D
Duesenberg
Guest
That’s why I used the term “chaste” and not “celibate.”
- Status
G
godisgood77
Guest
Fair enough, but I was responding the your comment quoted below where you said that you cannot imagine a bishops or other prelates that were not chaste males. I hope you can understand my confusion … as we are talking about whether or not to eliminate the requirement of celibacy for priesthood. I do not think anyone is suggesting that priest or anyone for that matter should be chaste.
The debate is whether or not celibacy is a necessary question for a priest to be chaste. If that is what you are saying, then we are in complete agreement. The way you stated you comment was a bit confusing to me. I’m not very bright
D
Dcn_Terry
Guest
No, he cannot. No man can server two masters. One vocation will invariably take precedence over the other. As a married deacon, my vocation of marriage takes precedence over my vocation of holy orders. In other words, my marriage comes before my diaconate duties in the Church. This is something that ALL married clergy struggle with.
I am fortunate in that I have a very understanding wife when it comes to my diaconate ministries. She is not happy with me going to the prisons, or spending a significant amount of time away from her on the weekends, but she understands that this is what God has called me to. Some deacons I know, and I imagine some married priest, are not so fortunate and it causes friction in both the marriage and their ministry.
There have been times, not many mind you but some, that I have had to skip my duties to the Church to take care of matters at home. Given the self sacrificing nature of the priesthood, I don’t see how that would work for a priest. On the flip side, there have been times I have missed things at home because I was needed at a hospital or somewhere else.
My diocese works to cut down of some of the friction between marriage and holy orders for deacons by having the wives attend formation classes with us. That way they have a good understanding of what we are getting into as a couple and the effect it will have on the marriage. I don’t see how this could work for a married priest given they are in class every day for nine months of the year for six years.
In my formation classes, we were told that the pecking order for married deacons goes as follows: First come God, because without Him we can do nothing. Second comes my wife and my family because I made a promise to God to care for them before I took holy orders. Third comes my job, because without that I cannot care for my family. THEN comes my duties to the church. The priesthood is not set up for that type of leeway. Priest on on call 24/7/365. That will definitely take a toll on a marriage.
Priest have it hard enough as it is. There is no need throw the stress of a marriage and a family into the works. There have been married priests and deacons that have ended up divorced or separated because too much time and effort was given to the priesthood or the diaconate and not the marriage. Holy orders is a vocation, not a profession so you cannot compare the two.
Would I want to be ordained a priest while married? No. I know how hard that is as a married deacon, I can only imagine how hard it would be to be a married priest.
K
KevinK
Guest
What a pathetic misogynistic remark.
K
kcooper
Guest
The matter IMO is a very simple one. We don;t have enough priests.
Parishes used to have 4 and more priests per parish and high schools staff would be at least half priests. That is long gone.
The numbers of priests have been dropping for over 50 years. We have relatively very few leftand it is an aging lot. Why can;t we face that the idea of lifelong celibacy has just lost its appeal? We have good numbers of deacons and we have plenty of teachers. The tasks that priests do still have appeal but not the mandatory lifestyle imposed on them.
Yes it is time to end clerical celibacy for no other reason that the world has rejected it.
Parishes used to have 4 and more priests per parish and high schools staff would be at least half priests. That is long gone.
The numbers of priests have been dropping for over 50 years. We have relatively very few leftand it is an aging lot. Why can;t we face that the idea of lifelong celibacy has just lost its appeal? We have good numbers of deacons and we have plenty of teachers. The tasks that priests do still have appeal but not the mandatory lifestyle imposed on them.
Yes it is time to end clerical celibacy for no other reason that the world has rejected it.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
TaylorDonBarret:
.
The title of your thread concerns eliminating clerical celibacy.
You could have added: “with dispensation in the Latin Rite” too.
But you DO understand that priests in the Eastern Rites (Catholic), and Latin Rite (and I think various Eastern Orthodoxies) cannot get married right?
Married men can be ordained, but not priests getting married.
There is a significant difference.
I just want to make sure before we get too deep into this discussion, we are all talking about the same paradigm here.
God bless.
Cathoholic
.
.
The title of your thread concerns eliminating clerical celibacy.
You could have added: “with dispensation in the Latin Rite” too.
But you DO understand that priests in the Eastern Rites (Catholic), and Latin Rite (and I think various Eastern Orthodoxies) cannot get married right?
Married men can be ordained, but not priests getting married.
There is a significant difference.
I just want to make sure before we get too deep into this discussion, we are all talking about the same paradigm here.
God bless.
Cathoholic
B
BornInMarch
Guest
The purpose of Clerical Celibacy is not pragmatic, it’s spiritual. Giving things up brings us closer to God, which is why we give things up for lent.
Since the Church depends on its clerics being as close to God as possible, requiring them to give up things like sex and romance and being a parent helps them grow in faith. It also demonstrates their devotion, sort of saying “Not only is God first in my heart, but nothing else is second!” In addition to celibacy, priests are also forbidden from holding public office. Monks and Nuns have even more restrictions, also giving up material wealth and even (in some cases) the ability to speak. And these clerics willingly give these things up! They aren’t reluctantly consigning themselves to a bad existence, they’re joyfully giving themselves to good lives and abundant grace and a fulfilling purpose!
Since the Church depends on its clerics being as close to God as possible, requiring them to give up things like sex and romance and being a parent helps them grow in faith. It also demonstrates their devotion, sort of saying “Not only is God first in my heart, but nothing else is second!” In addition to celibacy, priests are also forbidden from holding public office. Monks and Nuns have even more restrictions, also giving up material wealth and even (in some cases) the ability to speak. And these clerics willingly give these things up! They aren’t reluctantly consigning themselves to a bad existence, they’re joyfully giving themselves to good lives and abundant grace and a fulfilling purpose!
K
kcooper
Guest
born,
I don’t think at this point that this is a debate about the merits or lack thereof of the celibate life. Pure and simple, it’s a numbers debate. FAR TOO FEW are giving themselves “joyfully” to celibacy to fulfill the church’s needs.
Those who wish to pursue that type of lifestyle- go for it. When do we realize that hardly anybody is buying this anymore?
G
godisgood77
Guest
Tell that to all of the married Catholic priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
More priests doesn’t automatically mean better priests.
G
Gorgias
Guest
We have relatively few nuns and monks, as well. Your argument, as you present it here, would apply to them also. Does your argument hold for them, as well? (I would say ‘no’.)
We can agree that it’s “lost its appeal”. Where we disagree is whether that is sufficient reason to jettison it. “Religious practice” has lost its appeal in modern culture, as well. Are you suggesting it’s reasonable to just chuck the Church in the wastebin, also?
Deacons are not priests. The vocations are different; the formation is different; the roles and their responsibilities are different. Are you claiming that every married deacon wishes to be a priest? Are you claiming that for every married deacon, there’s a married man who wishes to be a priest? You’d have to substantiate that claim for it to hold water…
The priesthood is not a “laundry list of tasks”.
So, culture dictates terms to the Church? No, I think you’ve got that one backward…
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
I think married priests would actually be a good idea - just an option. I don’t want to take out celibacy as a higher calling. I think celibate and married priests by vocation would be really good for the dynamics of the Church, at all levels. But I feel like this falls under the ‘innovation’ ‘change’ umbrella which has a bad name with a lot of more traditional leaning Catholics right now. Suffice it to say, the timing is not good on this one. Maybe if we had just kept the communion for the divorced remarried where it was (on the local parish level / yay or nay, usually yay as opposed to New Doctrine) we would be in a better position to approach this idea which could help the Church a heck of a lot more, a healthier development if you will.
K
kcooper
Guest
Gorgias
You say “So, culture dictates terms to the Church? No, I think you’ve got that one backward…”
Churches and parishes need priests to run them, say masses, perform weddings, baptisms and funerals and more, If you don;t have priests, it doesn;t work.
How you going to man the parishes? Have them retire at age 85 or 90? Allow deacons to do the sacraments? The numbers have been steadily plummeting for over half a century. Doing NOTHING is not an option.
Closing more parishes is not a good option either. The parish they closed that merged into ours is not working. People don;t like it when their parish is closed and they are shuttled out to a parish not of their choosing.
YOU have it backward- you can’t run the Church without the horses. Large archdioceses can;t be coming up with single digit numbers of new recruits years after year and decade after decade.
You say “So, culture dictates terms to the Church? No, I think you’ve got that one backward…”
Churches and parishes need priests to run them, say masses, perform weddings, baptisms and funerals and more, If you don;t have priests, it doesn;t work.
How you going to man the parishes? Have them retire at age 85 or 90? Allow deacons to do the sacraments? The numbers have been steadily plummeting for over half a century. Doing NOTHING is not an option.
Closing more parishes is not a good option either. The parish they closed that merged into ours is not working. People don;t like it when their parish is closed and they are shuttled out to a parish not of their choosing.
YOU have it backward- you can’t run the Church without the horses. Large archdioceses can;t be coming up with single digit numbers of new recruits years after year and decade after decade.
A
ATraveller
Guest
I’ve heard and read many stories of PK’s who weren’t happy with sharing their fathers with their congregations. Some heard things about congregants they’d wish they could unhear. Not intentionally eavesdropping probably. There are plenty who turned out well and were happy growing up as such. Even though I obviously have no issues with married clergy, it’s not without its risks and problems and I think some here should be aware of this before rushing in and not underestimate how demanding it can be.
Last edited:
- Status