Why Priests not married?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dizzy_dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nor do you provide any documentation to support your claims.

Where common sense is concerned, documentation should not be demanded. Any influx of married priests would lighten the crushing burden of most parish priests today.

Odds are that they would not approach to become married priests becuase the pay would not be there.

In this you provide neither documentation nor common sense. A way to pay can always be found, especially if the vineyard is growing through the labors of married priests.

How do we pay these men, where do they live with their families, how do we pay for the extra healthcare costs?

I suppose the same way the protestants do it.

*I have seen studies that show that protestants are hurting for ministers, not as much as Catholics and Orthodox, *

So?

You can not really compare protestants to Catholics…

This statement goes nowhere.

But the Orthodox can be compared to and the married priesthood has not stopped them from a lack of vocations…

Nor has it stopped married men from going into the Orthodox priesthood.

There are other issues that need to be addressed before the vocation “crisis” will end.

Such as?

Can you explain how the orthodox dioceses are exploding with vocations and they do not have a married priesthood?

Exploding, did you say? I doubt it. Give me a figure and I’ll tell you if they are exploding.

Can you explain how the orthodox religious orders (who would stay celibate even if a diocesen married priesthood is allowed) are growing at a fast rate?

You misrepresent me. I never opposed mandatory celibacy among the monks. That is their business, and they are welcome to it. A good place for the celibates to gather. I’m talking about secular priests.

Your arguments just don’t hold up.

Well, I tried.
 
Brendan

I stand by my original position. I doubted that all denominations were suffering from lack of vocations the way we are. The article you cited confirms this, referring to only several denominations rather than all denominations.

The same article you referenced raised this point:

*Denominational leaders also say many ministers simply have burned out. Church dissension, combined with low pay and long hours, is “chewing up and spitting out wonderful people of God,” said a 1999 study in one denomination, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. The study found one-fifth of pastors in advanced stages of burnout; other denominations acknowledge similar problems. *

So the decline in protestant vocations here is attributed to overwork and burnout. Isn’t this what is happening also in the Catholic Church? And why do you suppose all our priests are overworked and so many are burnt-out cases? Could it be, heaven forbid, that if there were married priests to help share the burden, the burnout might be relieved?

As to paying for married priests, I see the Church can raise hundreds of millions of dollars to pay off the crimes of pedophile priests … and still sustain the resulting loss of contributions to the collection basket.

But you raise an interesting point. How would we raise enough money for married priests and their families? Assuming the married priests would live modest lifestyles consistent with their calling, the main burden of rearing the priest’s children would be seeing to their college education. Why not work out a deal between the Bishops and the Catholic colleges: free tuition to any Catholic college for the children of priests?
 
Nope. You are not teaching anyone here, this is not your class. Next time make a circumstantially relevant comment. We are not your students.
Click to expand...
Nice. Of everything that was said, you refute the JOKE at the end. Your powers of debate are astounding.
Good heavens, we seem to have touched a nerve. Clearly you have “issues”, as it is termed these days, with the sensitive topic of your own intelligence, as evidenced by your taking general comments so very personally.
Click to expand...
You would think so wouldn’t you? But actually it is other’s intelligence that was irritating. The same people that have no problem making this discussion about me until they are wrong, then it’s “let’s stick to the topic”. There are people like that in jail too. Clandestinely condescending, and if you react, then you are the one that is insecure or starting trouble. If you would still deny that you were being patronizing, that is between you and God, but I know when someone is being condescending and I am not about to sit here and listen to that from anyone, regaurdless of the topic or attribute in question. You were trying to suggest that I couldn’t comprehend the simple premis you were reading, but I am telling you that you were interpreting something that is just not there. I assert that my reading and understanding is still correct and it is you that should refresh yourself on semantics.
 
Wormwood,

You, you, you, you—it’s all about you, no matter what the thread, as I see from your posts on other topics here on the forum. It all comes down to you, sooner or later!

It reminds me of some verses that a wit penned to the tune of Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy”. It could be called Wormwood’s Anthem:

“Joyful, joyful, I adore me,
sing a song of self-esteem
Some folks, well, we’re just more equal:
You are skim milk, I am cream.
And the sun in all it’s glory,
rises and sets upon my rear,
as I sally forth in splendor,
spreading joy and spreading cheer.”

But I digress…

Back to the issue at hand, which is the interpretation of Matt 19:12—“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 ought to accept it.”

Now, you claim that “If you renounce something then it exists. Meaning they are leaving marriages not staying celibate for their whole lives.”

Of course something must exist in order to be renounced. The institution of marriage in society does exist as an option for individuals, and so to renounce marriage does not exclusively mean, as you suggest, that one must first get married in order to renounce it. One can renounce marriage by choosing not to marry. Indeed, this is not an exclusively Catholic interpretation of this passage: the New Living Translation Bible, which is put out by Tyndale (a Protestant publisher) translates the passage this way: “Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made that way by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone who can, accept this statement.” Jesus did not say, “…some because they have renounced their own marriages”, which would be supportive of your interpretation. Also, it would help you to look at the passages immediately preceding the one quoted above.

You wrote: “I am telling you that you were interpreting something that is just not there.”

Ahh, I suppose you are referring to your triumphant discovery that the word “priest” isn’t used in the passage. Very astute of you—must be that Mensa brain of yours working overtime. However, I never claimed that the word “priest” was in the passage, so I’m not sure what your point is. There’s nothing in the passage to exclude priests, and I share the view of another poster, Hesychios, who wrote: “I don’t read this passage to refer to all priests, but rather some of the entire community.” I agree.
 
Brendan said:
Protestant churches struggle to fill pulpits - USA Today

From the article

**In the Presbyterian Church (USA), one in three churches is without a permanent pastor — meaning approximately 4,000 churches rely on substitutes or lay leaders. In at least two other denominations — the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Reformed Church in America — one in five congregations lacks a permanent pastor.

Nor are Christian churches alone. The nation’s largest Jewish denomination reports a shortage of rabbis. And related fields, such as military chaplaincies, are finding shortages across all religions.
**
1 in 3 congregations without a permanant pastor. They are worse off that us!!

Pastors, like other middle-class professionals who used to be sole breadwinners, increasingly need spouses’ incomes to support families, Stuck and others said. Pastors often won’t take jobs in smaller communities — where they’re needed most — that lack career opportunities for their spouses.

And why would that be different for Catholics. In fact, it could lead to some real marital strife.

In Protestant denoms, the clergy have some control over what assignments they take. They effectively apply to the parish council for a position. Thus they only move when they want to and can easily refuse to move to a parish.

Catholic clergy have no such control. They must be fully obedient to the Bishop. If the bishop transfers them to a remote parish, the priest, his spouse and family have no say in the matter.
Click to expand...

All numbers cited from LIBERAL–ultra-liberal, virtually non-Christian liberal churches. Or from the ‘largest Jewish congegation in the USA’, which would be the Reform Jewish denomnation,sometimes known as Unitarian-Universalism’s liberal older sister. My guess is that you are referring to the Orthodox Church in America and/or your own Uniate churches as the standard-bearer for Eastern Orthodoxy. How 'bout some evidence from ROCOR or similar truly conservative Orthodox orgs? My understanding is their seminaries were bulging with students not too many years ago. Still no evidence cited from Evangelical Protestantism, just from the mainline liberal denominations which aren’t even doing an especially good job of retaining their membership, never mind their clergy. Conservative Judaism is doing nicely and Orthodox Jews are teeming with Rabbis. And in religiously conservative homes, by the way, wives seldom have ‘careers’–typically they don’t work outside the home at all except in urgent straits.

Clearly the innauguration of married clergy would compel some changes in how diocesan bishops would deal with their clergy, though not so severely as you might think. Wives of pastors not uncommonly marry with the full understanding that their lives are subject to various kinds of disruptions. Nor do they presuppose the life will be one of great affluence–being a pastor’s wife is usually recognized as being nearly as much a vocation as being a pastor. And if the much-poorer Eastern Orthodox churches, not to mention the many very-poor Protestant denominations and congregations can somehow find the means to support a pastor and his family, surely the single wealthiest religious body in the history of the world can do likewise.
 
Carl said:
Nor do you provide any documentation to support your claims.

Where common sense is concerned, documentation should not be demanded. Any influx of married priests would lighten the crushing burden of most parish priests today.
Click to expand...

I can agree with this, were common sense is concerned and common sense says why should protestant denomanations be any different than the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches in regards to a vocation crisis.
 
Flameburns,

I don’t have a lot of time this morning (dental appt.), but I’ll try to address a few items.

You wrote: “All numbers cited from LIBERAL–ultra-liberal, virtually non-Christian liberal churches.”—this regarding the article showing decline in Protestant vocations. You’re absolutely right, and you are making my point for me. Within the Latin rite of the Catholic Church, the “pro-celibacy” position, if you could call it that, IS the traditional position. Maintaining celibacy is a maintaining of tradition, and it is the traditional parishes that produce the most vocations. Non-traditonal parishes do not produce vocations in the same numbers.

Also, you (and perhaps Carl) seem to be looking at this strictly from a vocations angle. This is a narrow view. There are theological reasons for the celibacy tradition that have nothing to do with an increase or decrease in vocations. It’s because of those considerations that I sincerely doubt you will see a married Latin rite clergy in your lifetime, or in your kids’ lifetimes. I’m going to see if I can locate the links to some information about this, but I don’t have the time right now. Also, Fr. Stanley Jaki, the renowned physicist and Benedictine scholar, has a book called “The Theology of Priestly Celibacy” ( I may not have the title exactly right there, but it’s something like that) that I would recommend reading.

Thanks for your responses.
 
Sherlock:

Celibacy is simply a matter of canon law and tradition (lower-case ‘t’ please–this is NOT Divine Tradition but simply custom). Theology ultimately has nothing to do with the issue, which is why the Church accepted married priests for 11 centures, why it freely accepts married priests within it’s Uniate rites, why it accepts married priestly converts from Orthodoxy and even from Anglicanism into Catholic priesthood on occasion.

I think this discussion is stalemating. Though the pro-celibacy side has done a bit more homework: :clapping: for the other side, LOL. The supporters of limited privilege of marrage for priests believe that the evidence is on their side that conservative churches do quite well with regards to vocations, the pro-celibacy side can cite only statistics regarding more-liberal Protestant and Orthodox churches. The pro-celibacy side says that ordaining married men in large numbers might turn out to be ineffective because it would be a betrayal of the conservative values embraced by that segment of the Catholic Church which is providing vocations at this time. Supporters of priestly marriage feel that there are plenty of already thoroughly conservative Catholic men who are held back from priestly service by the rule of celibacy.

The Catholic Church may come to have some opportunity to experiment with the idea of a married priesthood. Anglicans are defecting to Catholicism and to Orthodoxy in no small numbers, far more swimming the Tiber or the Bosphorous to the RCC or to Orthodoxy than are leaving those institutions. (There are SOME Catholics who opt for Anglicanism–it’s not all one sided). Many of the Anglican converts are Angican priests.

Were the Church to allow significant numbers of these former Anglican priests–nearly always married, with children–it would allow the Catholic Church to make some of the adjustments which have been thrown up as obstacles in this thread. Parishioners would become accustomed to seeing married priests. Bishops would become accustomed to accomodating the needs of men with families. Rectories would be enlarged and modified to meet the needs of what would likely be very large families. Arrangements could be made to ensure the stipends were appropriate to the needs of families.

And if real issues did emerge–if congregations or dioceses tended to resist the influx of married priests; if the scandals of the antics of “priest’s kids” and/or of messy divorces proved to be as embarrassing as those of pedophilic priests; or if other issues emerged, the Church could point those matters out as reasons for not making the practice of married priests more common.
 
40.png
Sherlock:
Also, you (and perhaps Carl) seem to be looking at this strictly from a vocations angle. This is a narrow view. There are theological reasons for the celibacy tradition that have nothing to do with an increase or decrease in vocations. It’s because of those considerations that I sincerely doubt you will see a married Latin rite clergy in your lifetime, or in your kids’ lifetimes. I’m going to see if I can locate the links to some information about this, but I don’t have the time right now. Also, Fr. Stanley Jaki, the renowned physicist and Benedictine scholar, has a book called “The Theology of Priestly Celibacy” ( I may not have the title exactly right there, but it’s something like that) that I would recommend reading.
Click to expand...
This is where I disagree with you. The attempt to find Theological grounds for the celibate priesthood also attempts to dogmatize it.

This is a discipline. Up until the 4th century all secular priests could be married.

The attempt to find theological grounds for this makes those Churches that still have a married priesthood look like they are in error. It is a discipline, nothing more. It can change.

But because it can change does not mean that it should change.

It is a long standing tradition in the Western Church, just as the married secular priesthood is a long standing tradition in the Eastern Church.
 
ByzCath,

You wrote: “The attempt to find Theological grounds for the celibate priesthood also attempts to dogmatize it.”

I don’t agree—or at least I have seen no attempt, from those who give what I would call theological reasons for celibacy, to make this discipline a dogma. There may be some individuals doing that, but I haven’t read them and I doubt that they would represent the majority of orthodox Catholics who support celibacy. So I guess I have to ask you to show me some evidence of this. I mentioned Fr. Stanley Jaki—do you have someone of his stature that you would posit as an example of this “dogmatizing”?

You wrote: “This is a discipline.”

Agreed. I have never claimed otherwise.

You wrote: “The attempt to find theological grounds for this makes those Churches that still have a married priesthood look like they are in error.”

Gee, I don’t think so. Different traditions are just that—different traditions. I don’t think that homogenizing all traditions out of some misplaced sense of sensitivity (if we’re doing something different than that group, that group will “feel bad”, or we ourselves will “feel bad”) is wise. I feel absolutely no desire to push celibacy on any tradition that doesn’t have it, and would appreciate a reciprocal attitude. This is one area where I do, in fact, “celebrate diversity”.

You wrote: " It is a discipline, nothing more. It can change. But because it can change does not mean that it should change."

We are in agreement.
 
Sherlock,
I beg your forgiveness then. Finding theological under pinnings to the Latin tradition of a celibate priesthood, while ackownledging that it is only a discipline, is fine with me.

I am for keeping, and in our case returning to, our traditions. So that means I am for a married priesthood in the Byzantine Churches and a celibate priesthood in the Latin Church.
 
ByzCath,

You wrote: "Finding theological under pinnings to the Latin tradition of a celibate priesthood, while ackownledging that it is only a discipline, is fine with me.
“I am for keeping, and in our case returning to, our traditions. So that means I am for a married priesthood in the Byzantine Churches and a celibate priesthood in the Latin Church.”

Excellent! We are not in any disagreement.
 
ByzCath

I am for keeping, and in our case returning to, our traditions. So that means I am for a married priesthood in the Byzantine Churches and a celibate priesthood in the Latin Church.

Well, this is a two-edged argument. Those of us who are for married priests are also for keeping to a tradition: the tradition of the early Church (embracing married and celibate clergy) which was upset by the celibate progressives.

This will be my last remark in this forum because we are truly at an impasse.

The Church of the Middle Ages was “progressive” enough to change the clerical discipline. There were reasons at that time which were far more complicated and tied to a plentiful supply of priests and the enormous wealth accumulating within the Church. That enormous wealth is no longer what it was. The vast supply of priests is also gone or fast diminishing. It’s too bad that the so-called *traditionalists * today cannot be as open to change as the Church was nearly a thousand years ago when it closed the door to a married clergy.

Evangelization is more important now than at any previous time of history. The men simply are not there to do it. I think the needs of the Church and the demands made upon the Church in the next generation will be so profound that a future pope and council may revisit the present policy.

If and when that happens, I think we may see a burgeoning of Catholicism to rival that of the first four centuries when celibate and married priests toiled together in Christ’s vineyard and the pagans fled for the hills.
 
Carl,

I agree that we are at an impasse in this discussion, and can only agree to disagree. Which is OK, since this is not a discussion regarding doctrine—and I’m sure that we both want to see our Church flourish.

But I will have to say again, traditional parishes are producing more vocations than non-traditional ones. Someone (it may have been you) asked for documentation of this, and I will see about getting that—but I can tell you that that is the experience here in my diocese. One of the most traditional parishes, St. Agnes, has produced the most vocations. My own parish is very orthodox and has also contributed to vocations. However, other metro parishes of similar size which are “progressive” have not produced vocations. I have heard that this is a trend throughout the country, though obviously what I am relating is anecdotal. I will see if I can’t find the data for you.

And again, there are good theological reasons for continuing the tradition. I would want to see those addressed and countered effectively before I would like to see the tradition changed because of a perceived advantage in gaining vocations.

You wrote: “The Church of the Middle Ages was “progressive” enough to change the clerical discipline. There were reasons at that time which were far more complicated and tied to a plentiful supply of priests and the enormous wealth accumulating within the Church. That enormous wealth is no longer what it was. The vast supply of priests is also gone or fast diminishing. It’s too bad that the so-called traditionalists today cannot be as open to change as the Church was nearly a thousand years ago when it closed the door to a married clergy.”

Well, you would need to show me that the problems the Church was responding to were unique to that period and that period only and are now outdated. There is no evidence to show that. It would be far more accurate to say that the sexual revolution, the confusion and heterodoxy brought on by dissenters using Vatican ll for their own purposes, and an increasingly secular and materialist culture have had far more of an effect on vocations than celibacy has. It’s the culture, not celibacy. And I can’t think of a better way for the Church to be a sign against our over-sexualized culture than to maintain the tradition of celibacy instead of caving in to that culture and saying, in effect, “yeah, sure, we’ve been able to attract good, solid men for centuries, but now, because of 40 years of turmoil, we had better dump this tradition”.
 
40.png
Carl:
ByzCath

I am for keeping, and in our case returning to, our traditions. So that means I am for a married priesthood in the Byzantine Churches and a celibate priesthood in the Latin Church.

Well, this is a two-edged argument. Those of us who are for married priests are also for keeping to a tradition: the tradition of the early Church (embracing married and celibate clergy) which was upset by the celibate progressives.
Click to expand...
You are not for keeping a tradition. As I has been stated, it was in the 4th century that the Latin Church went to a celibate priesthood, so that means that for about 1600 years they have had it.

So which is truely your tradition, something that lasted for about 400 years but was changed and has stayed as it is for the past 1600 years? I would say that the tradition in the western Church is that of a celibate priesthood.
The Church of the Middle Ages was “progressive” enough to change the clerical discipline. There were reasons at that time which were far more complicated and tied to a plentiful supply of priests and the enormous wealth accumulating within the Church. That enormous wealth is no longer what it was. The vast supply of priests is also gone or fast diminishing. It’s too bad that the so-called *traditionalists *today cannot be as open to change as the Church was nearly a thousand years ago when it closed the door to a married clergy.
Click to expand...
Sorry but the 4th century was not the Middle Ages.
 
For the first four centuries after Christ the Church flourished as a result of the labors of married and celibate clergy working together.

That crusade of the early Church was the *great tradition * that drove rampant, liberal, oversexed paganism underground. We could, by the grace of God, do it again. As it stands now, crippling ourselves with so few priests to do the job makes no sense.

Moreover, it’s a straw man inference that married priests would be of a distinctly liberal stripe. We know plenty of celibate priests who are damnably liberal, do we not? Are not these same celibates the scourge of the modern clergy? The success of fundamentalist (conservative) protestant ministers (usually married, by the way) who daily assail the dread diseases of liberal theology, should put to rest the notion that a married Catholic clergy would necessarily contribute to the triumph of pagan morals.

Finally, please stop weighing the strength of a tradition by the number of centuries it has endured. That argument can be turned against you. Universal clerical celibacy in the Western Church has only been around for about nine centuries. In the Eastern Church there has never been universal clerical celibacy.

Even today in the Western Church married priests who convert from other Churches are being let in as priests.

If you are going to play the number-of-centuries game, the Eastern Church has a stronger tradition than ours since it has allowed married priests from the start. And if, by your logic, the longest tradition is the right one (sixteen centuries versus four centuries) we should adopt the Eastern model (twenty centuries).

I’m all for pluralism too. I’m not against celibate priests. Let them flourish. But let them also not be so arrogant and petty as to assume that married priests have little to offer in the business of evangelizing of the world.

By way of example:

I know a prison where the only Catholic volunteers have been four married men and women working alongside two single women. No celibate priest has been in the prison for eight months. We have been told that the one celibate priest assigned to that ministry by the Bishop refuses to go because of the crushing burden it would add to his already heavy labors.

Not enough priests to get the job done, the job that was so handily done throughout the Roman Empire in four centuries by a married and celibate clergy working together.

Working together.

Well, you’ve worn me out! So long, folks.
 
Of course something must exist in order to be renounced. The institution of marriage in society does exist as an option for individuals, and so to renounce marriage does not exclusively mean, as you suggest, that one must first get married in order to renounce it
Click to expand...
( at the risk of being accused of self promotion) I am sorry you understood it that way. I merely meant that people were not prohibited from marrying first, not that it was required.
Ahh, I suppose you are referring to your triumphant discovery that the word “priest” isn’t used in the passage. Very astute of you—must be that Mensa brain of yours working overtime. However, I never claimed that the word “priest” was in the passage, so I’m not sure what your point is. There’s nothing in the passage to exclude priests,
Click to expand...
To condescend me for defending myself, when you repeatedly MAKE me the topic of discussion, is getting sad. You can’t have it both ways, either you don’t want to talk about me, or you do (you obviously do). It isn’t a truimph to comprehend the words that are on the page(or which words aren’t), nor did I claim it was. Using your same reasoning, there’s nothing in the passage to exclude ANYONE specifically. So technically you could apply that to any vocation. “If you refer to the bible you will see that machanic’s should be celibate…” I don’t see anything that EXCLUDES machanics, therefore it must mean ALL mechanics. See if you can wrap your puny human brain around that. 🙂
 
Wormwood,

You wrote: “Using your same reasoning, there’s nothing in the passage to exclude ANYONE specifically. So technically you could apply that to any vocation.”

That’s correct. One can choose to dedicate one’s life to God, and express that in celibacy, no matter what occupation one chooses. “Vocation”, by the way, has a specific meaning in Catholic understanding, but I’ll assume you don’t know that and so I’ll use the word “occupation”, as that is more accurate in this context.

You wrote: ““If you refer to the bible you will see that machanic’s should be celibate…” I don’t see anything that EXCLUDES machanics, therefore it must mean ALL mechanics.”

First off, since in an earlier post you claimed, “I am planning on giving expert testimony about a book writing class I teach”, it would be helpful for you (and your students) to know that one does not make the word “mechanic” (NOT spelled “machanic”, by the way) plural by adding an apostrophe “s”. But I see that by the end of your sentence, you seem to have figured that out—you are obviously a quick study.

But anyway, inserting “mechanics” into the passage for the purposes of showing that specific occupations are not excluded is fine. However, since the passage does not say that any particular occupation SHOULD be celibate, your illustration, “If you refer to the bible you will see that machanic’s should be celibate…”, is false. Nor does the passage say that ALL members of any occupation are meant—in fact, it uses the word “some”. So, the second part of your formulation, “I don’t see anything that EXCLUDES machanics, therefore it must mean ALL mechanics”, is also false. It’s really just basic comprehension, you know.
 
Good reply sherlock but I disagree with your comment that vocation=occupation.

This is not how the Church understands what a vocation is. A vocation is a calling in lift. This is why Holy Orders is thought of as a vocation, it is not just a job.
 
ByzCath,

No, we aren’t in disagreement at all. I probably wasn’t clear, so let me try it again…

I wrote: ““Vocation”, by the way, has a specific meaning in Catholic understanding, but I’ll assume you don’t know that and so I’ll use the word “occupation”, as that is more accurate in this context.”

I meant that “occupation” as Wormwood was using it (using “machanic’s” as an example) was more accurate than using “vocation”. Being a mechanic is an occupation, not a vocation, in the Catholic sense of the word. But since Wormwood isn’t a Christian, let alone Catholic, I thought it best to use the term “occupation” to denote his understanding, instead of continuing to mis-use the Catholic “vocation” in his mechanic illustration.

So you and I are on the same page…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top