Why NOT allow optional celibacy for the priesthood?

[Saints_Alive]

Not “any” Catholic (as in ALL Catholics) - I personally know a married Catholic priest and his wife babysits our youngest son. And he has a parish in the Diocese and everything!

The topic is optional celibacy for the priesthood and the Roman Catholic Church says no.
And yes, every Catholic must accept that. We can discuss it, but not reject the decision.

Is the priest you mention a convert ?

 

[Burdensome1]

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

With Rome, as always.

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

Quite.

, 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.

Personally, I have no idea what their Bishops tell them. I bet a dinarius it depends on the Bishop.

 

[Saints_Alive]

To the OP:

This is an interesting and controversial topic, and I really think we could go on forever posting about it because there are so many arguments on both sides.

But the fact remains: the Church has demanded celibacy for all priests in the Roman Rite, and this thread isn’t going to change that.

I’d suggest, Titus, that you take this question to the forum where you can ask Apologists questions, and find an answer to your question as to why priests should not be able to get married.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Titus813]

Quoted for truth.

Well, that isn’t true. There are in fact married priests in the Latin Rite.

Also to respond to the last part of that quoted post, I didn’t take my question to the apologist forum because I didn’t want a glib and pat answer to a serious question. Those are quite easy to come by in discussing this issue, in my experience, and not of much value.

 

[ValPal]

Also, evidence suggests that much more than a “tiny bunch” of priests favor optional celibacy.

In the two parishes I’ve lived in over the past two decades, both had priests that were very in favor of married priests. One in particular was surprising, given you loyal he was to the Church and was very diligent about informing people of the “rules.”

I really don’t see anything wrong with having married secular priests (religious and bishops, IMHO, should stay unmarried). The caveat is that is should be done on a case by case basis. Their marital state would also come into play when they are assigned their duties since they would have to divide their time between Church and family (like many married deacons do).

 

[Gorgias]

Well, that isn’t true. There are in fact married priests in the Latin Rite.

You are, of course, correct. However, it is normative and represents the overwhelming majority of Latin Rite priests. I think that makes sense – it is a discipline, after all, and so, while an exception can be made in special circumstances, it is a state of affairs that is by and large the case.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Priestly celibacy is optional in the Catholic Church. Would-be priests who are married are free to seek ordination in the Byzantine, Alexandrian, or Antiochean families of Catholic rites. It’s only the Latin Rite that (usually) requires celibacy.

No. It is not as simple as that. You can only be ordained into the sui juris Church you are enrolled to. A bishop at another sui juris won’t readily just take you in just because you want to be ordained and are married. You can’t just jump Churches.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Because the priests are married to the Church. Would be very difficult, if not impossible, to serve 100% to both at the same time.

As mentioned in the OP, this has no basis in any Catholic teaching. The Church is the bride of Christ, to even think that the priest is married to the Church is such a horrible idea making the Church a two-timer.

 

[Ian1968]

This sounds like an interesting idea. I had the same idea idea idea when I was young,.

How about this: Allow them to be married, as long as they get married before of ordination. And only chose Bishops from among the men who are not married. That is how the Orthodox do it, as well as the Eastern Rite Catholics.

I hope this helps

 

[Saints_Alive]

Well, that isn’t true. There are in fact married priests in the Latin Rite.

Also to respond to the last part of that quoted post, I didn’t take my question to the apologist forum because I didn’t want a glib and pat answer to a serious question. Those are quite easy to come by in discussing this issue, in my experience, and not of much value.

And what do all of those married priests have in common ? Were they priests given the option ?

Rome does not offer the option. That’s the pat answer and that is how it is. The answer is of no value only to those who are not in full communion with Rome nor care to be.

You would have better luck shoving a camel through the eye of a needle than to change Rome’s mind on this issue.

Sure, we can discuss it, but as soon as anyone advocating a change in policy argues those who accept the policy are wrong, dissidence rears it’s ugly head.

 

[friarpark]

I heard a response to this by Fr. Dwight LOndgendecker (spelling?). He mentioned that each of those married priests would be observing the Churches laws on contracepion and therefore many of those priests would have rather large families. He wondered how eager we would be to support those large families with larger wages. I also read somewhere that at least in the US, many of the Eastern Catholic Church priests have jobs during the week and have only weekend liturgies. Not totally sure about this, but this was given by an Eastern Catholic I believe on the old Rosary Army Forums, now regrettably defunct.

 

[Titus813]

I heard a response to this by Fr. Dwight LOndgendecker (spelling?). He mentioned that each of those married priests would be observing the Churches laws on contracepion and therefore many of those priests would have rather large families. He wondered how eager we would be to support those large families with larger wages.

Well if the parish was not able to support them financially, wouldn’t that constitute a “grave reason” for spacing births through NFP?

I also read somewhere that at least in the US, many of the Eastern Catholic Church priests have jobs during the week and have only weekend liturgies. Not totally sure about this, but this was given by an Eastern Catholic I believe on the old Rosary Army Forums, now regrettably defunct.

I don’t know if that’s true or not, but what about Protestants and Jews? I haven’t seen too many Rabbis flipping burgers.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I heard a response to this by Fr. Dwight LOndgendecker (spelling?). He mentioned that each of those married priests would be observing the Churches laws on contracepion and therefore many of those priests would have rather large families. He wondered how eager we would be to support those large families with larger wages. I also read somewhere that at least in the US, many of the Eastern Catholic Church priests have jobs during the week and have only weekend liturgies. Not totally sure about this, but this was given by an Eastern Catholic I believe on the old Rosary Army Forums, now regrettably defunct.

Priests get a fixed salary. Any secular worker does not get extra pay the more kids they have, why would priests be paid more?

As for spacing kids, you forget that priests are also expected to fast more. Especially in Eastern Catholicism/Orthodoxy, priests are expected to adhere to the fasts strictly, and that includes fasting from sex.

As I mentioned earlier, getting secular jobs is dependent on the parish being able to support the priest. I’ve heard of celibate priests getting secular jobs because their parish cannot fully support them. Being married have nothing to do with it. But it is also up to the bishop if he will let them. If they do not have anything to do during the week then why not? Daily Liturgy is not common in the Byzantine Rite, unless you are a monastery or a Cathedral.

 

[triumphguy]

The topic is optional celibacy for the priesthood and the Roman Catholic Church says no.
And yes, every Catholic must accept that. We can discuss it, but not reject the decision.

Is the priest you mention a convert ?

Every Roman Catholic, not every Catholic.

And yes - he is a priest of the Anglican Ordinariate.

 

[wanabesaint]

Catholics can ask this question among themselves because today Catholics live in what is a Great Liberalization of Ignorance that Catholics live in devoid of the Infalable Churchs educated have stated… todays Catholics have thrown away what was once known, and now have to learn it all over again, to step out of their darkness and ignorance.

Marriage was invented by God , the Guide the Church infalable, but the People in the Liberalized self reliant way want to Ignore God and go their own way. or, be Protestant as an example that you can comprehend.

Man cannot serve two masters, and Man cannot put anything in front of God, that is the greatest commandment…

Adultry is a Commandment not to be commited. God invented Marriage, and to that you cannnot serve two Master, be Married twice.

The real problem today is the great liberalization of the Catholic Church is an ignorance of if children express an interest in a life of the Catholic faith, people in a great sin of ignorance pop off stupidity of , OH, you must be gay, or your a religious fanatic, or in the spirit of ignorance dont suport but rather attack them…
or OH, do you want to do that, you cant be married…

The most ignorant question to ask of others is, why not allow optional celibacy for the Priesthood? a mortal sin to question the Infalable Church which God Speaks through.

Do you realize, this is questioning God?

 

[ValPal]

Do you realize, this is questioning God?

Absolutely not. Divine Law, thus God, does not prohibit this…obviously…married priests and bishops existed earlier in the Church’s history. The Church has simply decided that it is better that priests and bishops should not married. That’s all.

 

[dshix]

Absolutely not. Divine Law, thus God, does not prohibit this…obviously…married priests and bishops existed earlier in the Church’s history. The Church has simply decided that it is better that priests and bishops should not married. That’s all.

This is incorrect. The authority for the Laws and discipline of the Church come directly from God. If you disobey the Church, you are disobeying God. God’s command can be different for different times, but right now He has decided celibacy is proper for our time.

 

[ValPal]

This is incorrect. The authority for the Laws and discipline of the Church come directly from God. If you disobey the Church, you are disobeying God. God’s command can be different for different times, but right now He has decided celibacy is proper for our time.

Yet the Church can dispense of this requirement when necessary.

Divine Law comes from God, and Divine Law does not prohibit married men from receiving Holy Orders. The Church may impose additional requirements, which has certainly been done with many sacraments. There is no questioning God on this matter, because God does not prohibit it. Could there be disobedience to the Church? Sure. But stating that Divine Law does not prohibit priests from getting married is simply a fact that nobody disputes.

 

[Burdensome1]

So, obviously we’re all just tossing meaningless opinions around, since any decisions are way above our pay grade. As long as we are:

A priest is set aside from the rest of humanity, to be different. The Church understands this, even if the laity often does not.

Sex is a particular type of thing, ordered to the creation of humans and human society. In stark contrast to many of the pagan societies that have passed away, Catholicism (like Judaism) draws a bright line between sexual activity and worship activity. Because sex is often an obsession for the race and offers a purely physical type of salvation and immortality through progeny, mankind has often, often mistaken it for a transcendent religious experience. In simpler terms, it is easy to idolize sex.

In Catholicism, we know that virginity is prized, even to the point that Christ singled out the virgins for a special role in heaven. We know that the equation of virginity with religious purity is not an invention of men. It has been part of the Faith since the Old Covenant and is a foundational part of the New.

If we have “moved past it” then we are very lost indeed.

Many, many things have been written about priestly celibacy in the history of the Church. To me, the most meaningful was by, IIRC, Pope Damasus I. He is quoted in the Cochini book and others. He said that in his opinion, when Christ said He came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, it was the perfection,not abolishment, of priestly continence that He had in mind. Jewish priests practiced periodic continence under the Old, Catholic priests are expected to practice perfect continence under the New. He may be right or he may be wrong about what Christ meant, since I’m not aware that an opinion on a scriptural passage would be in any way an infallible statement or anything like that…but I am going to pay close attention to this.

In the post sexual revolution world, we Catholics are barraged with the ideas of the atheists. Sex is natural and good in all circumstances, not just marriage. Sex is not ordered to any purpose. Sex is the pinnacle of human experience. Etc. I know very well what I think the witness of the Church must be in this time. If it is hard to do, then this is all the more indication that it is the right path.

 

[dshix]

So, obviously we’re all just tossing meaningless opinions around, since any decisions are way above our pay grade. As long as we are:

A priest is set aside from the rest of humanity, to be different. The Church understands this, even if the laity often does not.

Sex is a particular type of thing, ordered to the creation of humans and human society. In stark contrast to many of the pagan societies that have passed away, Catholicism (like Judaism) draws a bright line between sexual activity and worship activity. Because sex is often an obsession for the race and offers a purely physical type of salvation and immortality through progeny, mankind has often, often mistaken it for a transcendent religious experience. In simpler terms, it is easy to idolize sex.

In Catholicism, we know that virginity is prized, even to the point that Christ singled out the virgins for a special role in heaven. We know that the equation of virginity with religious purity is not an invention of men. It has been part of the Faith since the Old Covenant and is a foundational part of the New.

If we have “moved past it” then we are very lost indeed.

Many, many things have been written about priestly celibacy in the history of the Church. To me, the most meaningful was by, IIRC, Pope Damasus I. He is quoted in the Cochini book and others. He said that in his opinion, when Christ said He came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, it was the perfection,not abolishment, of priestly continence that He had in mind. Jewish priests practiced periodic continence under the Old, Catholic priests are expected to practice perfect continence under the New. He may be right or he may be wrong about what Christ meant, since I’m not aware that an opinion on a scriptural passage would be in any way an infallible statement or anything like that…but I am going to pay close attention to this.

In the post sexual revolution world, we Catholics are barraged with the ideas of the atheists. Sex is natural and good in all circumstances, not just marriage. Sex is not ordered to any purpose. Sex is the pinnacle of human experience. Etc. I know very well what I think the witness of the Church must be in this time. If it is hard to do, then this is all the more indication that it is the right path.

Well put.