Why Priests not married?

[Wormwood]

My wife is a convert to the faith and said priests and bishops used to be married (some) why not allowed now? I had no answer. When and why was this changed? By who? Thanks

It was changed because “the church” was losing land to inheritance. So in order to keep their land they revised tradition and made priests chaste so when they died, all lands granted to them by the church would be returned ( I learned this not only in several secular college courses, but also when I attended catholic school so I didn’t think there would be debate over the issue but here we are
It seems odd that people would quote scripture to back this up since it was 1000 years later that this became policy. Even the very first pope wasn’t celebate, and who I ask you was closer to Jesus than he? So Peter and the first popes were blatantly disregaurding church policy…or that policy was made up much later for selfish reasons, which seems more plausable?

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Wormwood:

So Peter and the first popes were blatantly disregaurding church policy…or that policy was made up much later for selfish reasons, which seems more plausable?

A third possibility is that after reflection upon the difficulty of simultaneously living both vocations, there was an evolution of practice. It may have had practical reasons, but those were not necessarily selfish. Being the wife or child of a priest would not be easy, nor would it be easy to be pastor, husband, and father.

 

[go_Leafs_go]

Homer, I know you’re a busy person, but if you start a thread, contribute to it. Also, admit your blunders, you may get a little more respect.

 

[siamesecat]

BLB_Oregon:

A third possibility is that after reflection upon the difficulty of simultaneously living both vocations, there was an evolution of practice. It may have had practical reasons, but those were not necessarily selfish. Being the wife or child of a priest would not be easy, nor would it be easy to be pastor, husband, and father.

Its not easy to run a business and also be a husband and father. Its not easy to be president as well as a husband and father. Its not easy to be an army wife, or the wife of a f irefighter…but they still get married.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

siamesecat:

Its not easy to run a business and also be a husband and father. Its not easy to be president as well as a husband and father. Its not easy to be an army wife, or the wife of a f irefighter…but they still get married.

Your point has merit, these other vocations are demanding, and demand not just of the single person, but of the whole family when there is one. And people muddle through somehow. Nevertheless, they’re not the same.

As a parent, I think a priest is the only one in all of the “occupations” you list that deserves the name “Father” for what he is asked to do and to be to those he serves.

Having said that, I have a friend who thinks that research scientists should consider delaying marriage until they are established, particularly in the university setting. He thinks the early years of the profession are just too demanding to allow the person to also fulfill family duties. In other words, maybe if we are going to give our professions so much, there should be more celibacy, not less.

 

[Wormwood]

Its not easy to run a business and also be a husband and father. Its not easy to be president as well as a husband and father. Its not easy to be an army wife, or the wife of a f irefighter…but they still get married

Cat has my back agian!! You are all over the place and you are one of the few that EVER agree with me…hehe thx.

Your point has merit, these other vocations are demanding, and demand not just of the single person, but of the whole family when there is one. And people muddle through somehow. Nevertheless, they’re not the same.

The only difference is someone telling you there is a difference. Priest’s in most religions do marry and still have time to tend to the flock. How can a man with no wife and family competently advise you on sex, marriage, and family issues? His outside opinion wouldn’t help much if he had no basis on which to give advice. You can say the priest can find all of his answers in the bible, but that isn’t true. The bible doesn’t cover what to do when your wife nags you to death as soon as you get home, or what to do when your kids finally drive you nuts… Face it the reason your faith was shaped was greed of the church, not a moral reflection.

 

[drforjc]

As a PK (pastor’s kid) myself, I’d just like to point out that many of a clergyman’s duties are “after working hours” for most people.
Council meetings, much counseling, and so forth are often scheduled evenings to accommodate peoples schedules. This unfortunately often cuts into available family time.

 

[Redeemerslove]

– First Letter of St. Paul to Titus 1:5-6

i’m not sure this non-married priest tradition is all it’s cracked up to be… seems a little arbitrary. This is the only catholic teaching i disagree with.

It’s not a teaching, it’s a discipline, rule or law.

 

[flameburns623]

Optional celibacy became normative in the West because the Church kept experiencing corruption. Ironically, it was probably the scandal of promiscuous priests with multiple concubines which led to the tightening of the rules. There are Catholic saints on record complaining about this at various and sundry times. Missionary churches were the worst, and hey! Protestant missionaries were pretty randy at times too. Asian and Pacific Island peoples thought lifelong celibacy–or lifelong monogamy–was pretty weird anyhow and weren’t exceedingly shocked when Christians couldn’t live up to their own ideals. But I’m sure it doesn’t help our mutual Christian witness that this remains a standing joke in some far-flung lands. Not saying that all early medieval priests or post-Reformation missionaries were this way: perhaps only a tiny few were, just as only a tiny few today are pederasts.

There may have been some pecuniary motives which helped reinforce the decision to make ceibacy mandatory–inheritance, or the ability to pay the solitary priest less than a married priest with a family. But as I recollect, the rule was passed in the midst of reforms, and was a way of restoring confidence in the holiness of the representatives of the church. I think the motive for creating one standard may have been admirable but it no longer serves it’s fuction. It’s an incredibly hard standard to live up to and most folks assume it leads at a minium to priests with covert girlfriends or boyfriends in some other town. Our society is oversexed and one could wish that celibacy could help counterbalance that, but I think that short of putting priests under constant camera surveillance a’ la’ “Big Brother”, no one will buy the claim that a majority of them live up to the standard. No offense intended to faithful, celibate, priests reading this.

It didn’t happen historically, not very well. At varous times and places priests may have been ‘married but chaste’ but I think a closer look would uncover lots of rugrats amongst those ‘chaste’ marriages. At least, I’m told that it’s not hard to find evidence for this. The East has always had optional celibacy. Pastors and ministers in Protestant churches normally marry. Wives are far from being a hindrance to ministry: they are usually seen as a complement, a true helper. The time has come, IMHO, and has long passed for the Latin church to make celibacy an option, at least for ‘secular’ (diocesan) priests.

 

[Malachi4U]

Gods peace be with you Theophilus,

First off, I hope the Church (Roman side that is) will someday allow married men to become priests just like old times in our T(t)radition. There are good points to support both sides of this issue though. As the number of our religious declines, our parishes become overcrowded or distant. We are also loosing members of Christ’s body or failing to gain new ones due to a lack of religious. Nothing in Scripture or in Christ’s Gospel prohibits married clergy but it is clear that celibacy is preferred.

A married priest would have to divide his time between family and parish, but, would it not be better for a married priest to have a small parish of 100-500 members then for that parish to close its doors and be sold off? Would it not be better to have a married priest in that parish then for that parish to find its way to various protestant sects? To loose their Faith totally or to forget about it by lack of attendance at mass? For members to say “I am Catholic but don’t go to mass and haven’t since I moved out of my parents house 20 years ago?”

How many parishes close each year due to lack of clergy or members? Could we have kept up our membership or even have it expanded in parishes that we could have kept open? How many more souls would have been “SAVED” or had a true hope for salvation with married clergy? How many more souls would have found Christ?

Question:

What is the value of a single soul?

Answers to pick from:

a. Celibacy is more important then any soul?

b. A single soul is more valuable then celibacy?

Food for thought on those answers, which would Jesus have picked?

The “Roman” Catholic Church today has over 100 successful married priests active in the Church. She has about 20,000 married priests in the US that were forced to stop serving the Church when the were wed. Other rites of the Catholic Church have thousands of married priests who perform their priestly duties just fine.

I support Christ’s body in whatever the decision is on this issue. I may not agree with it but Gods Gospel compels us to be obedient.

Just a quick and true story. I was talking to a protestant on this issue. They were attacking the Catholic Church mercilessly and as usual without much truth or facts. They said that so many priests are child molesters because celibacy is against Gods will and Scripture. Celibacy causes men to become queer and leads to homosexuality. Celibacy is insane and only a sick perverted man would choose to lead a celibate life.

How would you respond to this? Here is how I responded, first I pointed out in Scripture numerous verses that supported celibacy (I guess they forgot those). Next came my definitive statement on the subject. I asked if were supposed to be Christ-like and they responded ‘yes.’ Then I asked if Jesus was celibate. They answered ‘yes’ again. Then I asked if celibacy made Jesus queer or homosexual? They did not respond and that ended the discussion. I assume celibacy won out since they will no longer discuss the issue with me any longer?

A prisoner of Christ

 

[Sherlock]

If one is to use as a rationale for dispensing with a celibate priesthood the idea that a married priesthood would attract more men, one had better have some facts to back that up. But they aren’t to be found: in fact, the numbers of Anglican clergy have been dropping, and they, of course, can marry.

The dioceses that are most orthodox (and thus most likely to support the celibate tradition) are the ones attracting the most vocations. There are probably a number of reasons for that, but clearly one is that more people are interested in a faith that is challenging, that demands something heroic of them. I see that in the vocations from our own diocese (Mpls/St. Paul): St. Agnes, a very orthodox parish, has many vocations from its members. My own parish is very orthodox and also is well represented.

As someone said, our “society is oversexed”. So, the suggestion seems to be that since we can’t fight 'em, we may as well join 'em. I would posit that because our society is oversexed is just the reason that the Church needs to maintain its celibacy tradition as a sign against the idea that everybody needs to have sex as much as possible, with no restrictions, to be truly happy.

Celibacy is also an eschatological sign, and has worth as such.

Going along with the rest of the world, conforming to society, is exactly what many women’s religious orders have done—and look how their numbers have plummeted. However, orthodox, demanding orders such as the one run by Mother Assumpta (Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist) are attracting many new vocations.

Dumping celibacy as a way to attract vocations is very bad advice…and I’m confident the Church won’t take it, thank you very much.

And I wonder how many of you cynics that posit greed and self-interest (land, whatever) as reasons for the celibacy tradition have done much reading on the subject. Let me guess: you just “heard” that that was the reason.

Do your homework, folks. Then open your mouths.

 

[drforjc]

Malachi4U,
the unproven assumption, though, is that the number of priests would increase significantly if celibacy were made optional.
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn’t, but I don’t think it is a given by any means.

 

[drforjc]

I guess Sherlock beat me to it!

 

[Sherlock]

I forgot to add, in the example of my own diocese, that not only are there more vocations from the more orthodox parishes, but that the most liberal (St. Joan of Arc, Pax Christi) are poorly represented—I’m not sure they have any at all this year. There’s a scattering of vocations from the “middle of the road” type parishes, but not from the most liberal ones. So, before trotting out a married clergy as a solution to a vocations problem, perhaps these trends ought to be examined.

 

[Hesychios]

Sherlock:

I forgot to add, in the example of my own diocese, that not only are there more vocations from the more orthodox parishes, but that the most liberal (St. Joan of Arc, Pax Christi) are poorly represented—I’m not sure they have any at all this year. There’s a scattering of vocations from the “middle of the road” type parishes, but not from the most liberal ones. So, before trotting out a married clergy as a solution to a vocations problem, perhaps these trends ought to be examined.

I don’t understand, optional celibacy is not a liberal-conservative issue.

Are you trying to maintain that conservative faithful Catholics who may be in favor of optional celibacy are no longer conservative?

If so, I do not agree.

 

[Sherlock]

Hesychios,

You wrote: “I don’t understand, optional celibacy is not a liberal-conservative issue.”

Oooops, you’re right. The terms I should have been using are “orthodox” and “heterodox”.

 

[RomanRyan1088]

I think Priests not getting married still defines us as Catholics, if we let them get married, then that would make us more like the Protestant Churches, it’s already bad enough Vatican II made us more “Modern”

 

[siamesecat]

I dont get why the church is so opposed to anything ‘new age’ or ‘modern’. Times change! It is ridiculous to still follow exactly the same rules in effect 2000 years ago. THe bible when taken literally (the morals still apply) does not apply anymore! Change is a good thing (to a degree) I mean…its like Catholics are completely opposed to any change at all. We need to make progress…we’ve come so far. Many things are so much better than they once were. I just dont see how so many people think nothing should ever change. Priets should get married…and Give me one good argument why women cant be priests…and why the pope wants to stop female altar girls. Women are viewed (hopefully) as equals now. Society is so different now, in both good and bad ways.

 

[Sherlock]

Siamesecat,

You wrote: “I dont get why the church is so opposed to anything ‘new age’ or ‘modern’.”

If, by New Age, you mean that pseudo-religious spirituality involving crystals and balancing chakras, that would not be consistent with either logic or Christianity. As for “modern”—the Vatican has a website; a radio station, and Catholic programs can be found on TV. Some Catholics even use the Internet…

You wrote: “Times change! It is ridiculous to still follow exactly the same rules in effect 2000 years ago. THe bible when taken literally (the morals still apply) does not apply anymore!”

You will have to be more specific as to what “rules” you’re talking about. What, do people today have less of a need to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days than they did before? Has the nature of the Eucharist changed? To quote Chesterton (let me make a wild guess and assume you have no idea who he is): “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions”, and “Most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities.”

You wrote: “Change is a good thing (to a degree) I mean…its like Catholics are completely opposed to any change at all.”

So—let me get this straight: you’re saying that change is good, in and of itself? How stupid is that…Look, change for change’s sake is shallow and foolish. Change can either be good or bad, depending on what the change brings—does it better the situation, or worsen it? I think you need to figure out where you’re going—and why—before deciding to change directions. Also, I can think of many, many changes in Catholicism that have occured in just a few decades: where have you been? Under some rock?

You wrote: “We need to make progress…we’ve come so far.”

Progress towards what? Can you give for me a detailed description of the goals of the Church in the last few hundred years, say, and outline for me how each goal in each area has progressed, and how? I didn’t think so…let me guess, you haven’t exactly studied the history of the Church very much, and you haven’t read the documents of any of the councils, let alone the most recent, Vatican ll.

You wrote: " Priets should get married…"

Why? Give me compelling reasons that would counter the compelling reasons for celibacy. And don’t say that it would solve the vocations problem, because the Anglicans have a married clergy, and their numbers are dropping very dramatically.

You wrote: “and Give me one good argument why women cant be priests…”

Because Jesus only picked men. Next?

You wrote: “and why the pope wants to stop female altar girls.”

One good reason is that altar boys often go onto the priesthood. It is a good formation ground for priestly vocations.

You wrote: " Women are viewed (hopefully) as equals now."

Equal, yes, but not the same. Women and men are different, and have different roles to play. I have to say, as a woman I despise this whining attitude of yours: I wanna be a priest! I wanna be an altar girl! I have my rights!! Waahhhh!!!
Szheesh, grow up…

You wrote: " Society is so different now, in both good and bad ways."

Maybe, but humans are the same. Do yourself a favor, and read something older than last month’s People magazine. St. Augustine’s “Confessions” is a great one…and—surprise!—you’ll discover that people have the same moral failings then that they do now; the same temptations, the same longing, etc. You are suffering from what C.S.Lewis called “chronological snobbery”—the idea that modern people are somehow more advanced than anything before.

Most of all, use your head and study a topic in some depth before delivering yourself of such air-head opinions.

 

[flameburns623]

Sherlock:

. . . . don’t say that it would solve the vocations problem, because the Anglicans have a married clergy, and their numbers are dropping very dramatically.

Traditional Anglicanism is top-heavy with vocations and ordained priests. I’ve sat in congregations of fifty-a hundred members where at least half the males in the room were either ordained Anglican priests, Deacons, or licensed Readers. Orthodoxy is quite thoroughly served by the number of vocations it receives. Traditional Protestant denominations generally–Lutheran, Presbyterian, etcetera–have seminaries filled with candidates and far more ministers than they have ministries to serve. Even the most-conservative of Catholic congregations–per a post in this thread–apparently have respectable levels of vocations: but you’ve been led for decades by an extremely conservative Pope, who has set your church firmly upon a conservative path, yet you are still hemorhaging priests throughout Western countries. There is no sign that ordaining married men would accelerate the loss of priests and every indication from other churches that doing it would reverse the trend–so long as the general tenor of the Catholic leadership remained conservative and orthodox in doctrine and practice.

I have to say again: the ‘sign’ of celibacy would be a good counterweight to the oversexualization of our culture, but the ‘sign’ is not being given credence. People simply don’t BELIEVE that priests are truly living celibate lives: they figure they’re fudging, somewhere or other. One researcher wrote a book a few years ago indicating that by her work it appeared that a horrific number–more than half, I believe–actually do.

I wear a Roman collar at times, and though there are plenty of married Anglican and Lutheran priests who do likewise, the collar has clearly ceased to be ‘the sign of the bond-servant’. One can actually see people–rarely, I admit–who visibly fear letting me near their children in stores or other public places. One woman with small children whom I engaged in conversation asked about my wife and daughter (who were with me). She was clearly put at ease to know that I was not a Roman Catholic priest, and just as clearly had the clergy scandals on her mind because she brought the subject up. I am not trying to tear open raw wounds and I humbly beg pardon again of any faithful Catholic priest or religious who may read this–but enforced universal priestly celibacy has lost it’s meaning as a symbol of holiness and dedication to God.