, as much as some don’t want to face this, too many priests do a poor job when it comes to leading parishes and the result is often tragic. I also strongly believe that it’s bishops and priests who have contributed the most to today’s “priest shortage.” If anyone dare mention this fact, they are attacked,as the list of excuses are rolled-out for the ordained. This mindset has taken a real toll on the Church and it needs to change.

I believe in God and His Son. That’s why I believe in time (and by our humanly measure it could be generations), that actions will be taken to greatly change (or augment) how priests are chosen and how they are formed. This change will not only yield good priests, it will ultimately put pressure on the existing system of selection and formation to improve.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

That’s really a good question. It would have to be their pastors (or another priest that knows them well), which would need to then be approved by a team that included the local ordinary and then either a national review team from the USCCB or an international team from the Holy See. To be honest, I’m not really sure how good this process could be made, only that it could be better than the sole one is use today.

You also haven’t accounted for the fact that there is no way to guarantee these “chosen” men actually agree to become priests.

It’s not a “job”, it’s a God-given vocation. Like it or not however, as much as some don’t want to face this, too many priests do a poor job when it comes to leading parishes and the result is often tragic. I also strongly believe that it’s bishops and priests who have contributed the most to today’s “priest shortage.” If anyone dare mention this fact, they are attacked,as the list of excuses are rolled-out for the ordained. This mindset has taken a real toll on the Church and it needs to change.

You’re really not setting the stage for fruitful discussion when you label all dissenting opinions from yours as “excuses”. I am also curious as to what qualifications you yourself have to judge priests as you often do on this forum.

 

[RCTechGeek]

Something like what you mention is already available now. When a priest is ordained, he is not automatically given faculties to say Mass or to hear confessions. The bishop is the one who gives faculties to priests in his diocese. What usually happens (at least here in the US and what most people are probably used to) is that the bishop says that the deacon getting ordained a priest will have faculties to say Mass and hear confessions upon ordination to the priesthood. However, it is possible for a deacon to be ordained as a “simplex priest”’. This means that the bishop gives that priest the faculties to say Mass, but not to hear confessions (occasions of danger of death excluded). This option is more exercised among the religious orders, but this is certainly possible for a secular priest as well. Perhaps the reintroduction of the married priesthood (as a whole) in the Latin church could start with the married ones only being simplex priests.

 

[Solomonson]

Something like what you mention is already available now. When a priest is ordained, he is not automatically given faculties to say Mass or to hear confessions. The bishop is the one who gives faculties to priests in his diocese. What usually happens (at least here in the US and what most people are probably used to) is that the bishop says that the deacon getting ordained a priest will have faculties to say Mass and hear confessions upon ordination to the priesthood. However, it is possible for a deacon to be ordained as a “simplex priest”’. This means that the bishop gives that priest the faculties to say Mass, but not to hear confessions (occasions of danger of death excluded). This option is more exercised among the religious orders, but this is certainly possible for a secular priest as well. Perhaps the reintroduction of the married priesthood (as a whole) in the Latin church could start with the married ones only being simplex priests.

I have read about the historical example of Solanus Casey being a “simplex priest”, but nothing more. I don’t believe that Casey was even allowed to preach?

I appreciate your comment though, because a version of what you mention is what likely would be the route to what I’m talking about.

One thing concerns me though. The vocations of priest and deacon are quite different. One shouldn’t become a permanent deacon as consolation to becoming a priest. They are separate vocations from God. Yet if a “simplex priest” process were developed by the Church, I suspect the first in line would be the burgeoning number of permanent deacons that already exist and that seems problematic.

 

[Solomonson]

You also haven’t accounted for the fact that there is no way to guarantee these “chosen” men actually agree to become priests.

That’s quite true. If they rejected the call due to humility, I suspect that would be a sign that they were indeed being called by God.

You’re really not setting the stage for fruitful discussion when you label all dissenting opinions from yours as “excuses”. I am also curious as to what qualifications you yourself have to judge priests as you often do on this forum.

The comments speak for themselves – both online and in person. If a person dare critique a priest – even in the most constructive manner possible, they are typically ignored and often attacked, while excuses are offered for the priests’ behavior or dare I say, performance. That accepted mindset has facilitated a great many problems in the Church.

I think the ordination of priests in the manner I described would be a positive, reforming pressure on the Church.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This quote from now Pope Francis continues to make me think:
*
"…Our sociologists of religion tell us that the influence of a parish has a radius of six hundred meters (about 1/3 of a mile.) In Buenos Aires there are about two thousand meters (about a mile and a quarter) between one parish and the next. So I then told the priests: “If you can, rent a garage and, if you find some willing layman, let him go there! Let him be with those people a bit, do a little catechesis and even give Communion if they ask him.”* A parish priest said to me: “But Father, if we do this the people then won’t come to church.” “But why?” I asked him: “Do they come to Mass now?” “No,” he answered. And so! Coming out of oneself is also coming out from the fenced garden of one’s own convictions, considered irremovable, if they risk becoming an obstacle, if they close the horizon that is also of God…" – Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 2007.

Rf. catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=17308

I have come to the conclusion that in time, the manner in which men are chosen and formed to celebrate the Mass will change in the Roman Rite.

First, the Pope and the rest of the bishops aren’t going to change. Nor is the celibate priesthood as we know it. But I do believe there will be another “class” (for lack of a better word) of priests that will augment the existing priesthood. The focus of this new form of priest will be to celebrate the Mass on Holy Days of obligation and to otherwise provide catechesis.

These priests will be either married or celibate, but they won’t be able to be married once they are ordained. They also won’t be eligible to be made bishops. One key will be their age which is probably best answered by retirement schedules and actuarial tables.

I think if married priests were accepted on even a modest scale in the Latin Rite that it would cause havoc with the current celibate/seminary trained priesthood. However, I think the existing priesthood would tolerate this new class of priest if they were not able to begin their ministries until they were somewhere between 55 and 60 years old. They would be men (retirees or otherwise) that were financially set, with their own health insurance, in good health. They would be paid a stipend if necessary to cover their hard costs.

Their formation, key #2 would be via directed study and praxis with their existing pastors, rather than seminary. While some might become pastors themselves, I would envision most would become parochial vicars/curates. They could be active as long as their health and spirit allowed them to be.

Key #3 (and perhaps most important), would be the selection of men. Men would not apply. They would have to be chosen. Very carefully chosen at that. I cannot overstate how important the selection process would need to be. Individuals would have to prove years of being faithful Mass goers, with strong ties to their communities, suitable secular education, etc., etc. If this process became political or was minimized, the whole program could well fall apart. I think the only real resistance would come from permanent deacons, but that’s something that could be overcome.

I have seen this to some degree with our Orthodox brethren. Their priests are often married and employed or they are secularly retired. They are formed as priest right in their parishes by their pastors and not via seminary.

While there would no doubt be plenty of resistance by the existing guard, I think it could work well in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. I think it could also attract millions to or back to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which would truly be awesome.

This would be an interesting screen play. Or future sci-fi dystopian future novel…

 

[Solomonson]

Something like what you mention is already available now. When a priest is ordained, he is not automatically given faculties to say Mass or to hear confessions. The bishop is the one who gives faculties to priests in his diocese. What usually happens (at least here in the US and what most people are probably used to) is that the bishop says that the deacon getting ordained a priest will have faculties to say Mass and hear confessions upon ordination to the priesthood. However, it is possible for a deacon to be ordained as a “simplex priest”’. This means that the bishop gives that priest the faculties to say Mass, but not to hear confessions (occasions of danger of death excluded). This option is more exercised among the religious orders, but this is certainly possible for a secular priest as well. Perhaps the reintroduction of the married priesthood (as a whole) in the Latin church could start with the married ones only being simplex priests.

A very interesting and well-researched article on the priest simplex: frvanhove.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/simplex-priests-now/

It really makes one think – it one has an open mind.

 

[otjm]

The Roman rite already has married priests, and the world, the Faith, and the Church have not fallen apart, in spite of some predictions.

As to how they are trained, they go through seminary at least in most instances I am aware of, and it has not destroyed seminaries.

As to being “chosen”, the likelihood of that is nil and none. Both aspirants to the priesthood and aspirants to the permanent deaconate may be encouraged by a pastor and/or individuals in the parish, but ultimately they come forward and ask to be admitted. There is normally a screening process (and not a one time activity), and if they are admitted, they begin preparation. In our archdiocese, deacons enter a 5 year program which includes a Masters; seminarians need a degree in Philosophy (our current seminarian had a college degree and later applied; he is getting his Masters in Philosophy). They then enter into Theology, with a Masters in theology as well as pastoral training, in a 4 year program.

Out of the 18,173 permanent deacons as of 2016 (statistics courtesy of CARA), I would not be shocked to find some who might have hopes of being ordained a priest; but I have yet to hear any deacon say that is their desire. Should that occur, that is an issue for Rome, first, and the diocese, second.

Recently, Pope Francis reportedly made some comment about how it may be time to consider a limited entry to the priesthood of married men.

One point that few seem to either think of or be aware of, is that entry to the deaconate requires the agreement of the spouse; and from experience in my archdiocese, that is again not a one time questioning. It occurs several times through the 5 year period.

The same would be expected of any married man being ordained a priest; the ones we have now have had spouses who are intimately familiar with the issue of being the pastor’s wife, and what that entails. so it did not come to them as a shock (well, becoming Catholic might have…)

The only thing which has bothered me has been the conversations in the past concerning ordaining married men. It may well be that there are some in the Church who would propose ending celibacy, but the comments have been made, most often, by priests and other clergy as if the whole conversation about ordaining married me is about getting rid of celibacy, and it always seems to come up as a red herring. Proposing ordaining married men is not, per se, a proposal to end celibacy. Both/and is not the equivalent of either/or.

And I seriously doubt we would be flooded with a plethora of individuals wishing to be candidates; it is no longer an individual decision; it is now a decision which has to be made positively by both parties. The old saw of “If Momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy” applies as much to this as anything.

The issue of simplex priest is unlikely for married clergy - it has not been happening with the ones we have, although a number of them have been booted off to administrative work in chanceries. And we have a history of priests teachers, priests scientists, priests doctors, and etc. Depending on the needs of the diocese and the wishes of the bishop, someone who is ordained and married might continue in a job or profession, and be available for sacramental needs, but not “stationed” as a pastor. That does not make them a “simplex”.

It is up to Rome. Considering that the Pope appears to be testing the waters, it might even occur in my lifetime.

 

[buc_fan33]

Personally, I don’t see it, and in my humble opinion, that’s a good thing. In our sex-saturated culture, we need the witness of celibacy all the more, not less. Perhaps the Holy Spirit will move in this direction, but I for one just don’t see it. Obviously, I will be obedient to whatever the Vicar of Christ determines.

That said, on a practical level, most parishes that I’ve been a part of can’t afford a married priest, financially speaking. Most parishes are struggling to make their annual budget as it is. And, if we begin the practice in the west of a married clergy, now a parish that is staffed by two priests will need four, out of justice so as to allow those men to also be husbands and fathers, which in some sense must take priority over their role as pastors. And, not only do you need to double the number of priests that you need, you also need to probably triple their salary, because you now out of justice have to provide for the priest’s family, not merely his own income, and don’t forget providing health insurance now for his wife and children.

And, you can’t very easily move a married priest. Much like a married permanent deacon is, for all intents and purposes, tied to his parish for life or until he says otherwise, a married priest can’t be moved every three or six years or whatever. Again, out of justice because moving him also means his wife might need to find a new job, his kids will need to change schools, there are all sorts of considerations.

This is just scratching the surface, but personally, I think a married priesthood is a bad idea for all sorts of reasons.

 

[Solomonson]

The Roman rite already has married priests, and the world, the Faith, and the Church have not fallen apart, in spite of some predictions.

In very, very small numbers – usually Anglican or Lutheran converts.

As to how they are trained, they go through seminary at least in most instances I am aware of, and it has not destroyed seminaries.

Not all, no. And if they do, it’s often a very abbreviated process.

As to being “chosen”, the likelihood of that is nil and none.

That I seriously doubt.

Both aspirants to the priesthood and aspirants to the permanent deaconate may be encouraged by a pastor and/or individuals in the parish, but ultimately they come forward and ask to be admitted. There is normally a screening process (and not a one time activity), and if they are admitted, they begin preparation. In our archdiocese, deacons enter a 5 year program which includes a Masters; seminarians need a degree in Philosophy (our current seminarian had a college degree and later applied; he is getting his Masters in Philosophy). They then enter into Theology, with a Masters in theology as well as pastoral training, in a 4 year program.

So?

Out of the 18,173 permanent deacons as of 2016 (statistics courtesy of CARA), I would not be shocked to find some who might have hopes of being ordained a priest; but I have yet to hear any deacon say that is their desire. Should that occur, that is an issue for Rome, first, and the diocese, second.

Which is odd because they are permanent deacons – a very different vocation. Did they become deacons because they could not become priests? I find this to be problematic.

Recently, Pope Francis reportedly made some comment about how it may be time to consider a limited entry to the priesthood of married men.

Yeap.

One point that few seem to either think of or be aware of, is that entry to the deaconate requires the agreement of the spouse; and from experience in my archdiocese, that is again not a one time questioning. It occurs several times through the 5 year period.

Again, so? Those are diocesan requirements, not Church requirements though.

The same would be expected of any married man being ordained a priest; the ones we have now have had spouses who are intimately familiar with the issue of being the pastor’s wife, and what that entails. so it did not come to them as a shock (well, becoming Catholic might have…

No, not necessarily.

The only thing which has bothered me has been the conversations in the past concerning ordaining married men. It may well be that there are some in the Church who would propose ending celibacy, but the comments have been made, most often, by priests and other clergy as if the whole conversation about ordaining married me is about getting rid of celibacy, and it always seems to come up as a red herring. Proposing ordaining married men is not, per se, a proposal to end celibacy. Both/and is not the equivalent of either/or.

Alrighty.

And I seriously doubt we would be flooded with a plethora of individuals wishing to be candidates; it is no longer an individual decision; it is now a decision which has to be made positively by both parties. The old saw of “If Momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy” applies as much to this as anything.

I do, depending on the formation demands.

The issue of simplex priest is unlikely for married clergy - it has not been happening with the ones we have, although a number of them have been booted off to administrative work in chanceries. And we have a history of priests teachers, priests scientists, priests doctors, and etc. Depending on the needs of the diocese and the wishes of the bishop, someone who is ordained and married might continue in a job or profession, and be available for sacramental needs, but not “stationed” as a pastor. That does not make them a “simplex”.

I can see it happening. I just don’t know when.

It is up to Rome. Considering that the Pope appears to be testing the waters, it might even occur in my lifetime.

Possibly.

 

[Solomonson]

Personally, I don’t see it, and in my humble opinion, that’s a good thing. In our sex-saturated culture, we need the witness of celibacy all the more, not less. Perhaps the Holy Spirit will move in this direction, but I for one just don’t see it. Obviously, I will be obedient to whatever the Vicar of Christ determines.

I do. It’s bound to be a mix at some point. Technically, it already is, with converts and Eastern Catholics priests who serve in Latin Rite parishes.

That said, on a practical level, most parishes that I’ve been a part of can’t afford a married priest, financially speaking. Most parishes are struggling to make their annual budget as it is. And, if we begin the practice in the west of a married clergy, now a parish that is staffed by two priests will need four, out of justice so as to allow those men to also be husbands and fathers, which in some sense must take priority over their role as pastors. And, not only do you need to double the number of priests that you need, you also need to probably triple their salary, because you now out of justice have to provide for the priest’s family, not merely his own income, and don’t forget providing health insurance now for his wife and children.

They certainly could if the priest was already financially self-sufficient. Analogous to the huge majority of permanent deacons of today.

And, you can’t very easily move a married priest. Much like a married permanent deacon is, for all intents and purposes, tied to his parish for life or until he says otherwise, a married priest can’t be moved every three or six years or whatever. Again, out of justice because moving him also means his wife might need to find a new job, his kids will need to change schools, there are all sorts of considerations.

So? They’re financially free. Analogous to most permanent deacons of today.

This is just scratching the surface, but personally, I think a married priesthood is a bad idea for all sorts of reasons.

I don’t.

 

[otjm]

In very, very small numbers – usually Anglican or Lutheran converts.

Also some Methodists, and in our archdiocese we had one Presbyterian.

Not all, no. And if they do, it’s often a very abbreviated process.

Someone who likely has a Masters in some branch of Theology does not necessarily need another, nor necessarily a great degree of “revision” as they likely have made a long study of Catholicism. They do not, however, upset the seminaries they have been involved with, a point you seemed to be making of married Catholic men joining.

That I seriously doubt.

Ultimately now, each priest who is ordained is “chosen” by the bishop - though I have always seen the term “called” used - and I think we are saying the same thing. But as to getting started? They are going to choose. It is not an altar call…

So?

So that is how all start now, and you give no reason that would not continue; if you presume some sort of modification, you need to come up with more than just some supposition as to why it would be different.

Which is odd because they are permanent deacons – a very different vocation. Did they become deacons because they could not become priests? I find this to be problematic.

Not sure what you think is problematic. Some wishing and hoping? I can’t speak for other dioceses, as I understand not all require a 5 year program. but it certainly has been part of the winnowing process here, that people are disabused of presuming it is some sort of short cut to a later modification of the rule of celibacy for priests.

Yeap.

ah. So I was not dreaming. Thanks for the confirmation.

Again, so? Those are diocesan requirements, not Church requirements though.

I seriously doubt that the Church, which esteems marriage so highly, is going to ignore the spouse, whether that is a diocesan requirement or a universal one.

No, not necessarily.

Yeah, right. The bishop is going to ordain a married man never mind what his wife thinks. Maybe in an alternate universe. Not in this one.

I do, depending on the formation demands.

It is not the formation demands half so much as the demands after. Marriage comes first - as it has in the deaconate, and there is absolutely no reason to presume that would change with a priest who is married.

I can see it happening. I just don’t know when.

The article by the Jesuit really says little about the issue of simplex - which from my time in the seminary, was something done to men who were really not up to snuff overall; I think you even noted that it was primarily among orders, who have far different needs in terms of priesthood than parishes. It is far more likely that married clergy will be required to step in sacramentally as fully as the pastor; but that at least some, if not many, may not be pastors. Still the need to preach and hear confessions.

Possibly.

Given that the issue was addressed during my freshman college year in seminary, over 50 years ago, it has been a long wait. I agree with possibly. Not probably, but possibly. Given that the Church has jhad both a celibate and married clergy for likely its entire history, IMHO it is time the Roman rite get back to it by something other than “back door”.

 

[Rosebud77]

Choice and selection are luxuries we are losing chances of, here at least,

 

[otjm]

Personally, I don’t see it, and in my humble opinion, that’s a good thing. In our sex-saturated culture, we need the witness of celibacy all the more, not less. Perhaps the Holy Spirit will move in this direction, but I for one just don’t see it.

The chuyrch has had a married clergy as well as a celibate clergy for 2,000 years. I kind of doubt the Holy Spirit has been missing in action all that time.

And perhaps it is time that the people in the pews face the reality of our call to stewardship. Catholics in reoeated surveys have been shown to give the least amount percentage wise per capita. maybe it is time to stop tossing iun a $1 or $5, or $10 bill in the collection. How many of them have internet, and cell phones, and apps, and televisions, in HBO, etc.? When they give 1%, or maybe 5% of what one of those"critical" items cost, they are saying what is important and what is not. It is not that the parish cannot make their budget; it is that they choose to spend their money on a whole series of choices they make more important.

This is just scratching the surface, but personally, I think a married priesthood is a bad idea for all sorts of reasons.

We already have a married clergy; and it is unlikely we will have a huge number of people lining up to be selected.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Solomonson]

Also some Methodists, and in our archdiocese we had one Presbyterian.

Some Orthodox too.

Someone who likely has a Masters in some branch of Theology does not necessarily need another, nor necessarily a great degree of “revision” as they likely have made a long study of Catholicism. They do not, however, upset the seminaries they have been involved with, a point you seemed to be making of married Catholic men joining.

They might need none at all.* I suspect if the Pope decreed that the Church now embraces the married priesthood in the same way that it embraces the secular one today in a practical sense, and it it started admitting married males to the seminary, that a whole bushel of problems would arise. That’s far different than someone (even a female), taking a small handful of classes at a seminary today which does happen.

Ultimately now, each priest who is ordained is “chosen” by the bishop - though I have always seen the term “called” used - and I think we are saying the same thing. But as to getting started? They are going to choose. It is not an altar call…

This is so critical… They would need to be chosen.

So that is how all start now, and you give no reason that would not continue; if you presume some sort of modification, you need to come up with more than just some supposition as to why it would be different.

Well, we have a “priest shortage.” We also have a priestly leadership shortage in many parishes. Both are a product in part of the seminary system.

Not sure what you think is problematic. Some wishing and hoping? I can’t speak for other dioceses, as I understand not all require a 5 year program. but it certainly has been part of the winnowing process here, that people are disabused of presuming it is some sort of short cut to a later modification of the rule of celibacy for priests.

A process that has been shown to be lacking and in some cases prohibitively long with no benefit.

I seriously doubt that the Church, which esteems marriage so highly, is going to ignore the spouse, whether that is a diocesan requirement or a universal one.

I never said it would.

Yeah, right. The bishop is going to ordain a married man never mind what his wife thinks. Maybe in an alternate universe. Not in this one.

Again, I never said it would.

It is not the formation demands half so much as the demands after. Marriage comes first - as it has in the deaconate, and there is absolutely no reason to presume that would change with a priest who is married.

I don’t see much of a difference in “demands” between a permanent deacon and a simplex priest – unless of course the priest was made a pastor – just as if a permanent deacon was made a “parish manager.” Then things change, but they would change for both.

The article by the Jesuit really says little about the issue of simplex - which from my time in the seminary, was something done to men who were really not up to snuff overall; I think you even noted that it was primarily among orders, who have far different needs in terms of priesthood than parishes. It is far more likely that married clergy will be required to step in sacramentally as fully as the pastor; but that at least some, if not many, may not be pastors. Still the need to preach and hear confessions.

You’re trying to limit the idea of another way to the priesthood as I talked about in posting #1 only to married males. That’s not what I said. If anything it would be limited to older, financially stable males.

Given that the issue was addressed during my freshman college year in seminary, over 50 years ago, it has been a long wait. I agree with possibly. Not probably, but possibly. Given that the Church has jhad both a celibate and married clergy for likely its entire history, IMHO it is time the Roman rite get back to it by something other than “back door”.

I’m sure it will happen. In fairly short order by the Church’s timetable – which often equates to generations. It will take some time to honestly face this:

“…Coming out of oneself is also coming out from the fenced garden of one’s own convictions, considered irremovable, if they risk becoming an obstacle, if they close the horizon that is also of God…” – Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 2007…"

 

[otjm]

Some Orthodox too.
They might need none at all.* I suspect if the Pope decreed that the Church now embraces the married priesthood in the same way that it embraces the secular one today in a practical sense, and it it started admitting married males to the seminary, that a whole bushel of problems would arise. That’s far different than someone (even a female), taking a small handful of classes at a seminary today which does happen.

This is so critical… They would need to be chosen.

Well, we have a “priest shortage.” We also have a priestly leadership shortage in many parishes. Both are a product in part of the seminary system.

A process that has been shown to be lacking and in some cases prohibitively long with no benefit.

I never said it would.

Again, I never said it would.

I don’t see much of a difference in “demands” between a permanent deacon and a simplex priest – unless of course the priest was made a pastor – just as if a permanent deacon was made a “parish manager.” Then things change, but they would change for both.

You’re trying to limit the idea of another way to the priesthood as I talked about in posting #1 only to married males. That’s not what I said. If anything it would be limited to older, financially stable males.

I’m sure it will happen. In fairly short order by the Church’s timetable – which often equates to generations. It will take some time to honestly face this:

“…Coming out of oneself is also coming out from the fenced garden of one’s own convictions, considered irremovable, if they risk becoming an obstacle, if they close the horizon that is also of God…” – Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 2007…"

Overall, we agree more than we disagree. I simply don’t see simplex being used much at all,if at all; going back to your article by the Jesuit, he was focusing on preaching - which I find less troublesome than he does. As in, I hear a good amount of good, proper homiletics. Preventing a priest from preaching and hearing confessions puts limits that are potentially not only unnecessary but restrictive of what we need - more individuals saying Mass and hearing confessions. And between those two, hearing confessions is more important.

We can all agree that all too few seem to avail themselves of Reconciliation; but I have parishes around me who have increased times, and who have lines as long as I remember from the 50’s and early 60’s. We also had priest assistants in parishes, where now the average is one priest per parish. Some of those assistant priests taught; so the model of a working priest is not something foreign to the Church.

As to your comments back and forth concerning wives, you certainly seem to have implied that “well, that is just a diocesan matter”. I am not interested in arguing with you; we both see the possibility of married men becoming ordained and I certainly would welcome it.

Nor do I seen particularly any changes in seminaries. It is not automatically a requirement that married men live on campus; and yes, there have been women attending seminaries for the advanced decree; and I suspect married men have also. My personal experience of seminaries (as in, seminarians) and my experience with current seminarians is that including married men in their courses, retreats and other activities is not going to upset any apple carts.

And you are right; the Church moves slowly, and it (married priests) most likely would be only gradually introduced (well, it already is). I will say again: I have heard all too many priest commentators respond to the issue of married priests as it the matter were an elimination of celibacy. Those comments have left me with a feeling that underneath the comment is fear - fear that we would not have men step forward to accept celibacy, which could imply that the commentator may not have had the charism of celibacy, but rather the cross of it.

And I simply do not see any large onslaught of married men applying. for the simple reason that their wives have to buy into it also. Added to that is that the bishops have to make the decision that they will even entertain the thought of ordaining married men; originally, the bishops the the US decided not to pursue ordaining permanent deacons, and it was the intervention of Pope Paul 6th that started the movement forward. By 1975, we had 898 permanent deacons nationwide.

 

[Solomonson]

Overall, we agree more than we disagree. I simply don’t see simplex being used much at all,if at all; going back to your article by the Jesuit, he was focusing on preaching - which I find less troublesome than he does. As in, I hear a good amount of good, proper homiletics. Preventing a priest from preaching and hearing confessions puts limits that are potentially not only unnecessary but restrictive of what we need - more individuals saying Mass and hearing confessions. And between those two, hearing confessions is more important.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the “simplex” label. Maybe they should be called something like "late vocation alternatively formed priests (LVAFP.) I too believe that LVAFPs should be able to preach. Perhaps they should have all the faculties of a conventional priest, I’m not sure.

But I do think they are needed – married or not.

We can all agree that all too few seem to avail themselves of Reconciliation; but I have parishes around me who have increased times, and who have lines as long as I remember from the 50’s and early 60’s. We also had priest assistants in parishes, where now the average is one priest per parish. Some of those assistant priests taught; so the model of a working priest is not something foreign to the Church.

OK.

As to your comments back and forth concerning wives, you certainly seem to have implied that “well, that is just a diocesan matter”. I am not interested in arguing with you; we both see the possibility of married men becoming ordained and I certainly would welcome it.

The LVAFPs could either be married or celibate. The big differences would be their starting age, their formation, their personal financial independence, etc.

Nor do I seen particularly any changes in seminaries. It is not automatically a requirement…(as in, seminarians) and my experience with current seminarians is that including married men in their courses, retreats and other activities is not going to upset any apple carts.

Once more, if married men began entering seminary in any real numbers (no matter where they lived), I’m certain it would have a big impact on celibate males – particularly those in the seminary process and those that have been ordained within the past few years.

I think many man “soldier-up” and choose the priesthood, even though they also wanted to be married. To be followed by a new class of married men right behind them in seminary who were given a different choice would cause issues without a doubt.

And you are right; the Church moves slowly, and it (married priests) most likely would be only gradually introduced (well, it already is). I will say again: I have heard all too many priest commentators respond to the issue of married priests as it the matter were an elimination of celibacy. Those comments have left me with a feeling that underneath the comment is fear - fear that we would not have men step forward to accept celibacy, which could imply that the commentator may not have had the charism of celibacy, but rather the cross of it.

I think if married priests were allowed in the Latin Rite, that the aggregate number of priests would increase, but the number of celibate priests would decrease. I would agree, if a candidate for the priesthood truly had the charism of celibacy, it wouldn’t bother them as those that cross of celibacy. However, I do think many would be miffed and possibly derailed simply because they were not given the opportunity.

And I simply do not see any large onslaught of married men applying. for the simple reason that their wives have to buy into it also. Added to that is that the bishops have to make the decision that they will even entertain the thought of ordaining married men; originally, the bishops the the US decided not to pursue ordaining permanent deacons, and it was the intervention of Pope Paul 6th that started the movement forward. By 1975, we had 898 permanent deacons nationwide.

Oh, I certainly do. Just look at the number of married permanent deacons in the US. I suspect upwards of 75% of them would try to become LVAFPs, which again would trouble me, because it would raise the question of whether they had a vocation to be a priest or a permanent deacon in the first place?

That in itself would be a big deal. I’m sure that at the beginning of their formations as deacons, it was made quite clear to them that they wouldn’t be “para priests.” That they would be permanent deacons – a rich and distinct vocation of its own. That they shouldn’t seek out the diaconate if they felt the call to be a priest, but decided to get married instead as the two vocations are distinct.

It would be interesting to see how permanent deacons would react if they were not eligible to become LVAFPs. I think the existence of LVAFPs would also impact the number of men in formation as permanent deacons.

There is another aspect to the prospect of LVAFPs that interests me. The possibility of reducing the size of Masses in many parishes. I’m not sure where the model of huge churches and many/masses/Sunday/parish came from (likely out of economic necessity – low level of giving/Catholic), but I would much rather attend a much smaller “parish” (or even chapel of convenience) where people could get to know one another – most especially their LVAFPs. I would be more willing to pay more for it too.

Finally, I for one would appreciate a priest that could bring the experiences of both a secular life and a clerical one to his priesthood. I’m not much for what’s often termed “sherry drinkers” and I think the existence of LVAFPs could help in this regard.