Why is there a double standard in the RC Church regarding married priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmb717
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jmb717

Guest
I am all for a celibate priesthood, but it seems like the rules should be applied consistently to all within the Latin rite.
If the purpose of a celibate priesthood is to mirror Christ more fully, or to be able to dedicate oneself to the church more fully, then allowing married protestant ministers into the priesthood doesn’t seem consistent with that purpose.
If the purpose of a celibate priesthood is to save men the difficult life of having both a wife and family and a parish to attend to, then it seems like married protestant ministers should be saved that difficulty and allowed to enter the permanent deaconate, but not the priesthood.
If it is a matter of personal discernment, and we argue that protestant ministers were called to marriage, and then later realized they were called to the priesthood, shouldn’t married Catholic men also be allowed to discern whether they are called to the priesthood?
 
Celibacy with priests is a manmade disipline, it can be changed at any time. Other valid rites and churchs do not have this disipline, but have valid orders. So the married priest is still valid, regardless of if they are married or not.
 
I question the use of the term ‘double standard,’ when applied to celibacy and the priesthood.

Do you somehow wish to exclude converts?

I also also believe there is an unwarranted and potentially disastrous push to accept that ROMAN CATHOLIC priests should be free to marry.
 
I am not pushing to accept married priests.
The “double standard” refers to the fact that if you are married and come from a different faith tradition, it is ok to become a married priest. On the other hand, if you are baptized Roman Catholic and then get married, you cannot then become a priest in the Roman Catholic church.
 
jmb717 said:
I am not pushing to accept married priests.
The “double standard” refers to the fact that if you are married and come from a different faith tradition, it is ok to become a married priest. On the other hand, if you are baptized Roman Catholic and then get married, you cannot then become a priest in the Roman Catholic church.
Click to expand...
Its fair to call it a double standard, but who says everything must be consistent all the time? The mark of a bureaucrat is that they never understand that some rules need exceptions. The point is, the church says that celibacy is the ideal, it is clear on that. For both reasons you cite. However. the Church has decided that the advantages (measured in souls) of waiving the rule in order to encourage conversions to the true faith outweigh the ideal. Quite simple. Have you ever visited with any married priests who converted from anglicanism? To a man, they will tell you that the celibacy rule should be maintained. At least that is my experience. They are thankful for being a priest, but they know that their situation is not the ideal.
 
tafan,
I appreciate your answer. I assumed the church was looking at the relative benefits, but it seems that if someone won’t convert to Catholicism because he can’t be a priest, then maybe he is not ready to join the church. Similarly, if the married Catholic is ideally suited to being a priest, then are you losing more souls by forbidding the priesthood simply because he is married?
I have no agenda regarding married priests, I just wish to understand the Church’s reasoning.

BTW, my parish priest is married. I look at his wife and kids and wonder if the church did him and them a disservice by making him a priest rather than insisting that he be a deacon.
 
jmb717 said:
I am not pushing to accept married priests.
The “double standard” refers to the fact that if you are married and come from a different faith tradition, it is ok to become a married priest. On the other hand, if you are baptized Roman Catholic and then get married, you cannot then become a priest in the Roman Catholic church.
Click to expand...
I see absolutely nothing like a double standard in that.

I don’t think a married man can become a deacon either.
 
jmb717 said:
tafan,
I appreciate your answer. I assumed the church was looking at the relative benefits, but it seems that if someone won’t convert to Catholicism because he can’t be a priest, then maybe he is not ready to join the church. .
Click to expand...
Well, your first assumption would be wrong. These men are not allowed to petition for a dispensation from celabcy and to enter the priesthood until after their conversion. Now, this may have chnaged with Benedict XVI’s new rules. But it is not about that person anyway, it is about others of his protestant faith and want to convert, who need a spiritual leader and who can benefit from a priest with the same religious background.
Similarly, if the married Catholic is ideally suited to being a priest, then are you losing more souls by forbidding the priesthood simply because he is married?
Click to expand...
I explicitly reject the idea of a married Catholic being ideally suited to being a priest. Why would you think you have more wisdom than the Church in this regard?
I have no agenda regarding married priests, I just wish to understand the Church’s reasoning.
Click to expand...
It appears you do have an agenda, since you have chosen an ideal which is at odds with the Church.
BTW, my parish priest is married. I look at his wife and kids and wonder if the church did him and them a disservice by making him a priest rather than insisting that he be a deacon
Click to expand...
It is probably tough on his wife and kids. But it would have been his choice and (hopefully) God’s calling.
 
Tafan,
why do you “explicitly reject” a married Catholic man being ideally suited to the priesthood, but you do not “explicitly reject” a married previously Protestant now Catholic man being ideally suited to the priesthood.
I am not substituting my judgment for that of the Church, I just want to know what the Church is basing it’s judgment on.
I do not have an agenda, but I do have a preference, and my preference would be that married clergy who enter the Roman Catholic church be required to remain deacons, at least until all their children are grown. I think my pastor is a fine man, but really, he could have ministered to his former congregation (none of which came with him, by the way) just fine as a deacon. He didn’t need to be made a priest.
I just don’t understand why the Church believes God will call married former Protestant ministers to the priesthood, but won’t call married Catholics to the priesthood. If that is what the Church believes, there should be a reason for that belief, I just want to know what it is.
 
Because the idea behind allowing formerly protestant married priests to become Catholic priests is inclusion, it wouldn’t exactly be inclusive if the church disallowed the man to remain a priest and remain married now would it? I don’t think this is a double standard, but rather a form of compromise if you will. We dont’ want to reject people from joining the catholic church, and we want to use the talents of all of our members to the best of their capacities since those talents are gifts from God. Said talents being pastoral…Chances are that protestant priest who converts will bring with him, a vast knowledge, experiences, education etc., that will empower him to be a wonderful shepherd for a flock that desperately needs capable, compassionate, loving, and trustworthy clerics.
 
tafan said:
Its fair to call it a double standard, but who says everything must be consistent all the time? The mark of a bureaucrat is that they never understand that some rules need exceptions. The point is, the church says that celibacy is the ideal, it is clear on that. For both reasons you cite. However. the Church has decided that the advantages (measured in souls) of waiving the rule in order to encourage conversions to the true faith outweigh the ideal. Quite simple. Have you ever visited with any married priests who converted from anglicanism? To a man, they will tell you that the celibacy rule should be maintained. At least that is my experience. They are thankful for being a priest, but they know that their situation is not the ideal.
Click to expand...
My personal opinion on this subject is, The Church should give the man the choice
of marriage or celibacy. Some can live this life but others may have trouble with this.
It is against the way the Lord created men. We are sexual beings.
But then, as I said , this is my opinion. I don’t know much about the Churches teaching on this subject.
God bless the men who can live this life style.

bluelake
 
JanetF said:
Because the idea behind allowing formerly protestant married priests to become Catholic priests is inclusion, it wouldn’t exactly be inclusive if the church disallowed the man to remain a priest and remain married now would it? I don’t think this is a double standard, but rather a form of compromise if you will. We dont’ want to reject people from joining the catholic church, and we want to use the talents of all of our members to the best of their capacities since those talents are gifts from God. Said talents being pastoral…Chances are that protestant priest who converts will bring with him, a vast knowledge, experiences, education etc., that will empower him to be a wonderful shepherd for a flock that desperately needs capable, compassionate, loving, and trustworthy clerics.
Click to expand...
janet,
I agree with your comments.
There was a program on ‘The Journey Home’ Mon.evening with a former Anglican priest.
He is married with children and is now a Catholic priest.
This program can be viewed this week at a different time . Check your tv guide.
Those who are interested can also order a tape of the program from EWTN.

God bless,
bluelake
 
jmb717 said:
Tafan,
why do you “explicitly reject” a married Catholic man being ideally suited to the priesthood, but you do not “explicitly reject” a married previously Protestant now Catholic man being ideally suited to the priesthood.
I am not substituting my judgment for that of the Church, I just want to know what the Church is basing it’s judgment on.
I do not have an agenda, but I do have a preference, and my preference would be that married clergy who enter the Roman Catholic church be required to remain deacons, at least until all their children are grown. I think my pastor is a fine man, but really, he could have ministered to his former congregation (none of which came with him, by the way) just fine as a deacon. He didn’t need to be made a priest.
I just don’t understand why the Church believes God will call married former Protestant ministers to the priesthood, but won’t call married Catholics to the priesthood. If that is what the Church believes, there should be a reason for that belief, I just want to know what it is.
Click to expand...
Interesting question. does anyone know the answer?

bluelake
 
bluelake said:
Interesting question. does anyone know the answer?

bluelake
Click to expand...
Catholic men who are married cannot become priests because of their vows within the Church. Widowers are released from their vows and can seek the priesthood if they wish. As others have explained, the current norm for discipline within the priesthood is celibacy.

Pastors of other traditions are invited to conversion and retain the priestly character of their previous vocation regardless of their marital status. That they might have more than one vocation is not a double-standard per se. Their sons who become members of the Church will be enjoined to the same disciplines and delineation of vocations as you and I are, since that is the norm.

.
 
jmb717 said:
I am not pushing to accept married priests.
The “double standard” refers to the fact that if you are married and come from a different faith tradition, it is ok to become a married priest. On the other hand, if you are baptized Roman Catholic and then get married, you cannot then become a priest in the Roman Catholic church.
Click to expand...
It isn’t a double standard, it is making accommodation for a special case.
A double standard would be allowing an Episcopal priest who converts to marry after taking Catholic holy orders.

Personally, I think it might be wise to consider allowing married men to be ordained as priests, esp. those whose children are grown or almost. There are already more “late vocations” coming into the priesthood.
But I’ll leave that to wiser heads than mine.
 
jmb717 said:
I am not pushing to accept married priests.
The “double standard” refers to the fact that if you are married and come from a different faith tradition, it is ok to become a married priest. On the other hand, if you are baptized Roman Catholic and then get married, you cannot then become a priest in the Roman Catholic church.
Click to expand...
Not quite. You can be baptised Roman Catholic and be a married priest, if you are a member of one of the Eastern Catholic rites or churches (which are just as Roman, being fully subject to the Pontiff as Bishop of Rome, as the Latin Rite). It’s not, it’s merely a case of different disciplines for different circumstances, and moreover one which has existed for 1,000 years within these various rites and churches which are part of the Roman Catholic church.

For another matter, is it ALSO a double standard that the EF of the Mass must be said in Latin, whereas the OF can be said in Latin, vernacular or a mix of the two?

The fact that different disciplines apply in different situations doesn’t make them double standards - disciplines are designed to be flexible and changeable in this fashion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top