When priests get married

[SMHW]

I know this has come up in this thread but I just want to make it explicit.

The phrase, "When priests get married,"is **VERY, VERY, VERY **DIFFERENT from the phrase, “When married men become priests.” They are **NOT **logical equivalents because the order of the sacraments matters big time!

To make them equivalent is to disparage the centuries long traditions of those Catholics who are ordained after marriage. It comes across as disdain for non-Latin rite Catholics. (I am Latin rite.)

Now there are certain aspects of the life of married versus unmarried priests that can be discussed such as the impact of finances and demands of time. But the phrase, “When priests get married,” comes off as inflammatory while the phrase, “When married men become priests,” can lead to reasonable discussion.

 

[YipYupYep]

But the phrase, “When priests get married,” comes off as inflammatory while the phrase, “When married men become priests,” can lead to reasonable discussion.

Hi,

I can see that you and some other posters are well studied in this. Although I am involved in the Roman Catholic Church, I am, more or less, just one of the troops on the ground.

“When Priests get married” is what I meant to ask. If and when Rome says that the Roman Catholic Priest can get married. The ones already ordained and now serving in the field.

My thoughts were originally just the practical financial consequences. However, quite a few more issues have been put on the table.

 

[EasterJoy]

A cloistered Nun or Monk would be in my judgement a special situation. No, they do live in the natural world, they live in a supernatural environment. Appart. Actually, they are, in a sense married. Maybe more that just in a sense.

Yes human, but somehow super human.

And you wonder why vocations are down? Do you think a monk in a cloister struggles less with celibacy than a parish priest, that it isn’t as difficult? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on the man. I’m not so sure that the grass doesn’t get greener, the higher the fence. Monks don’t get to see women all the time, but they don’t get to see the troubles of married men as clearly as those in parish life do, either.

No, the vocation to the priesthood and religious life is not superhuman, except in the sense that every Christian is called to a supernaturally-infused mode of living that is not possible outside a life immersed in God. That is the call of every single person who dies to themselves in order to live in Christ!

Those who are called to the priesthood and religious life, however, are radical reminders that we all have a radical call, by reason of our baptism. We don’t live in a caste system, where a few are called to extraordinary holiness and the others just grab their cassocks or habits and hold on for the ride. No. They give up all for God to remind us what normal really is, for the Christian. And within the religious life, each different order enunciates a particular aspect of our one call as the Body of Christ, by virtue of their particular charism. Each one their own gift: one this and another that.

The question for the Christian, then, is not, “Lord, do you want me to give all?” The question is “Lord, in what way do you want me to give all?” We are all, every one of us, called to be a saint…maybe an unnoticed one, maybe a remarkable one, but every one of us is quite surely called to be a saint, in the fullest sense.

 

[otjm]

The question that always needs to be asked in this case is “to what end?”

Who is making the call that we need to allow this? I don’t hear too many good Priests saying it is a problem. it is always lay people and exPriests taking up the charge.

That may be a matter more of perspective than of fact. It is a fact that a goodly number of priests left the priesthood starting in the 60’s and continuing (to a lesser degree) today. Many, but not all who leave, do so to get married. They may not say a lot publicly in words, but their actions speak volumes.

And no one ever provides ANY proof that abstinence is an impediment to vocations, or that changing things would to anything.

I can only speak to my personal experience, which was in the 60’s, but most of my classmates who left the seminary then (me included) got married. Is that indicative that we did not have a vocation? Some have said so, some to my face. But that is a totally unresearched personal opinion based on a fallacious arguement that if one had a vocation, one would then have a vocation to the celibate priesthood (an arguement that presumes that they are one vocation and not two separate ones). The short of it is that there really is no research that I know of that even attempts to answer this question.

As I always point out, the Decaonate allows for people to be married (prior to), and they are not exactly busting at the seams with an overflow of Deacons…

All of which has not a lot to do with the question. The vocation to the diaconite is a separate and distinct vocation; deacons are not mini-priests or priest wannabes. I don’t have a count exactly of the number of deacons that we have; I think it is somewhere around 4000+, and under 5000. It has, however, been growing more rapidly as more dioceses start ordaining them, and as they become more well known to the parishes. The permanent diaconite program hasn’t been around that long; in addition, if one starts into the program it will take generally a minimum of 3 to as many as 5 years before ordination. Our diocesan program is 5 years.

Many priests are satisified to remain celebate, and do not seem to think that they would have married had they had the opportunity to be ordained while married. Many others seem to understand the rule is not going to be relaxed soon, if ever, and simply don’t dwell on it. And as noted, many left and got married.

But to answer your original question: to what end? To the end of ordaining men who become and Alter Christus. Ordaining men to fulfil the roles of prophet, king and priest through the administration of the sacraments. Marriage is a separate and distinct vocation from priesthood, and both are separate and distinct from the vocation of celibacy; and all three are called to chastity which befits their state in life.

There are all sorts of straw-man arguements made as to why we should not have a married clergy (in spite of the fact that we do, and have had since the time of Christ). The biggest factor (after the initial question of whether or not the individual has a call to the priesthood) is going to be the question of whether or not their spouse want’s to be the pastor’s wife; and that will sort out a whole lot of things very quickly.

 

[otjm]

At the present time, I don’t think it can work. We can’t even figure out how to keep the people in the pews focused on the vocation they have chosen, namely marriage. Divorce is high, even in the Catholic Church. To expect a priest to have 2 vocations and do both of them well all of the time is an unreasonable expectation at this point in time.

You need to rethink that: he already has two separate vocations: priesthood and celibacy. Allowing someone to be married and ordained is simply allowing then to have two separate vocations, with one of them being different than his fellow priests.

I would not argue with those who say that celibacy may be a higher calling (so often said by those who never got up at 3 a.m. to deal with a squalling child, or never had to sacrifice self for a specific other on a constant basis). However, each time Rome responds to the question about married priests, they seem to do so witht he presumption that people are saying that celibacy should be done away with; another straw man argument that simply is not being made.

So we already expect that of priests; given the number of priests who have not been chaste (either with someone of the opposite sex or someone of the same sex) the performance of true celibacy has been something somewhat lacking all too often. That is not to make an argument against celibacy; only to put it in perspective.

As an interesting side note, there have been many comments (presumably based on research, though I have not found the source) that those who are married and practice NFP have a divorce rate hoovering somewhere around 3% or less.

 

[YipYupYep]

I can only speak to my personal experience, which was in the 60’s, but most of my classmates who left the seminary then (me included) got married

All very well said by a man who has been there.

 

[EasterJoy]

That may be a matter more of perspective than of fact. It is a fact that a goodly number of priests left the priesthood starting in the 60’s and continuing (to a lesser degree) today. Many, but not all who leave, do so to get married. They may not say a lot publicly in words, but their actions speak volumes. I can only speak to my personal experience, which was in the 60’s, but most of my classmates who left the seminary then (me included) got married. Is that indicative that we did not have a vocation? Some have said so, some to my face. But that is a totally unresearched personal opinion based on a fallacious arguement that if one had a vocation, one would then have a vocation to the celibate priesthood (an arguement that presumes that they are one vocation and not two separate ones). The short of it is that there really is no research that I know of that even attempts to answer this question.

All of which has not a lot to do with the question. The vocation to the diaconite is a separate and distinct vocation; deacons are not mini-priests or priest wannabes. I don’t have a count exactly of the number of deacons that we have; I think it is somewhere around 4000+, and under 5000. It has, however, been growing more rapidly as more dioceses start ordaining them, and as they become more well known to the parishes. The permanent diaconite program hasn’t been around that long; in addition, if one starts into the program it will take generally a minimum of 3 to as many as 5 years before ordination. Our diocesan program is 5 years.

Many priests are satisified to remain celebate, and do not seem to think that they would have married had they had the opportunity to be ordained while married. Many others seem to understand the rule is not going to be relaxed soon, if ever, and simply don’t dwell on it. And as noted, many left and got married.

But to answer your original question: to what end? To the end of ordaining men who become and Alter Christus. Ordaining men to fulfil the roles of prophet, king and priest through the administration of the sacraments. Marriage is a separate and distinct vocation from priesthood, and both are separate and distinct from the vocation of celibacy; and all three are called to chastity which befits their state in life.

There are all sorts of straw-man arguements made as to why we should not have a married clergy (in spite of the fact that we do, and have had since the time of Christ). The biggest factor (after the initial question of whether or not the individual has a call to the priesthood) is going to be the question of whether or not their spouse want’s to be the pastor’s wife; and that will sort out a whole lot of things very quickly.

There was an exodus of men from the seminary in the '60s who got married, but there was also a concurrent exodus of married Catholics from marriage. The same arguments used in favor of allowing priests to marry also seem to support the idea that married people should be allowed to divorce and engage in serial monogamy: it is more “natural” or “realistic”, the Protestants do it, and so on. The truth is that it would seem that both marriage and celibacy are a lot harder than they used to be, or maybe giving up on the enterprise is easier. Maybe both. I don’t know.

At any rate, after considering the special horrors that the 20th century have visited upon mankind, not to mention the huge stresses we have taken upon ourselves, the question fogs up considerably. I can’t help but thinking that it is so difficult to do either the priesthood or married life that it is insane to ask one young man to do both. Maybe an older man, already settled in marriage, with his children grown, but not the young ones.

My own pet theory is that the World Wars did a lot more spiritual damage to the families and especially the young men who fought in them than anyone likes to let on. We in the US got economic prosperity after WWII, but between WWI and WWII, the entire West was especially left in a world of hurt.

 

[otjm]

There was an exodus of men from the seminary in the '60s who got married, but there was also a concurrent exodus of married Catholics from marriage. The same arguments used in favor of allowing priests to marry also seem to support the idea that married people should be allowed to divorce and engage in serial monogamy: it is more “natural” or “realistic”, the Protestants do it, and so on. The truth is that it would seem that both marriage and celibacy are a lot harder than they used to be, or maybe giving up on the enterprise is easier. Maybe both. I don’t know.

I think we are getting a few things mixed up, or some wires crossed. Let me respond, since you repsonded to my post.

1. I never have and do not now suggest that priests should be able to get married. Other than in extremely rare circumstances, that is not known to have happened in the history of the Church; the rare circumstance was pointed out by Aramis (I believe) where a priest who was married prior to ordination, is ordained, wife dies, and is left with a young family might be allowed to remarry (essentially for the sake of the children).
2. I spoke of the exodus of priests as the comment had been made that priests don’t want to get married. The exodus in and of itself speaks loudly to what some priests wanted, may have wanted prior to ordination, want… And speaking from personal experience wherein a relative, a priest for 10 years, left to get married a couple of years ago, and having known a number of priests who left in the 60’s, the 70’s, and the 80’s, I disagree that this has anything to do with the divorce rate or serial monogamy. According to both the Eastern rites and the Roman rite, a priest has two vocations: priesthood and celibacy or priesthood and marriage. Both have been in the Church since the founding; the Eastern rites have had both options continually; the Roman rite had both for a very long time (celibacy, if I recall, became a universal requirement in the 10th or 11th century) and has celibacy by law and marriage (prior to ordination) by permission in limited circumstances.

I can’t help but thinking that it is so difficult to do either the priesthood or married life that it is insane to ask one young man to do both. Maybe an older man, already settled in marriage, with his children grown, but not the young ones.

It is no more difficult to be married and a priest than it is, say, to be a doctor or a lawyer (since we are talking aboyut the demands on time, I would presume). Or for that matter, young, married, and starting their own business. I am not comparing priesthood to medicine; I am only responding on the issue of time demands (since that is what I take your comment to be directed to).

My own pet theory is that the World Wars did a lot more spiritual damage to the families and especially the young men who fought in them than anyone likes to let on. We in the US got economic prosperity after WWII, but between WWI and WWII, the entire West was especially left in a world of hurt.

I would agree strongly; however, that is not particularly relevant as to whether or not a married priesthood makes any sense.

 

[puzzleannie]

Don’t forget the kids. They need to be fed and clothed in a proper fashion. Books, toys, the whole nine yards. All the money will have to come out of the plate. That would turn the present financial situation upside down.

The spiritual reasons aside. How is that going to work? What’s your opinion.

and they all have to be sent to Catholic school with that whopping tuition bill. Catholics will be served my married clergy when they learn to tithe, as do their brethren in other Christian communities–and not until.

 

[otjm]

In my Archdiocese, the priests are paid by the Archdiocese, not by the parish. Obviously, the Archdiocese is paid by the parishes, which is how it raises money; however, the matter was done to eliminate the problems in the past of poor parishes vs. rich parishes, and the problems priests had as to who was assigned where. Stipends for Masses, etc. go into the parish account, not the priest’s remuneration.

I would assume that is something that is practiced by more than just this Archdiocese.

That in itself would alleviate the perceived problem of the parish having to deal with salary, benefits, etc.

And golly, the Catholic Church might actually have to do economic justice, not just preach it… don’t get me started about Catholic school teachers being paid 80% parity…

 

[bilop]

and they all have to be sent to Catholic school with that whopping tuition bill. Catholics will be served my married clergy when they learn to tithe, as do their brethren in other Christian communities–and not until.

I think they’d let the priest’s kids in free

 

[YipYupYep]

That in itself would alleviate the perceived problem of the parish having to deal with salary, benefits, etc

First, I believe that Roman Catholic Priests should have the choice to be married if they choose. The ones serving now and in the future. If given the choice, I would bet 99.9 percent would wind up falling in love and getting married. Why? Because its the normal and correct way of things.

I never had any fear that the Church would hold back on a fair salary. This post centers on the Catholic people sitting in the pews. Would they go from furtively cupping a dollar bill and putting it in the basket, to the full montey?

In my experience, Catholics and about a good at giving there money to the Church as we are at singing the hymns during Sunday service.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think we are getting a few things mixed up, or some wires crossed. Let me respond, since you repsonded to my post.

1. I never have and do not now suggest that priests should be able to get married. Other than in extremely rare circumstances, that is not known to have happened in the history of the Church; the rare circumstance was pointed out by Aramis (I believe) where a priest who was married prior to ordination, is ordained, wife dies, and is left with a young family might be allowed to remarry (essentially for the sake of the children).
2. I spoke of the exodus of priests as the comment had been made that priests don’t want to get married. The exodus in and of itself speaks loudly to what some priests wanted, may have wanted prior to ordination, want… And speaking from personal experience wherein a relative, a priest for 10 years, left to get married a couple of years ago, and having known a number of priests who left in the 60’s, the 70’s, and the 80’s, I disagree that this has anything to do with the divorce rate or serial monogamy. According to both the Eastern rites and the Roman rite, a priest has two vocations: priesthood and celibacy or priesthood and marriage. Both have been in the Church since the founding; the Eastern rites have had both options continually; the Roman rite had both for a very long time (celibacy, if I recall, became a universal requirement in the 10th or 11th century) and has celibacy by law and marriage (prior to ordination) by permission in limited circumstances.

It is no more difficult to be married and a priest than it is, say, to be a doctor or a lawyer (since we are talking aboyut the demands on time, I would presume). Or for that matter, young, married, and starting their own business. I am not comparing priesthood to medicine; I am only responding on the issue of time demands (since that is what I take your comment to be directed to).

I would agree strongly; however, that is not particularly relevant as to whether or not a married priesthood makes any sense.

Well, first off, I’m married to a doctor, and I’m friends with a deacon’s wife…not the same. Being a priest is not simply a demanding career choice. We’re not just talking about demands on time, although that is part of it. The demand on me to be the priest’s wife and for my kids to be the priest’s kids would be in a different league than it is being the doctor’s wife and kids. (Let’s not even start with the problems that we come up against if our marriage went on the rocks.) In addition, my husband does not have a parallel relationship with his boss that a priest has with his bishop, nor is the priest-parishioner relationship the same as the doctor-patient relationship. There are parallels, but it isn’t the same. Further, leaving the priesthood and leaving medicine are also horses of a different color.

If there weren’t any men who would like to simultaneously be priests and married men, this conversation would never happen. As for ordaining married men, as you point out…it could happen. With the state of marriage being what it is, I would hope the men and their marriages were well along in years before that was considered, though.

My bone of contention is that it is usually celibacy itself that is attacked as unrealistic and unnatural in this kind of debate. Not that not all men can do it, but the idea that no man can and no man should be asked to. It implies that monks and religious brothers are just a bit nuts, if not the nuns and religious sisters, too. (For some reason, women are not given as much credit for being willing to give up children and spouses as men are for doing the same. Go figure.)

As for the WWII comment, I also get tired of Vatican II getting blamed for everything that came down the pike after 1962, but you are right: that’s a point to take up in another thread.

 

[NetNuncio]

I am not in favor of married priest nor woman being ordained

I saw a video clip of a bunch of feminists that were illicitly ordained…Their liturgy was ugly and the singing sounded like screeches…It reminded me of a coven of witches…

Although I am sure you didn’t mean it this way, allow me to correct you. They were not illicitly ordained. This means, although the manner in which they were ordained was not approved, their ordination is valid.

The women of which you speak of participated an invalid ceremony in which nothing, no ordination, no sacraments, took place. They were not illicitly ordained. They weren’t ordained at all.

 

[GailMac]

When priests get married the commit bigamy…They’re already God’s Bride. How can they be anything else?

Peace,

Gail

 

[Digitonomy]

When priests get married the commit bigamy…They’re already God’s Bride. How can they be anything else?Peace,Gail

Are you suggesting that married priests have committed bigamy, or that somehow it’s only bigamy if ordination precedes marriage, not if marriage precedes ordination?

 

[otjm]

Well, first off, I’m married to a doctor, and I’m friends with a deacon’s wife…not the same. Being a priest is not simply a demanding career choice. We’re not just talking about demands on time, although that is part of it. The demand on me to be the priest’s wife and for my kids to be the priest’s kids would be in a different league than it is being the doctor’s wife and kids. (Let’s not even start with the problems that we come up against if our marriage went on the rocks.) In addition, my husband does not have a parallel relationship with his boss that a priest has with his bishop, nor is the priest-parishioner relationship the same as the doctor-patient relationship. There are parallels, but it isn’t the same. Further, leaving the priesthood and leaving medicine are also horses of a different color.

I believe there are more parallels than you may agree to; but the popint is that many people take the position that a priest has to be there 24/7. I was a Realtor, and although I did not get calls at 3 a.m., I was pretty much available every day of the week, and my day started before 8 a.m. and often ended after 10 p.m. People who have an 8 to 5 job have a different perspective on things than others whose workd day stretches totally out of shape. I tire of the “a priest wouldn’t have time for a family”; they have no more time demands on them, and often less, than someone such as a surgeon; that was simply mi premise.

Further, I don’t think that there would be any huge rush of men, married, to become priests; the training takes longer than most (surgeons excepted - an attorney only takes 3 years after college); furhter, the spouse would have to agree, and I would bet there would be a lot of women not anxious to join that select group. The issue would be self-limiting.

If there weren’t any men who would like to simultaneously be priests and married men, this conversation would never happen. As for ordaining married men, as you point out…it could happen. With the state of marriage being what it is, I would hope the men and their marriages were well along in years before that was considered, though.

You and me both.

My bone of contention is that it is usually celibacy itself that is attacked as unrealistic and unnatural in this kind of debate. Not that not all men can do it, but the idea that no man can and no man should be asked to. It implies that monks and religious brothers are just a bit nuts, if not the nuns and religious sisters, too. (For some reason, women are not given as much credit for being willing to give up children and spouses as men are for doing the same. Go figure.)

As for the WWII comment, I also get tired of Vatican II getting blamed for everything that came down the pike after 1962, but you are right: that’s a point to take up in another thread.

I must be out of the circle; I just don’t hear many comments about celibacy being unnatural. I am not trying to eliminate celibacy. I simply think that it is more honest to allow married men to be ordained; there is nothing in the Church that says the Holy Spirit would not call some to the sacrament; the Spirit does now. Just not very often in the Roman rite.

 

[YipYupYep]

I must be out of the circle; I just don’t hear many comments about celibacy being unnatural

I would have said at the start of this post that Celibacy was an unnatural condition under any circumstance. Now, I am not sure about the, under any condition part. However, to impose Celibacy on the Priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church imposes an unnatural condition that is not only vicious, but hurtful to the Churches ability to provide the number of Priests necessary to undertake the Churches mission.

 

[otjm]

I would have said at the start of this post that Celibacy was an unnatural condition under any circumstance. Now, I am not sure about the, under any condition part. However, to impose Celibacy on the Priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church imposes an unnatural condition that is not only vicious, but hurtful to the Churches ability to provide the number of Priests necessary to undertake the Churches mission.

Well, both the vocation to marriage and the vocation to celibacy are gifts. Not everyone is given them. But unnatural? I am not sure we want to go down that path; it too much depends on how one defines “nature” or “natural”.

 

[EasterJoy]

I would have said at the start of this post that Celibacy was an unnatural condition under any circumstance. Now, I am not sure about the, under any condition part. However, to impose Celibacy on the Priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church imposes an unnatural condition that is not only vicious, but hurtful to the Churches ability to provide the number of Priests necessary to undertake the Churches mission. [Boldface mine: EasterJoy]

Vicious? Do you think the bishops have been perpetuating their own victimhood on the next generation of clergy for all these centuries, then? After all, it is not married people who have imposed this discipline, like parents insisting their children be educated only by prim virginal spinsters. A few married clergy may have been around to chip in two cents for the first discussion before the discipline was imposed, but there are none of them around now. It is not as if those who impose the load will not lift a finger to lift it. It is the celibate who are saying that celibacy has such value.

Maybe they know what they are talking about.