Why Priests not married?

[Sherlock]

Flameburns,

There are a number of problems with the arguments you put forth.

First off, the eveidence you give for the healthy numbers of Anglican clergy (“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.”) is anecdotal. Karl Keating, in one of his e-letters, had some information regarding the dropping numbers of vocations to the Anglican priesthood—I’ll see if I can’t find that information and provide you with a link.

You wrote: “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.”

The more orthodox the parish and diocese, the more vocations—that is true. And that is exactly my point. Orthodox Catholics are more likely to support a celibate priesthood than non-orthodox Catholics. So, it is not surprising to find that support for the celibate priesthood is found precisely where it counts—in the seminarians themselves.

I would hardly call this Pope “extremely conservative”—and “extremely conservative” Catholics would laugh at your description of him as such. Most of those who fall into that category probably view him as an ultra-liberal at worst, liberal at best. And “liberal” and “conservative” are not useful terms anyway…But whatever the label, it’s what is going on at the local level—parish and diocese—that has the most direct influence on vocations. That can be demonstrated, where the influence of the Pope is harder to gauge. His influence is probably most felt by visitations to the seminary in the effort to clean them up and restore them to orthodoxy, but there is a lot of work left to do, and some seminaries are still very heterodox, despite, as you put it, being “led for decades by an extremely conservative Pope”.

You wrote: “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.”

Show me the data to support your claim. I can show data that supports my claim, which is that orthodoxy—demanding, challenging orthodoxy—has continued to attract vocations while watered-down Catholicism has not.

You wrote: “People simply don’t BELIEVE that priests are truly living celibate lives: they figure they’re fudging, somewhere or other.”

What people? Those who are so in-tune with the pop culture that sacrificing sex for anything seems wierd and impossible? I have no problem believing that priests are given the graces to live celibate lives and that the majority of them do: and I know and have known a lot of priests in my life. If non-Catholics, who don’t believe in the efficacy of sacramental grace (such as is imparted in Holy Orders) have a hard time believing that, well, so what? I don’t really care what attitude non-Catholics have towards our priests. And I certainly don’t care what the pop culture thinks about sex-as-idol and its opinion of those who do or do not worship at its altar.

You wrote: “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.”

It would help if you gave the title and author of the book so I can do the research. I do recall a book on this topic that was later thoroughly discredited—your book may be the same one, but I don’t know. Title, please.

to be continued…

 

[Sherlock]

continued…

You wrote: " 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."

How very sad—especially given that 4% of priests have been accused (not convicted, but accused). The sex scandal is a terrible thing (the bishops’ actions are almost worse), but for that woman to lump 96% of good and decent priests because of the actions of 4% is ludicrous. The numbers of public school teachers and employees who are guilty of similar crimes is shocking, but I don’t see people keeping their kiddies away from school.

You wrote: “enforced universal priestly celibacy has lost it’s meaning as a symbol of holiness and dedication to God.”

It would be more accurate to say that it has lost that meaning (if it ever even had it) for YOU. Speak for yourself. The young Catholic priests that I know (as well as many older ones) would disagree with you—and those are the ones whose opinions matter, not the opinions of non-Catholic clergy—no disrespect intended.

 

[Hesychios]

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”.

I think your response to me was out of line.

 

[Mjohn1453]

Sherlock!

In everything you have said.

Looking at the vocation poster
St. Agnes produces around 1 or 2 seminarians a year.

 

[Sherlock]

Hesychios,

You wrote: “I think your response to me was out of line.”

Why? If you recall, I had used the term “liberal” regarding some parishes (St. Joan of Arc, Pax Christi) in our diocese. I wasn’t referring to you. If you lived in this diocese, you would see that “heterodox” certainly applies. I agreed with you that “liberal” was the wrong term to use in that case, “heterodox” being more accurate. Since I’m agreeing with you, I don’t know where your problem lies.

By the way, that today’s Gospel reading supports celibacy. Jesus speaks of those who renounce marriage “for the sake of the Kingdom. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” (Matt. 19: 12)

I’m sorry for my strong expressions on this post, but I’m annoyed when Siamesecat refers to celibacy, obviously approved by Our Lord, as “wierd”. I guess Jesus said a lot of “wierd” things, then, but I’ll accept them and don’t think that chucking traditions out the window is wise.

 

[Sherlock]

Mjohn,

Yes! I’ve seen that poster—it’s posted on the wall outside our Perpetual Adoration chapel. St. Agnes has much to be proud of. Are you a parishioner there? I go there on occasion to hear the Latin High Mass.

 

[CD4]

I, too, am a convert (1985), and have sort of been on the fence on this one.

However…Our parish has a new priest…He came to us last year, just after his ordination. Father Dan is a grandfather! He was married for many years, raised a family, and felt called to the priesthood after his wife died.

**Well…You’d think Father Dan would be all for a married priesthood…Not…He says that he understands the many demands of marriage and the many demands of the priesthood, and prefers the celibate state, because it gives him more time to devote to his calling. **

He has a valid point…One that has often been pointed out…

**Having said that, I have to admit that I sometimes feel that the call to celibacy and the call to the priesthood might not necessarily be the same “call”…at least for some men. **

I was raised in the Methodist church, and have had lots of experience with married pastors and ministers. My own great uncle was a Methodist evangelist for many years.

**I know how hard it is on a pastor’s family, and I know that PK’s (preacher’s kids) can have an especially hard time of it. I remember that it was the PK’s that were the wildest on my small Methodist college campus **

Pastor’s wives are often expected to be a sort of “co-pastor”…The strain can be pretty heavy. I have known one pastor’s wife who made it very clear that she would not be filling this role when they came to our church:yup: . Some were a little shocked at her attitude, but I think she was a smart woman, myself .

Sometimes, when I see how unsocialized some priests can be, I think they need wives just to civilize them :yup: …I could tell you some stories…

 

[Hesychios]

Sherlock:

Hesychios,

You wrote: “I think your response to me was out of line.”

Why? If you recall, I had used the term “liberal” regarding some parishes (St. Joan of Arc, Pax Christi) in our diocese. I wasn’t referring to you. If you lived in this diocese, you would see that “heterodox” certainly applies. I agreed with you that “liberal” was the wrong term to use in that case, “heterodox” being more accurate. Since I’m agreeing with you, I don’t know where your problem lies.

Sorry, I didn’t read the whole thread so I am not sure about everything that was said.

If I was aware of the entire context of your post I might have just blown it off.

I consider myself very conservative and orthodox but I favor optional celibacy. I can see you were not referring to people like me but reflecting on other conditions in your diocese.

I apologize for my reaction.

Just for the record, I think we can agree that celibacy is a gift and an ideal. I appreciate our celibate priests and pray for them often. I love the commitment they have made and I see that in many cases it would be preferred to ministering with a family.

I just don’t think of it as the only option and I don’t think the church would be in trouble if there were more married priests. I am convinced that there is room for all of these styles of commitment.

 

[Sherlock]

Hesychios,

Sorry for the misunderstanding! Because celibacy is a small “t” tradition, not a big “T”, good orthodox Catholics can disagree on this and still remain good orthodox Catholics. I am not suggesting that your support for a married clergy implies heterodoxy—it does not.

I was only pointing out that there is a connection between orthodoxy and support for the celibate priesthood. There IS a connection, and this has manifested itself in more vocations from more traditional, orthodox parishes. Support for a married clergy, while not heterodox, is often associated with heterodox parishes who have not experienced an increase in vocations. The proof is in the pudding…

Anyone can be average. It is more appealing to sacrifice on a heroic scale for the pearl of great price, if one is called to sacrifice. I would refer you to today’s Gospel reading—then tell me that celibacy is outdated, because you will have to convince me that Our Lord’s words are outdated in order to make a good case against celibacy.

Yours in Christ

 

[flameburns623]

Sherlock:

Thanks for your responses. No time to cut’n’paste your comments so go back and re-read your posts to me to see what my responses are referring to. So far as to the title of the book I referenced–it held some degree of notoriety a couple of years or so ago–featured on NPR. I perused it in our local public library but don’t think I read it thoroughly. I’ll do a web search but suspect you have in mind the same book I cited. Other books on the topic have been around since the 70’s, but I believe this author took the time to do some research as best I recollect. 'Twould be interesting to know what you count as ‘refutation’ of course: that you disagree with an author’s conclusions doesn’t count as ‘refutation’, just ‘disputation’. But let me get back to you with the title of the book.

An article by Karl Keating which measures ECUSA vocations wouldn’t be of much interest to me: I belong to a traditionalist Anglican group, and those groups are most assuredly NOT experiencing a crisis of vocations. We have other issues: like only mariginal membership growth lay membership, even with the defections from ECUSA. We seem to have al the energy in the world to argue over details of liturgy, prayerbooks, and such, and little enough to spend on evangelization of our communities. I’ve got articles floating around about the subject, but I think the matter is settled more readily than this: walk into a non-ECUSA Anglican parish and ask around sometime: you’ll find at least two or three fully ordained members of the congregation who are NOT serving in a pastoral role but who are available to step in for the pastors–there are usually at least a couple of them. Problem is that the congregation is lucky to have 100 members and usually far fewer.

I live near St. Louis. Catholics are a significant proportion of the population. No longer the majority, but probably 30% or higher depending upon where you go. Lutherans are pretty big too, since the Missouri Synod is headquartered here. I’m not suggesting that the ‘collar’ is a sign of fear for EVERYONE whom I meet, but it is common enough to remark upon. And is not my experience alone, from the comments I receive. I don’ think the reaction is limited to non-Catholics, though I don’t go around polling people who seem nervous around me. If the issue dies down, the concern will too: problem is the issue may never go away totally. The Belleville area went though this problem a bit over a decade ago and things had just subsided, so I understand, when the national scandal broke a couple of years ago. The ‘sign of holiness’ symbolized by celibacy is for unbelievers, I think. In any case, it would not be ‘lost’ by the implementation of voluntary celibacy of secular priests, simply augmented by the holiness of faithful married priests and their wives and children. I note you did not reference the mention I made of Eastern Orthodox and liturgical Protestants.

No time for more right now, sorry. I will try to get the information I mentioned for you and post it.

 

[Theo316]

Ah my brothers and sisters let us not forget Jesus’ own Words:
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others;some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this outh to accept it. Mt 19:12

Jesus knew that our Priests could not fully do both. For husbands are to be as Christ to the Church to their wives, and that is total self giving. Priests stand in the place of Christ, and so totally give themselves up for the Church. One really can’t do both totally; it is too much. Think about how much work a Priest does, and what a dedicated father does; could we honestly expect them to pull both off. I know a Deacon who had a Protestant minister friend. The minister was married, and told the Deacon that Catholics have it right, it was too hard on him to have a family and lead a church. Yes the bishops in the early Church had wives, but they were all converts and the Church does not make converts just drop their wives. Even today some married Protestant ministers convert and become Catholic Priests and they keep their wives. Always remember that God’s Divine Plan for our Priests will make them much more happy than thinking they need a wive in their Priesthood to be happy. Most would say: if I had a thousand lives, I would live each as a Priest.

 

[Sherlock]

Flameburns,

With all due respect, nothing in your post gives me any reason to think that the Catholic Church would be wise to follow in the “pioneering” footsteps of the Anglican (Episcopalian) church. The Anglican Church of C.S. Lewis’s time is gone. Neither is there anything left in the tradition of the Anglican (Episcopalian) Church that would command any part of my allegiance, or would have the power to transcend any legitimate earthly allegiance. (I am an American of Irish descent—I will bow to the Pope, but to no one–no one!-- else). All I can say is, I wish you all the best. Your denomination began because Henry Vlll wished to be acknowledged as the Head of the Church in England, with powers to do as he wished regarding marriage. It is now dying with a feeble whimper as Prince Charles says he does not wish to be considered the head of the church, and active homosexuals are elevated to the bishopric. Yeah, we Catholics ought to pay attention to what is going on in the Anglican community, if only to run from it.

You wrote: “The ‘sign of holiness’ symbolized by celibacy is for unbelievers, I think.”

Please give me your basis for that, given today’s Scriptures that I referenced earlier and that Theo316 so thoughtfully provides. What is the basis for this assertion? Did Jesus make that distinction?

Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. It can be changed. I hope that it does not, even if for no other reason than Our Lord’s support of the discipline as shown in today’s Gospel reading.

 

[Wormwood]

Ah my brothers and sisters let us not forget Jesus’ own Words:
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others;some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this outh to accept it. Mt 19:12

So how are you reading that priests should be celabate? If you renounce marriage it sounds more like leaving an existing marriage. And I believe someone else quoted a similar passage saying (I’m paraphrasing) and the man who leaves his wife behind to follow the lord will surely be blessed… he is already married, and there is no sence of urgency or law. Just saying if you sacrifice your family life for faith then you will be blessed. I don’t see ANY reference to priests…maybe it means EVERYONE and we should all become monks.

 

[Sherlock]

Flameburns,

I wanted to add to my earlier post, as I was writing in a hurry and didn’t express myself very well, and was needlessly hostile—my apologies.

But you mentioned that you belong to a “traditionalist” Anglican group, and you are having no trouble getting vocations. I am not surprised, as traditionalist, orthodox denominations are attracting more vocations than those who are not so. And a celibate priesthood is part of our Latin rite Catholic tradition. Since changing celibacy would be a sign of lessening tradition, it is not surprising then that you will find more vocations in traditional, orthodox parishes that support celibacy, and thus seminarians who support celibacy. I see no good reason to think that changing the tadition of celibacy would result in more vocations in the Catholic tradition.

You wrote: “So far as to the title of the book I referenced–it held some degree of notoriety a couple of years or so ago–featured on NPR.”

Ahh, NPR, that bastion of respect for Christianity. That the book achieved notoriety tells me nothing: The DaVinci Code is notorious too, and many take that as accurate Church history.

You wrote: “'Twould be interesting to know what you count as ‘refutation’ of course: that you disagree with an author’s conclusions doesn’t count as ‘refutation’, just ‘disputation’.”

Yes, I’m quite aware of the distinction, thank you very much. A refutation would involve showing errors in data or how data was interpreted.

 

[Sherlock]

Wormwood,

This shouldn’t be that hard to figure out, if you remember your basic grammar and sentence structure from grade school (or perhaps they don’t teach those things anymore). Follow this carefully, please: “Some are incapable of marriage… because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

I think it is a stretch to come up with your interpretation.

You wrote: “I don’t see ANY reference to priests.”

No, it doesn’t. Does Jesus spell out absolutely everything, everywhere? Szheesh…this is not an effective argument.

"You wrote: “…maybe it means EVERYONE and we should all become monks.”

If you read the passage carefully (do try), you will note that it says “SOME” not EVERYONE.

 

[Hesychios]

Sherlock:

“Some are incapable of marriage… because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

(snip)

“I don’t see ANY reference to priests.”

No, it doesn’t.
(snip)
If you read the passage carefully (do try), you will note that it says “SOME” not EVERYONE.

I don’t read this passage to refer to all priests, but rather some of the entire community.

I happen to be single myself. I am a single layperson.

It is possible for anyone to renounce the married life for a single life devoted to God. It is a calling in itself and many people have done this. It really doesn’t have to be a permanent renunciation either (except for priests), although the promise can be renewed. There are an awful lot of ways to approach this.

I think that of all the people: laity, ordained, male, female, young and old we should view an option to celibacy as a great gift.

But it should always be an option.

 

[Peace-bwu]

siamesecat:

I think its weird…most religions allow their leaders to get married. Id rather have a priest who was a family guy…I think they could better relate to their congregation. And maybe some priests wouldnt hafta resort to molestation to fulfill sexual desires.

This is a horrible and well… a just plain stupid statement. How many married men are child molesters??? How many heterosexual, sexually active men are rapists and child molesters, how many men have raped their own daughters or grandsons, nieces or nephews? The problem is not celibacy, the problem is that sexual preditors will find any means necessary to find prey, even if it means become a teacher, a youth pastor, a priest, find a home in a neighborhood full of children, or prey upon children in their own families!!! Some lurk in restrooms waiting for a boy alone, or the zoo for a straggling child. Some are more bold and go into a career or volunteer with a position of trust. The problem is not celibacy, it is not with the priesthood, it is present in every corner of the world… I had two teachers at my highschool who molested their* own daughters*, and were allowed to stay at the school! It is not about ceibacy it is about the sick desire to violate innocense and weakness. When you can root out all the sexual preditors in our schools, streets, hospitals, libraries, malls, daycare centers, homes, protestant churches, then you can point at the priesthood and the Catholic Church and say “HA HA you are the only place left where child molesters exist.” Celibacy does not equal sexual preditor. Am I angry that some people in the Catholic Church have been sexual preditors, YES. I just don’t fool myself that it is the only place where sexual preditors exist, and I won’t allow some sick people, wallowing in evil, come between me and the Body of Christ… Satan would get a real kick outta that!

I refuse to persecute innocent priests or nuns or laypeople for the wicked sins of a few. When you hear in the news about a teacher molesting students do you blame all teachers?

The Catholic Church is doing it’s best to root out and avoid this kind of evil behavior in it’s fold, making changes in policy and laws.

I refuse to discuss this kind of ignorant statement further, so please dont’ bother to send a reply unless it is an apology.

 

[Peace-bwu]

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.

No offense, but I bet you are really young. Read more and learn more before forming opinions. This sounds like youth talking. I like young ppl, don’t get me wrong… but this sounds like something I would have asked when I was about 12 and knew very little about my Catholic faith. Cherish your Catholic faith, learn more and make it your own! It is important to ask questions, now find the answers by reading scripture, the Catechism, apologetics and praying. You will find we follow the same rules because they were given by Christ to the Apostles, we are entrusted to keep those Sacred Traditions intact… and traditions (lower case t) can change slowly over time,but can never conflict Sacred Apostolic Tradition. Christ was a man not a woman… he did not ordain any women to be Apostles (the priesthood) even though he held them in an equal position as men, a shocking thing for His culture. We women simply have different callings from men. The risen Christ first appeared to Mary Magdelen but he never made her a priest.
God Bless you,
Peace

 

[Wormwood]

No, it doesn’t. Does Jesus spell out absolutely everything, everywhere? Szheesh…this is not an effective argument.

I thought he did. He said love your neighbor, keep the one God sacred, judge not, et cetera. Anything you interpret other than what he said is just speculation. Why would he try to hide his true message in a few random and obscure passages? So to me it is an effective argument. If you could come down from your high horse long enough to see that the only ones being belligerant and unnecessarily rude are the “holy ones”.

This shouldn’t be that hard to figure out, if you remember your basic grammar and sentence structure from grade school (or perhaps they don’t teach those things anymore). Follow this carefully, please: “Some are incapable of marriage… because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

It is also funny to me that SOME catholics would try to belittle my intelligence and education. I’m not tooting my own horn, but I did graduate with a 3.8 and I currently hold a Master’s in biology and I am 2 years from being a doctor. Also I have been a member of Mensa for years as well as national honors society. What degrees do you wield? What do you have or do that gives you the right to question my intelligence? I read this passage again:

Ah my brothers and sisters let us not forget Jesus’ own Words:
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others;some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this outh to accept it. Mt 19:12

And I still assert you are reading something that just isn’t there. I still see no mention of priests, any indication that he is speaking of priests, or any way that you could interpret it that way. Perhaps it is you who should review basic grammer and you will see that the pronoun “some” does not denote a priest. It is a vague reference.

If you read the passage carefully (do try), you will note that it says “SOME” not EVERYONE.

I can tell this went over your head, so I’ll dumb it down. If you can interpret it anyway you want based on nothing, so can I ( I was being sarcastic to show you how ridiculous you were being). If you read it carefully (do try) you will notice that nowhere is there a hint of a priest. If this was a rule, you would think it would be spelled out clearly. Don’t you think it would say “and ALL priests because they renounce it for the kingdom of heaven?” But it justs says some will renounce it for the kingdom of heaven. If you renounce something then it exists. Meaning they are leaving marriages not staying celibate for their whole lives. That has the same consequence that homosexuality supposedly has, which is no offspring. You can say what you like about me, but that doesn’t change the fact that the celibacy clause was just added to protect the churches assets. Please try to be more christian in your response, I am not here to sling mud and name call, and you might want to make sure that the person you call an idiot isn’t better educated than you are.

 

[Sherlock]

Wormwood,

You wrote: “I thought he did.”

Then explain to me why Christians have any disagreements at all.

You wrote: “It is also funny to me that SOME catholics would try to belittle my intelligence and education. I’m not tooting my own horn, but I did graduate with a 3.8 and I currently hold a Master’s in biology and I am 2 years from being a doctor. Also I have been a member of Mensa for years as well as national honors society.”

Sounds like tooting your own horn to me. Richard Dawkins has a degree, or degrees, in biology too—has that made him any wiser on the subject of religion? Does being a doctor, or a member of Mensa, guarantee wisdom regarding the Scriptures? This is a new one for me…

You wrote: “And I still assert you are reading something that just isn’t there. I still see no mention of priests, any indication that he is speaking of priests, or any way that you could interpret it that way.”

I never claimed that Jesus was speaking only of priests, or that he even used the word. Nor does he exclude priests. The fact that he was speaking to his disciples, and not to the public as a whole, lends credibility to the interpretation that priests may be celibate, but again, this is a discipline, not a doctrine. Jesus doesn’t require celibacy, but clearly indicates it may be the path for some. Not everyone gets married—are they sinning, in your eyes? What is your problem?

You wrote: “Please try to be more christian in your response, I am not here to sling mud and name call, and you might want to make sure that the person you call an idiot isn’t better educated than you are.”

I never called you an idiot—why do you claim that I did? Are you perhaps feeling a little…insecure?