Why NOT allow optional celibacy for the priesthood?

[centurionguard]

Here’s the thing, though. Discerning a vocation to the priesthood isn’t something that a man does on his own – just like marriage, it’s something that happens between two parties. In the case of priesthood, the two parties are the Church and the man. If one (but not the other) discerns the vocation, then you simply just do not have a vocation: the Church cannot tell a man, “you will be a priest, young man!” just as a man cannot tell the Church, “I will be a priest, regardless what you say!”.

In other words, if someone unilaterally says “I have a vocation to the priesthood” (and the Church doesn’t concur), then that’s the clearest evidence that he doesn’t have a vocation to the priesthood!

So, if the Church says “celibacy”, then a man who says “I have a vocation to the priesthood but not to celibacy” is deluding himself… :sad_yes:

Here’s the thing, though. Discerning a vocation to the priesthood isn’t something that a man does on his own – just like marriage, it’s something that happens between two parties. In the case of priesthood, the two parties are the Church and the man.

Negative; ask any devout priest where he gets his true calling inside. The Church may have helped him with his choice but his true discerned calling spiritually within comes from Christ Jesus Himself. This calling within to priesthood is a true unique gift unparalleled.

 

[dixieagle]

You hit the nail on the head. If a man is interested in the priesthood, but doesn’t care enough about it to practice celibacy, then that is a CLEAR indication that he is not ready to be a priest!!

I think that the many Eastern Catholic priests, not to mention those who were Episcopal or otherwise and converted, would disagree vehemently.

 

[dshix]

I think that the many Eastern Catholic priests, not to mention those who were Episcopal or otherwise and converted, would disagree vehemently.

That’s because they didn’t have the celibacy requirement.

 

[Titus813]

Here’s the thing, though. Discerning a vocation to the priesthood isn’t something that a man does on his own – just like marriage, it’s something that happens between two parties. In the case of priesthood, the two parties are the Church and the man. If one (but not the other) discerns the vocation, then you simply just do not have a vocation: the Church cannot tell a man, “you will be a priest, young man!” just as a man cannot tell the Church, “I will be a priest, regardless what you say!”.

In other words, if someone unilaterally says “I have a vocation to the priesthood” (and the Church doesn’t concur), then that’s the clearest evidence that he doesn’t have a vocation to the priesthood!

So, if the Church says “celibacy”, then a man who says “I have a vocation to the priesthood but not to celibacy” is deluding himself… :sad_yes:

While your argument may be true in a metaphysical sense, it has no practical bearing on the question I am proposing. By your logic, if the Latin Church did decide to make celibacy optional for priests one day, then those men who, according to you, did NOT have vocations the day before (because they felt called to both marriage and the priesthood) could very well wake up with a true vocation the next day (because the Church had now decided to allow for optional celibacy). I’m not saying this isn’t true, but, as I said, this is a metaphysical definition that really has no bearing on the PRACTICAL question of whether optional celibacy should be allowed.

 

[Gorgias]

Negative; ask any devout priest where he gets his true calling inside. The Church may have helped him with his choice but his true discerned calling spiritually within comes from Christ Jesus Himself.

This is true: however, if a man says “I have a true calling to be a (Latin Rite Catholic) priest, from Christ Jesus himself”, and then he introduces you to his wife and children, would you say that indeed, he has a true calling and therefore should become a priest?

The Church confirms the call; without that confirmation, no assertion of a true vocation may be made.

 

[dshix]

While your argument may be true in a metaphysical sense, it has no practical bearing on the question I am proposing. By your logic, if the Latin Church did decide to make celibacy optional for priests one day, then those men who, according to you, did NOT have vocations the day before (because they felt called to both marriage and the priesthood) could very well wake up with a true vocation the next day (because the Church had now decided to allow for optional celibacy). I’m not saying this isn’t true, but, as I said, this is a metaphysical definition that really has no bearing on the PRACTICAL question of whether optional celibacy should be allowed.

You are implying that a man’s vocation, given by God, can change based on circumstantial disciplines of the Church at any time.

That is not true. Either God created a man with a vocation or without one. If a man decides he can’t become a priest because then he’d be unable to get the pleasure of marital relations, then he is putting his own pleasure before God.

God doesn’t change.

 

[Gorgias]

While your argument may be true in a metaphysical sense, it has no practical bearing on the question I am proposing.

I was responding to Julia Mae’s assertion, not yours.

 

[twf]

Why not?

From the Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden:

It happened that a person who was absorbed in prayer heard then a voice saying to her:

"O you to whom it has been given to hear and see spiritually, hear now the things that I want to reveal to you: namely, concerning that archbishop who said that if he were pope, he would give leave for all clerics and priests to contract marriages in the flesh. He thought and believed that this would be more acceptable to God than that clerics should live dissolutely, as they now do. For he believed that through such marriage the greater carnal sins might be avoided; and even though he did not rightly understand God’s will in this matter, nonetheless that same archbishop was still a friend of God.

But now I shall tell you God’s will in this matter; for I gave birth to God himself.

You will make these things known to my bishop and say to him that circumcision was given to Abraham long before the law was given to Moses and that, in that time of Abraham, all human beings whatsoever were guided according to their own intellect and according to the choice of their own will and that, nevertheless, many of them were then friends of God. But after the law was given to Moses, it then pleased God more that human beings should live under the law and according to the law rather than follow their own human understanding and choice. It was the same with my Son’s blessed Body.

For after he instituted in the world this new sacrament of the eucharist and ascended into heaven, the ancient law was then still kept: namely, that Christian priests lived in carnal matrimony. And, nonetheless, many of them were still friends of God because they believed with simple purity that this was pleasing to God: namely, that Christian priests should have wives and live in wedlock just as, in the ancient times of the Jews, this had pleased him in the case of Jewish priests. And so, this was the observance of Christian priests for many years.

But that observance and ancient custom seemed very abominable and hateful to all the heavenly court and to me, who gave birth to his body: namely, because it was being thus observed by Christian priests who, with their hands, touch and handle this new and immaculate Sacrament of the most holy Body of my Son. For the Jews had, in the ancient law of the Old Testament, a shadow, i.e., a figure, of this Sacrament; but Christians now have the truth itself- namely, him who is true God an man - in that blessed and consecrated bread.

After those earlier Christian priests had observed these practices for a time, God himself, through the infusion of his Holy Spirit, put into the heart of the pope then guiding the Church another law more acceptable and pleasing to him in this matter: namely, by pouring this infusion into the heart of the pope so that he established a statute in the universal Church that Christian priests, who have so holy and so worthy an office, namely, of consecrating this precious Sacrament, should by no means live in the easily contaminated, carnal delight of marriage.

And therefore, through God’s preordinance and his judgment, it has been justly ordained that priests who do not live in chastity and continence of the flesh are cursed and excommunicated before God and deserve to be deprived of their priestly office. But still, if they truthfully amend their lives with the true purpose of not sinning further, they will obtain mercy from God.

Know this too: that if some pope concedes to priests a license to contract carnal marriage, God will condemn him to a sentence as great, in a spiritual way, as that which the law justly inflicts in a corporeal way on a man who has transgressed so gravely that he must have his eyes gouged out, his tongue and lips, nose and ears cut off, his hands and feet amputated, all his body’s blood spilled out to grow completely cold, and finally, his whole bloodless corpse cast out to be devoured by dogs and other wild beasts. Similar things would truly happen in a spiritual way to that pope who were to go against the aforementioned preordinance and will of God and concede to priests such a license to contract marriage.

For that same pope would be totally deprived by God of his spiritual sight and hearing, and of his spiritual words and deeds. All his spiritual wisdom would grow completely cold; and finally, after his death, his soul would be cast out to be tortured eternally in hell so that there it might become the food of demons everlastingly and without end. Yes, even if Saint Gregory the Pope had made this statute, in the aforesaid sentence he would never have obtained mercy from God if he had not humbly revoked his statute before his death."

Is this an approved revelation? Because if so, the Church has contradicted herself. Blessed John Paul is well on the way to canonization and he granted permission for former married Anglican clergy to be ordained to the priesthood. Is he burning in hell as this revelation suggests? Of course not. Many sainted popes have been more than content for the Eastern Catholic Churches to continue ordaining married men to the priesthood - are these sainted priests also in hell? This revelation must be decidedly false - it contradicts the mind of the Church. It also implies that marriage is something “dirty” when it is in fact a venerable sacrament of the Church - a most holy and blessed state.

 

[dshix]

Is this an approved revelation? Because if so, the Church has contradicted herself. Blessed John Paul is well on the way to canonization and he granted permission for former married Anglican clergy to be ordained to the priesthood. Is he burning in hell as this revelation suggests? Of course not. Many sainted popes have been more than content for the Eastern Catholic Churches to continue ordaining married men to the priesthood - are these sainted priests also in hell? This revelation must be decidedly false - it contradicts the mind of the Church. It also implies that marriage is something “dirty” when it is in fact a venerable sacrament of the Church - a most holy and blessed state.

Priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma. This discipline primarily effects priests of the Roman Rite, and therefore it is a sin for them to get married while priests.

For other Rites, the case may differ as may be.

 

[Titus813]

You know who is not asking for marriage? The PRIESTS! (a few may be, but they are a tiny bunch and are being tempted away from obedience)

What I note is a human tendency for us to be more concerned with others’ living conditions than they are - especially in the case of those who willingly and voluntarily accepted and embraced those same conditions.

Ask a Priest: He will likely tell you that celibacy is a gift. Would you take that away?

Thank you for bringing up another argument I had forgotten.

The fact is, this question isn’t really concerned with whether or not those who are already priests want optional celibacy or not. The concern is that we have, and likely will continue to have, a serious priest shortage in the US. To alleviate that shortage, we should be more concerned with what is standing in the way of men who are “on the fence” about the priesthood-- what is stopping them from taking that leap? In my experience, from talking to many young men in that position, the answer is inevitably and unequivocally: celibacy. Again, Catholics seem to have an amazing capacity for self-deception and willful ignorance when it comes to this issue.

Also, evidence suggests that much more than a “tiny bunch” of priests favor optional celibacy. In 2003, 29 percent of the priests in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee signed a letter to then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan petitioning for optional celibacy. When you consider how many more priests in that diocese probably didn’t feel like drawing unwanted attention from their boss (as is always the case in organizations), the actual percentage in favor of optional celibacy was likely much higher.

I will confess, that is kind of a depressing statistic in some ways, but I also don’t see the virtue in being anything less than completely above-board and honest about serious issues facing our beloved Church.

 

[Mumbles140]

I understand the point the OP is trying to make, but I disagree with it. You have an issue of declining numbers in terms of priests (which, btw, I haven’t seen numbers on, so I assume we are talking in the past 40 years generally as opposed to the past several specifically?), and think that allowing for celibacy could bring that number back up. I understand the approach - do what we need to so the numbers go back up. However, there is one giant piece lacking - addressing the issue(s) that caused the decline in the first place.

I am in no way saying I have the answers for these issues, and one might see some balance between allowing optional celibacy for priests and the (ongoing) sexual revolution, but I believe there is more to it than that. In the late 90s/early 2000s, there were 2 diocese in the US that did not permit female altar servers - the Diocese of Arlington (VA, my where I grew up), and (forgive me Nebraska) the Diocese of Lincoln, I think, or Omaha - one of the two. In one of those early 2000 years, the Diocese of Arlington had 9 young men entering the seminary that year, a very large number for such a small diocese. The explanation was simple - strong faith formation in a conservative diocese, where there was a natural accession from altar boy to priest. Looking back pre-Vatican II, you had varying levels of those on the altar assisting the priest - altar servers, sub-deacons, and deacons. By using this system, it allows those interested in the priesthood to get ‘closer’ to certain aspects of it, while ‘weeding out’ (please ignore any connotation with this) others who did not have that calling. I’m not suggesting all priests came up through this method, but it makes sense to me.

Look, I don’t know if a strong, uniform push back to conservatism is the answer (but I do think it contributes greatly to the solution), and there are still larger societal issues/pressures at play that affect this matter, but I don’t think sacrificing priestly celibacy to draw in more priests does the trick. Priestly celibacy has existed in the Latin Rite for a very long time, so it (in and of itself) cannot be attributed to the decline in the priesthood, although I do believe changes in culture highlight this as an issue people have with the Church. But, that just means we need to change the hearts of the people, not the disciplines of the Church…

 

[dshix]

Thank you for bringing up another argument I had forgotten.

The fact is, this question isn’t really concerned with whether or not those who are already priests want optional celibacy or not. The concern is that we have, and likely will continue to have, a serious priest shortage in the US. To alleviate that shortage, we should be more concerned with what is standing in the way of men who are “on the fence” about the priesthood-- what is stopping them from taking that leap? In my experience, from talking to many young men in that position, the answer is inevitably and unequivocally: celibacy. Again, Catholics seem to have an amazing capacity for self-deception and willful ignorance when it comes to this issue.

Also, evidence suggests that much more than a “tiny bunch” of priests favor optional celibacy. In 2003, 29 percent of the priests in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee signed a letter to then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan petitioning for optional celibacy. When you consider how many more priests in that diocese probably didn’t feel like drawing unwanted attention from their boss (as is always the case in organizations), the actual percentage in favor of optional celibacy was likely much higher.

I will confess, that is kind of a depressing statistic in some ways, but I also don’t see the virtue in being anything less than completely above-board and honest about serious issues facing our beloved Church.

You know, Titus, would you rather have a hundred $100 bills or a thousand $1 bills?

Having a whole bunch of married priests isn’t necessarily a good thing. Being married distracts from the priesthood and makes it more difficult for the priest to focus wholeheartedly on his one goal: leading himself and his congregation to heaven.

P.S.
On a side note, doesn’t anyone else find it strange that the OP made this user specifically for this thread? Every single post he/she has made on that user is on this thread.

It isn’t like a genuine, new member to walk in to a brand new forum they’ve never seen before and lay out a whole bunch of points on why priests should get married.

 

[mark_a]

The pope himself says that every priestly vocation crisis is always accompanied by a marriage vacation crisis. Which boils down to a commitment crisis.

The other thing is that people always seem to presume that married Catholic priests would have their 2.2 kids, just like Protestant ministers. But if priests follow Catholic teaching about contraception, they would have large Catholic families that would be very hard to support on a priest’s salary.

To learn how your suggestion of married priests developed into the Protestant dogma of 2.2 kids per family, just click my signature link.

 

[Titus813]

You know, Titus, would you rather have a hundred $100 bills or a thousand $1 bills?

To reiterate a point that several people have suggested on this thread, I would consider that somewhat insulting to the married priests that do currently work so hard, both in the Latin and the Eastern rites.

Also, optional celibacy might help some men who would otherwise be $1 priests (lonely, wanting intimate companionship), become $10 or $100 priests (feels kinda icky putting a price on priests!)

Again, we are talking about OPTIONAL celibacy. You could still have all those $100 priests who choose celibacy as a discipline-- and nothing I say is to diminish the amazing and heroic value of these men and their work-- but you would also bring in a lot of good married priests, too (such a thing does exist).

 

[dshix]

To reiterate a point that several people have suggested on this thread, I would consider that somewhat insulting to the married priests that do currently work so hard, both in the Latin and the Eastern rites.

Also, optional celibacy might help some men who would otherwise be $1 priests (lonely, wanting intimate companionship), become $10 or $100 priests (feels kinda icky putting a price on priests!)

Again, we are talking about OPTIONAL celibacy. You could still have all those $100 priests who choose celibacy as a discipline-- and nothing I say is to diminish the amazing and heroic value of these men and their work-- but you would also bring in a lot of good married priests, too (such a thing does exist).

It was an analogy, and you ignored the rest of my post. Please answer the rest of it:

Having a whole bunch of married priests isn’t necessarily a good thing. Being married distracts from the priesthood and makes it more difficult for the priest to focus wholeheartedly on his one goal: leading himself and his congregation to heaven.

 

[Burdensome1]

The Roman Catholic Church says no. And she has repeatedly said no for a very long time. That’s why not, and should be reason enough for any Catholic to accept it.

I brought up this book in another thread. I highly recommend it. It says, with extensive ancient citation, that the regulations concerning priests being married are a natural consequence of the apostolic laws concerning allowable sexual behavior for priests.

In modern times, I think it is pretty obvious (as demonstrated yet again by the quoted post) that Catholics have an extremely difficult time explaining celibacy. I believe this is because of a very simple reason:

We no longer know any of our traditions concerning sex and ministering at the altar. These are lost, more lost than anything traditionalists say is “lost”. This was once a very serious matter, once that Catholicism inherited from Judaic practices. The ancient Popes taught about it, and the ancient councils. Once celibacy became (for all intents) universal, these were no longer current issues, and faded away.

Since we don’t know anything about this, we think of the celibacy issue as an option, a choice between goods. Family vs. some ill-defined advantage in ministering to the flock. This is a modern, functional argument, and it seems the ancients would not have considered it primary. Rather, what is proper conduct at home for a man intending to offer the sacrifice of the Mass the next day was their primary issue.

Given the restrictions that they inherited from the very early Church, they considered something as draconian as total priestly celibacy a reasonable alternative. We don’t have any idea at all about this (and if we did we would say it was silly ancient anti-sexual mistakes, probably Augustine’s fault) and so we cannot see the issue from their perspective.

We look at it as happy priest making babies with wife vs. unhappy priest with no wife.

They looked at it as “It is so difficult for clerics to be properly chaste as is required to offer the sacrifice, perhaps it would be better if there was no opportunity for this temptation.”

That’s why, IMHO, this makes no real sense in modern terms.

Shark suit on and zipped.

 

[Titus813]

I brought up this book in another thread. I highly recommend it. It says, with extensive ancient citation, that the regulations concerning priests being married are a natural consequence of the apostolic laws concerning allowable sexual behavior for priests.

In modern times, I think it is pretty obvious (as demonstrated yet again by the quoted post) that Catholics have an extremely difficult time explaining celibacy. I believe this is because of a very simple reason:

We no longer know any of our traditions concerning sex and ministering at the altar. These are lost, more lost than anything traditionalists say is “lost”. This was once a very serious matter, once that Catholicism inherited from Judaic practices. The ancient Popes taught about it, and the ancient councils. Once celibacy became (for all intents) universal, these were no longer current issues, and faded away.

Since we don’t know anything about this, we think of the celibacy issue as an option, a choice between goods. Family vs. some ill-defined advantage in ministering to the flock. This is a modern, functional argument, and it seems the ancients would not have considered it primary. Rather, what is proper conduct at home for a man intending to offer the sacrifice of the Mass the next day was their primary issue.

Given the restrictions that they inherited from the very early Church, they considered something as draconian as total priestly celibacy a reasonable alternative. We don’t have any idea at all about this (and if we did we would say it was silly ancient anti-sexual mistakes, probably Augustine’s fault) and so we cannot see the issue from their perspective.

We look at it as happy priest making babies with wife vs. unhappy priest with no wife.

They looked at it as “It is so difficult for clerics to be properly chaste as is required to offer the sacrifice, perhaps it would be better if there was no opportunity for this temptation.”

That’s why, IMHO, this makes no real sense in modern terms.

Shark suit on and zipped.

Hey, not so fast! That is all very fascinating, but I am curious where you come down on the issue.

A man’s relations with his wife rendering him not sufficiently chaste to offer the Mass? That does sound very anti-sexual. If that was their attitude, then it seems like we have moved beyond that, with allowing married priests (former Episcopalians) in the Latin Rite. As far as I am aware, there aren’t any requirements for them regarding abstaining from sexual intercourse following ordination.

 

[Shin]

Many sainted popes have been

Etc.

The reply shows a number of misunderstandings. Too many to clear up without a fundamental approach to learning about continence and celibacy itself, too much for a forum post. Perhaps a book on the subject…?

The amount of time a married priest required to properly observe Holy Mass to observe continence would be – every day he served at Mass. That’s the way it was done in the places where continence failed to be observed perfectly – i.e. the priest did not separate from relations with his wife, for good, upon ordination which when married priests were allowed was the practice. Simply disallowing marriage naturally flows from this.

Even the married laity, at least, observed continence whenever there was Mass, up until very recent times. They also observed it on all high holy days.

So too, a priest bound to his spouse by the marriage contract would have to satisfy it whenever she legitimately wished, which would interfere with the Mass. And so too, the lack of children folks have in modern times is a grave sin, the priest if he were to observe marriage properly could easily have twelve children to care for.

Another detail to note, not exactly to the point, but:

Actually from the year 885 A.D. up to today, there have only been 5 popes declared saints. That’s 3%.

Before that from 496 A.D. until 885 A.D., 40% of the popes were declared saints.

And before that, all the popes, with one exception were saints, or 98% of the popes.

A few too are called venerable or blessed, but never go any further.

I will note this trend shows a distinct decline.

There are other trends of decline too. The abandonment of Christianity by the nations for example who had all adopted it during the spread of the Gospel. Another bit of neglected history in secular courses.

‘Priests and deacons must be either virgins or widowers before being ordained, or at least observe perpetual continence after their ordination. . . If married men find this difficult to endure, they should not turn against me, but rather against Holy Writ and the entire ecclesiastical order.’

St. Jerome, Father & Doctor of the Church

‘No one can be ignorant of the fact that all the Fathers of the Catholic Church unanimously imposed the inviolable rule of continence on clerics in major orders. The Body of the Lord in the sacrament of the altar is the same as the one carried by the immaculate hands of the Virgin at Bethlehem. To be able to touch It, it is necessary to have pure hands, sanctified by perfect continence.’

St. Peter Damian, Doctor of the Church

 

[babochka]

Also, evidence suggests that much more than a “tiny bunch” of priests favor optional celibacy. In 2003, 29 percent of the priests in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee signed a letter to then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan petitioning for optional celibacy. When you consider how many more priests in that diocese probably didn’t feel like drawing unwanted attention from their boss (as is always the case in organizations), the actual percentage in favor of optional celibacy was likely much higher.

I will confess, that is kind of a depressing statistic in some ways, but I also don’t see the virtue in being anything less than completely above-board and honest about serious issues facing our beloved Church.

Of course, optional celibacy wouldn’t affect current priests in any way. They would still not be free to marry. Neither the Catholic (east or west) nor the Orthodox churches, would consider allowing an already ordained man to marry.

 

[Gorgias]

Of course, optional celibacy wouldn’t affect current priests in any way. They would still not be free to marry. Neither the Catholic (east or west) nor the Orthodox churches, would consider allowing an already ordained man to marry.

This!

(Besides which – back in the days immediately following Vatican II, many people thought that mandatory clerical celibacy was soon to go the way of the dodo. Some of these were seminarians. They got ordained anyway, expecting a decree from Rome that never came. Wonder how many of these disappointed priests were in that 29% percent?)