A
Arandur
Guest
A lot of good discussion and interesting points. I’ll respond to a few.
sscott:
One of my first questions to anyone who wants a married priesthood is this: how much are they giving to the Church? Are they contributing enough money to support a large number of married priests and their wives and children–including the priest and his wife all the way through retirement? This has to include good health care, private Catholic schooling through College for each child (and these married priests are likely to have LARGE families–think good old Catholic families of 10+ children!), more opportunities for vacation (as a family), etc.
If they’re not giving a considerable portion of income to the Church to be able to support such things, then they’re part of the reason that the Church should not and, as a practical matter, CANNOT, support married priests on a wide scale.
If marriage (before ordination, of course, not after) were enough incentive to encourage a flood of new priests, then why is the permanent deaconate not overflowing? Why aren’t there ten times as many permanent deacons as celibate priests?
I think the lack of it is strong evidence that celibacy is not the problem.
If we DO get a flood of permanent deacons, there won’t be nearly as much pressure on the priests! They’ll have more companionship, more help to provide the Sacraments, more assistance with administration, etc.
I would love to see enough deacons that we don’t even need extraordinary Eucharistic ministers or lectors. After all, those are the primary and ordinary roles of the deacon; the deacon arose in the early Church for precisely the purpose of helping the priests! (Of course, the priests arose as an extension of the bishop, as helpers to him, as well). That’s why eucharistic ministers are called “extra-” ordinary. They should not be needed, if sufficient men were answering God’s calls for them to be deacons.
I suspect that some men overlook the deaconate because they “want” to be priests, or be able to ascend the hierarchy, or whatever. That it’s “not worth it” unless you can “go all the way.” That, to me, sounds like pride and ambition, or at least misunderstanding. It pits vocations against one another.
Anyway, there is so much that a deacon can do that I really see the permanent deacons as a huge part of the solution, and a major reason that priesthood should remain celibate. Deacons can:
Imagine if all these responsibilities were lifted from the shoulders of the priests and taken up by deacons (and many non-sacramental things, by the laity).
We’re not. We have many reasons for the discipline of celibacy; it’s not based on fear… St. Paul himself was a strong advocate of celibacy for the service of God–something I find interesting that so many people, even Bible-loving Protestants, seem to ignore.
People are. Priests and consecrated religious. And married people do have options, still, to serve the Church and even sign up for religious life: we call them lay positions in the Church; lay orders of various types; and the permanent deaconate (more on this later).
Other denominations also often have higher participation levels of the laity to share the burden, smaller flocks per minister, fewer Sacraments to administer (they don’t recognize as many Sacraments!), and, perhaps of most practical importance, much greater rates of tithing, so that they can actually support their families on on the given wage.
One of my first questions to anyone who wants a married priesthood is this: how much are they giving to the Church? Are they contributing enough money to support a large number of married priests and their wives and children–including the priest and his wife all the way through retirement? This has to include good health care, private Catholic schooling through College for each child (and these married priests are likely to have LARGE families–think good old Catholic families of 10+ children!), more opportunities for vacation (as a family), etc.
If they’re not giving a considerable portion of income to the Church to be able to support such things, then they’re part of the reason that the Church should not and, as a practical matter, CANNOT, support married priests on a wide scale.
We don’t? Parents (especially of large families), and those strongly connected to their families (and supporting them), surely know a lot about sacrifice and self-denial. And we’re all called to sacrifice and self-denial, whether we’re priests, married, parents, or in some other vocation.
Yes, we need to do more of this. However, this varies by community. I hear of many priests who have such busy social (and work) schedules that they have to turn down invitations frequently.
Would you consider the permanent deaconate? It’s my understanding that you won’t even necessarily have to give up your other career, thus being better able to support your family while serving the Church as a deacon.
If marriage (before ordination, of course, not after) were enough incentive to encourage a flood of new priests, then why is the permanent deaconate not overflowing? Why aren’t there ten times as many permanent deacons as celibate priests?
I think the lack of it is strong evidence that celibacy is not the problem.
If we DO get a flood of permanent deacons, there won’t be nearly as much pressure on the priests! They’ll have more companionship, more help to provide the Sacraments, more assistance with administration, etc.
I would love to see enough deacons that we don’t even need extraordinary Eucharistic ministers or lectors. After all, those are the primary and ordinary roles of the deacon; the deacon arose in the early Church for precisely the purpose of helping the priests! (Of course, the priests arose as an extension of the bishop, as helpers to him, as well). That’s why eucharistic ministers are called “extra-” ordinary. They should not be needed, if sufficient men were answering God’s calls for them to be deacons.
I suspect that some men overlook the deaconate because they “want” to be priests, or be able to ascend the hierarchy, or whatever. That it’s “not worth it” unless you can “go all the way.” That, to me, sounds like pride and ambition, or at least misunderstanding. It pits vocations against one another.
Anyway, there is so much that a deacon can do that I really see the permanent deacons as a huge part of the solution, and a major reason that priesthood should remain celibate. Deacons can:
- Perform baptisms
- Be delegated to perform marriages (though if a wedding Mass, a priest is required for consecration)
- Preach homilies (imagine if the priests didn’t always have to worry about spending time preparing homilies for daily and Sunday Masses?)
- They are the ordinary lectors and Eucharistic ministers at Mass (and can proclaim the Gospel)
- Offer pastoral blessings
Imagine if all these responsibilities were lifted from the shoulders of the priests and taken up by deacons (and many non-sacramental things, by the laity).
