Why NOT allow optional celibacy for the priesthood?

[ValPal]

Would it even be just – let alone practical – to send them away to houses of formation for an extended period of time? If so, how would they provide for their families while in formation? If not, would we really expect men to be in part-time formation for 14-16 years? How would we manage the academic component of formation? (After all, universities tend not to offer evening programs of graduate study in theology!)

If they really have a calling, they’ll figure it out. Being a priest isn’t easy.

People figure out ways through situations like this all the time. A buddy of mine just got married, and he and his wife are still in college. He’s got at least four more years of med school then his internship. But he’s driven, and any married priest that was driven would do the same thing.

 

[Sillara]

Just as an aside, from the perspective of a former Protestant, whose denomination did indeed have married clergy, I acknowledge the Church’s wisdom in the discipline of celibacy for Her priests!

I was a “PK” and “MK”, that is, “Preacher’s Kid” and “Missionary’s Kid”.

My father’s life was more difficult because he had a family to care for, and one or the other ends up taking second place, whether it is his ministry or his family.

Even now, when my sisters and I have all been out of the house and married for over a decade, the fact that my father is married is still a difficulty. His particular position in his church requires much travel. He is out of the country about half the time. It is too expensive for my mother to go with him, so she remains behind. Half their time is spent apart, and it has been so for many, many years.

I would not recommend married clergy to anyone, and my parents are actually considered to have done well. At least most of their children are still serving God. (They have their doubts about me, as I have joined the Catholic Church.) Many times, the “PK” or “MK” will end up being an utter hellion.

 

[Burdensome1]

Just as an aside, from the perspective of a former Protestant, whose denomination did indeed have married clergy, I acknowledge the Church’s wisdom in the discipline of celibacy for Her priests!

I have heard this before from PK’s…Catholics rarely listen.

Catholics think married priests will solve problems that didn’t come from too much dedication to celibacy in the first place…

 

[Vico]

I have found no such prohibition in Canon Law. What source are you using?

Liturgical law is given in other documents apart from canon law. That which would provide scandal is excluded. For example:
Norms for the Use of Low-Gluten Bread and Mustum
(Prot. 0) August 22, 1994 CDWIII. Common Norms

A. The ordinary must ascertain that the matter used conforms to the above requirements.
B. Permissions are to be given only for as long as the situation continues which motivated the request.
C. Scandal is to be avoided.
D. Given the centrality of the celebration of the eucharist in the life of the priest, candidates for the priesthood who are affected by celiac disease or suffer from alcoholism or similar conditions may not be admitted to holy orders.
E. Since the doctrinal questions in this area have now been decided, disciplinary competence is entrusted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
F. Concerned episcopal conferences shall report to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments every two years regarding the application of these norms.

With warm regards and best wishes,
I am Sincerely yours in Christ,
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect

 

[ValPal]

I have heard this before from PK’s…Catholics rarely listen.

Catholics think married priests will solve problems that didn’t come from too much dedication to celibacy in the first place…

It can solve problems, but that certainly isn’t my point. I just believed that some people are called to the vocation of marriage and priesthood, in which case it shouldn’t simply be one or the other. Given that married Catholic priests and deacons are already permitted in certain circumstances, that is not an unreasonable assumption.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have to protest this idea in the strongest way.

In the early Church, permanent deacons were exactly that, permanently deacons. For the first 500 years of the Church, the deacon was not a priest-lite, booby-prize or stepping stone to the priesthood. The diaconate was not transitional. The diaconate was considered a unique vocation, valuable in its own right even apart from the priesthood. The idea of rising through the ranks or cursus honorum, was an adaptation of secular roman political and military practices and did much damage to the Church.

The Western Church has specified very clearly that the permanent diaconate is exactly that, a restoration of that which was recognized in the early Church as an authentic and unique vocation in its own right, the call to ordination into service as a permanent state.

Whether my words have an impression on anyone or not, the reality is that the idea of raising married permanent deacons to the priesthood so as to be examples of good, holy married men isn’t going to happen in the Western Church any time soon. Deacons can and are doing that today anyway, and will continue to do so without the need to become priests. The Church did not restore the permanent diaconate after 1000 years of disuse to begin to chip away at its permanence this soon.

At the inquiry meetings I went to, the idea of permanence was explained very clearly, and we were told that a permanent deacon should have no expectation of becomging a priest.

-Tim-

No, this is not true. There is no such thing as a permanent deacon ever in the Church. The word permanent doesn’t say about those who have chosen to be deacons for their entire lives, rather the “permanent” part is used because the man is married thus is not given any hope for ordination into the priesthood and beyond.

I think you misinterpreted what the RC Church has said about the restoration. The restoration is having a deacon as a ministry among the clergy, and not merely a stepping stone to the priesthood. Yes, there are those who are deacons for their entire lives, even today in both the Eastern Catholic Churches and Orthodoxy. They are not called permanent deacons, they are just called deacons. There are no distinction between those who get ordained into the presbyteriate or episcopate later on, and those who doesn’t. What the RC Church is restoring is the diaconate as a true ministry. There is nothing in the early Church that says a deacon is ordained to the diaconate and that is it. They can always be elevated. Whether they are elevated or not is a different discussion, but never in the entire history of the Church has it been off the table. Except of course today in the RC where when one is a deacon and married, then one cannot be elevated because of the restriction on the priesthood.

 

[Godfollower]

No, this is not true. There is no such thing as a permanent deacon ever in the Church. The word permanent doesn’t say about those who have chosen to be deacons for their entire lives, rather the “permanent” part is used because the man is married thus is not given any hope for ordination into the priesthood and beyond.

An unmarried man who wishes to become a priest first becomes a transitional deacon. An unmarried man who becomes a deacon and does not want to become a priest is a permanent deacon. A married man can become a permanent deacon but (except in unusual circumstances) not a priest (and therefore not a transitional deacon).

 

[ConstantineTG]

An unmarried man who wishes to become a priest first becomes a transitional deacon. An unmarried man who becomes a deacon and does not want to become a priest is a permanent deacon. A married man can become a permanent deacon but (except in unusual circumstances) not a priest (and therefore not a transitional deacon).

All these are just modern day terminology. A deacon is a deacon. In the East we have Archdeacons, Heirodeacons and Protodeacons. They are all just deacons. A transitional deacon is no different from a permanent deacon, they are both deacons. There is nothing preventing the Church from ordaining a permanent deacon into a priest. Yes, there is the canonical discipline, but that can be dispensed and the permanent deacon can be ordained a priest.

 

[Vico]

Reference:

Basic Norms For The Formation Of Permanent Deacons, Directory For The Ministry And Life Of Permanent Deacons, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City 1998

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_31031998_directorium-diaconi_en.html