Why should a priest not marry?

[JReducation]

It has always been, that a Catholice priest is not allow to marry,and I beleive that it should be that way always. He,s life is to serve God,and keep us close to Jesus,getting married isn,t the answer.

I think that the OP was a drive-by poster. Better to not respond further.

Oh well. I’m used to talking to myself. I taught at the seminary before retiring.

 

[johnthebaptist2]

Priest are Priest,for that is what they decided to be in the Catholic Faith,but men that preach in church that are lay persons, I have no problem with them getting Married.

 

[JReducation]

But what we’re telling you is that this is not true and has never been true in the universal Church.

 

[mark_a]

With that being said, why shouldn’t a priest be able to marry?

Keeping in mind Catholic dogma concerning contraception, how in the world could a priest support a family of 8 or 10 on a priests salary?

 

[RyanBlack]

Keeping in mind Catholic dogma concerning contraception, how in the world could a priest support a family of 8 or 10 on a priests salary?

A couple can limit the number of children they have without recourse to contraception.

 

[JReducation]

Keeping in mind Catholic dogma concerning contraception, how in the world could a priest support a family of 8 or 10 on a priests salary?

The salary is supposed to be a middle class salary. This is in Canon Law. The priest’s salary should target post, experience, level of education and seniority and be competitive with the middle class. Your average secular priest in the USA starts with about the same salary as a teacher. With housing and pay check, we’re looking at about $60K per year. The paycheck looks low, because room and board has already been paid for. This includes furniture, housing, utilities, food, alcohol, cable, cell, car allowance, full dental, health, retirement, vision, housekeeper, gardner, property taxes.

The priest must pay his own FICA, state tax and federal income tax. Priests are not tax exempt only Church institutions are and consecrated men and women are. Priests are not consecrated men, therefore the Church does not include them under 501(c)3.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

I note as well that celibacy in the priesthood is not universal even within Catholicism. It’s only in Latin rite and a few Eastern rites as noted above.

Also as noted above, there was a time through the first millenia or so of the Latin Church’s existence that married priests were allowed. Of course this led to the issues they had at that time that drove the reform toward celibacy. But I think it would be interesting to know if that was ever an issue within the Eastern rites that have always allowed married priests.

A married priest with a family likely has less flexibility when it comes to be moved around a diocese by his bishop. However it seems in my archdiocese that most parish assignments are for six years and extensions up to a second six years are not uncommon so this isn’t as bad as it sounds. And again, it would be interesting to know how Eastern rite bishops handle this. In fact, every objection thrown up against it ought to be examined in the context of the Eastern rite for validity as the Eastern rite churches must have experienced the gamut of issues being raised here.

This isn’t dogma like contraception is. My take is that married priests should be ok at the parish level, but those aspiring to higher office of bishops and other administrative level management within the Church should remain celibate.

 

[mark_a]

A couple can limit the number of children they have without recourse to contraception.

That sends them down the same road as Protestant ministers and flies in the face of Catholic teaching as to what marriage is for.

 

[mark_a]

The salary is supposed to be a middle class salary. This is in Canon Law. The priest’s salary should target post, experience, level of education and seniority and be competitive with the middle class. Your average secular priest in the USA starts with about the same salary as a teacher. With housing and pay check, we’re looking at about $60K per year. The paycheck looks low, because room and board has already been paid for. This includes furniture, housing, utilities, food, alcohol, cable, cell, car allowance, full dental, health, retirement, vision, housekeeper, gardner, property taxes.

The priest must pay his own FICA, state tax and federal income tax. Priests are not tax exempt only Church institutions are and consecrated men and women are. Priests are not consecrated men, therefore the Church does not include them under 501(c)3.

Point taken. I wonder why we hear ads on Catholic radio and see ads in our Church bulletin about the need to support retired priests?

 

[JReducation]

I note as well that celibacy in the priesthood is not universal even within Catholicism. It’s only in Latin rite and a few Eastern rites as noted above.

Also as noted above, there was a time through the first millenia or so of the Latin Church’s existence that married priests were allowed. Of course this led to the issues they had at that time that drove the reform toward celibacy. But I think it would be interesting to know if that was ever an issue within the Eastern rites that have always allowed married priests.

A married priest with a family likely has less flexibility when it comes to be moved around a diocese by his bishop. However it seems in my archdiocese that most parish assignments are for six years and extensions up to a second six years are not uncommon so this isn’t as bad as it sounds. And again, it would be interesting to know how Eastern rite bishops handle this. In fact, every objection thrown up against it ought to be examined in the context of the Eastern rite for validity as the Eastern rite churches must have experienced the gamut of issues being raised here.

This isn’t dogma like contraception is. My take is that married priests should be ok at the parish level, but those aspiring to higher office of bishops and other administrative level management within the Church should remain celibate.

This is a pretty good post. You need to make one major correction for it to be a great post. You must make a clear distinction between Eastern Rites and Eastern Churches. They’re not the same thing.

Married men are allowed to become priests by some Eastern Churches, not by the rite. Some Churches share the same rites, but have different laws on ordination. In fact, most Eastern Church share the Byzantine Rite, but only a few have mandatory celibacy.

Point taken. I wonder why we hear ads on Catholic radio and see ads in our Church bulletin about the need to support retired priests?

That’s easy.

1. If the priest is a regular priest, he gets no salary. His religious community has to support him when he is old and has to pay his medical bills, because he is not entitled to Social Security under any laws in any country. He has no medical benefits and no pension.
2. If a diocese does not put money into the pension fund, there is no pension fund. This money comes from the laity. Diocese need money to invest so they can draw from the investment and place in retirement plans. They can’t print money. That’s a big NO NO in many countries.
3. The cost of getting old is rising, but the number of young people who can support the elderly is shrinking. Trust me. I know, because I’m old and retired.

 

[RyanBlack]

That sends them down the same road as Protestant ministers and flies in the face of Catholic teaching as to what marriage is for.

I stand by what I previously stated. Catholic teaching on marriage permits a couple to limit the number of children they have for just reasons. There is no requirement for a couple to have more children then their income will support.

 

[Todd_L]

How could marriage prevent a priest from performing his duties faithfully? One issue raised is that a priest would not be as committed to God if he were to marry, and have a family. By that statement, it can be assumed that married men are not as committed to God as bachelors… But that simply is not the case. It would not blight the faithfulness of a man to take a woman as his lawfully wedded wife. With that being said, why shouldn’t a priest be able to marry?

The reason is given by St. Paul, he says that being a virgin and the religious state is a higher order than the marriage state. He says its better to be, even as I [a virgin]. One who is married is divided, a man trying to please God and the wife, whereas a virgin avowed to God is singular, pleasing Him only!

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

6-10 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband.

St. Paul is saying to the unmarried and the widows, it is better to make a vow to God, the religious life, than to marry because you will be divided!

32-34 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

1 Timothy 1:12 I give thanks to him who hath strengthened me, Christ Jesus our Lord, for that he deemed me faithful, putting me in the ministry:

St. Paul is giving thanks to God for strengthening him against concupiscence of the flesh, deeming paul as faithful and making him a priest and bishop!

Todd

 

[JReducation]

The reason is given by St. Paul, he says that being a virgin and the religious state is a higher order than the marriage state. He says its better to be, even as I [a virgin]. One who is married is divided, a man trying to please God and the wife, whereas a virgin avowed to God is singular, pleasing Him only!

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Audience is important here. He writing t Greeks about monogamy.

6-10 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband.

He speaks of celibacy being a higher calling than marriage, which the Church teaches. The Council of Trent said that this is a doctrine that must be held by all. But neither Paul nor Trent said that is is a state in life all live with.

St. Paul is saying to the unmarried and the widows, it is better to make a vow to God, the religious life, than to marry because you will be divided!

We agree on this.

32-34 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband.[/qote]

He continues his apologia for celibacy, but he is not saying that clergy must be celibate. Let’s not forget that Jewish culture viewed celibacy as contrary to the faith and still doe. In Jewish culture there has always been the fear of genocide.

1 Timothy 1:12 I give thanks to him who hath strengthened me, Christ Jesus our Lord, for that he deemed me faithful, putting me in the ministry:

He’s reflecting on his own vocation.

St. Paul is giving thanks to God for strengthening him against concupiscence of the flesh, deeming paul as faithful and making him a priest and bishop

!

Todd

It is obvious from these words that I have labeled in red that this poster does not understand the priesthood. An Apostle and his successor IS NOT a priest and bishop. Apostles are always bishops. Bishops possess the fullness of the priesthood. Therefore, he is not a priest and a bishop. He is simply a bishop.

 

[adawgj]

A priest should not marry because he is married to The Church.

 

[JReducation]

A priest should not marry because he is married to The Church.

My friend, this is not true. It has never been true. Please go up and read and count how many times I have said that many married men are ordained to the priesthood in the Catholic Church.

There are 23 independent Catholic Churches under the Holy Father. There is only one Latin Catholic Church, often called the Roman Catholic Church. But the Roman Catholic Church is 1/23 Catholic Churches that make up the one holy catholic and apostolic church that we profess to believe in the Creed.

None of these 23 Churches, nor any of the Orthodox Churches have ever taught that the priest is married to the Church. This is not Catholic teaching. This has been a very pious way of explaining the commitment that a priest has to the Church, but not doctrine. In other words, it is not part of the deposit of faith that a priest is married to the Church.

Observe and try to answer the following questions. If the priest is married to the Church, to whom is a sister married? To whom is a num married? To whom am I married? I’m not a priest, but I’m a consecrated religious in solemn vows. Sixty percent of our priests are not consecrated religious. Only 10% of our religious are consecrated by solemn vows. The rest are consecrated by simple vows. So those men like me who are consecrated by solemn vows, who are we married to?

If you say that a consecrated religious male in solemn vows is also married to the Church, then why not consecrated women religious in solemn vows? There are about 50,000 of them around the world.

If you say that both a priest and a consecrated male religious are married to the Church, then what makes them different?

If you say that only the priest is married to the Church and that women religious are married to Christ, as many like to believe, then does not mean that consecrated males have no place in the economy of salvation?

Do you see the problem when we start to bring in marriage to the Church and marriage to Christ into a conversation where there is no such marriage?

I support the celibacy requirement for any man born into the Latin Church who wants to be a priest, but for much more noble and profoundly theological reasons than being married to a Church in a marriage that has never existed in Catholic thinking.

 

[HollyDolly]

First, know that there are two types of priests, secular and regular. Secular priests are the ones you have at your local parish, that say Mass and do the day-to-day functions of your church. They deal with the secular world, in other words. Regular priests are monks; in other words, those with extra REGULATIONS. The “regular” part refers to that, not them being like average people. Until around 1100, up until the Cluny Reform Movement (which was a highly successful “internal” reformation of the Catholic Church that corrected many problems and led to a great reduction of corruption between 900-1300), a person could become a secular priest if they were already married. That said, once you became a priest, if you were not already married, you could not go out and get married, and if your wife died, you couldn’t get remarried. Regular priests, however, have always practiced celibacy. That was one of the original “extra” regulations, so to speak.

Well, there were several problems with this system. First, being a priest was a difficult job that required a lot of travel. Due to the numerous small manors and kingdoms that abounded through Europe, a priest would have to travel a circuit, saying Mass in as many as twenty different cities in a month. He might only actually be home a few days a month. This was not a conducive environment to being a good father or husband, and it also provided plenty of opportunity for infidelity. Second, there were great problems with nepotism. Priests would use their position in society to get cushy jobs for their kids. This could be either in the church (as a priest, etc.), or with a secular lord (as a knight, guild master, etc.). Sometimes, they would even use money from the collection plate as bribes to accomplish this. The families of many priests also lived a very high lifestyle, with many of them rivaling the wealth of the lords whose manors they lived on or near. One problem that is often referred to by some but usually overstated is inheritance. It is often believed that the Church ended celibacy because they wanted to hold onto property that children might inherit, but this wasn’t often an issue, because the land and buildings were often simply owned and provided by the local lord. The priest didn’t actually own them anyway. So, when a large monastic order in the French city of Cluny proposed extending celibacy to the entire church (along with other reforms), it was seen as a very popular change, and ended certain problems the church experienced almost immediately. It is ironic that many now call for an end to celibacy, since it was instituted as a popular reform to begin with. It just shows that there will always be problems to deal with, you just need to pick your poison.

It should also be noted that this ruling only applied to the Western Catholic Church. Eastern Catholic Churches (along with the Orthodox) do not mandate celibacy, and will still allow married people to become priests. Even in the West, exceptions can be occasionally made for pastors that convert from other faiths, especially Anglicans and Lutherans. Many people are unaware that there are actually close to 100 married CATHOLIC priests in the United States.

Yes what you say is true.Also during the middle Ages there were also various heresies led by Henry the Monk,Peter Waldo,Fra Dolcino ,Brethern of the Free Spirit The Cathars and others.
The Cathars were found in Northern Italy and Southern France,though there were some in Cologne and they even attempted to find converts in Englandbut did not meet with any sucess there due to the actions of the king at that time.They were tried and turned out into the winter cold and the people instructed not to give them food shelter or clothing.It is believed they died from exposure.However I don’t think we really know what might have happend to them.
In any case the Cathar Perfects(Parfaits in french) went about in pairs preaching the gospel.The women taught and nursed and may have had other duties.Some of the noble lladies in France joined and formed convents if you will where they could worship and work together.The perfects didn’t eat meatand they were celibate.A widow or widower could become a perfect and as far as I know could not remarry.Their lifestyle was in contrast to many of the clergy which you mention above. This too was an imputus to the Church to institute celibacy as the Cathars and even some other herectical groups seemd to lead holier lives than that of many church clergy.

 

[Rolltide]

Yes what you say is true.Also during the middle Ages there were also various heresies led by Henry the Monk,Peter Waldo,Fra Dolcino ,Brethern of the Free Spirit The Cathars and others.
The Cathars were found in Northern Italy and Southern France,though there were some in Cologne and they even attempted to find converts in Englandbut did not meet with any sucess there due to the actions of the king at that time.They were tried and turned out into the winter cold and the people instructed not to give them food shelter or clothing.It is believed they died from exposure.However I don’t think we really know what might have happend to them.
In any case the Cathar Perfects(Parfaits in french) went about in pairs preaching the gospel.The women taught and nursed and may have had other duties.Some of the noble lladies in France joined and formed convents if you will where they could worship and work together.The perfects didn’t eat meatand they were celibate.A widow or widower could become a perfect and as far as I know could not remarry.Their lifestyle was in contrast to many of the clergy which you mention above. This too was an imputus to the Church to institute celibacy as the Cathars and even some other herectical groups seemd to lead holier lives than that of many church clergy.

The mandatory celibacy reform was imposed about 75-100 years before the onset of the Cathars and the Waldensians. The new celibacy requirement was not influenced by those two groups, although there is speculation that the two groups arose out of reformers who believed that the Cluny and Gregorian reforms had not gone far enough.

 

[mark_a]

I stand by what I previously stated. Catholic teaching on marriage permits a couple to limit the number of children they have for just reasons. There is no requirement for a couple to have more children then their income will support.

Why a person would get married to not have sex just escapes me.

 

[RyanBlack]

Why a person would get married to not have sex just escapes me.

I was talking about Natural Family Planning, which is permitted by the Church for just reasons, not perpetual abstinence.

 

[adawgj]

My friend, this is not true. It has never been true. Please go up and read and count how many times I have said that many married men are ordained to the priesthood in the Catholic Church.

There are 23 independent Catholic Churches under the Holy Father. There is only one Latin Catholic Church, often called the Roman Catholic Church. But the Roman Catholic Church is 1/23 Catholic Churches that make up the one holy catholic and apostolic church that we profess to believe in the Creed.

None of these 23 Churches, nor any of the Orthodox Churches have ever taught that the priest is married to the Church. This is not Catholic teaching. This has been a very pious way of explaining the commitment that a priest has to the Church, but not doctrine. In other words, it is not part of the deposit of faith that a priest is married to the Church.

Observe and try to answer the following questions. If the priest is married to the Church, to whom is a sister married? To whom is a num married? To whom am I married? I’m not a priest, but I’m a consecrated religious in solemn vows. Sixty percent of our priests are not consecrated religious. Only 10% of our religious are consecrated by solemn vows. The rest are consecrated by simple vows. So those men like me who are consecrated by solemn vows, who are we married to?

If you say that a consecrated religious male in solemn vows is also married to the Church, then why not consecrated women religious in solemn vows? There are about 50,000 of them around the world.

If you say that both a priest and a consecrated male religious are married to the Church, then what makes them different?

If you say that only the priest is married to the Church and that women religious are married to Christ, as many like to believe, then does not mean that consecrated males have no place in the economy of salvation?

Do you see the problem when we start to bring in marriage to the Church and marriage to Christ into a conversation where there is no such marriage?

I support the celibacy requirement for any man born into the Latin Church who wants to be a priest, but for much more noble and profoundly theological reasons than being married to a Church in a marriage that has never existed in Catholic thinking.

Thanks for correcting me friend. I wasn’t aware of that at all, and I guess my understanding of the teachings on this subject aren’t what I thought they were.