Why should priests be celibate?

[Kindnessmatters]

Let’s not pretend it has reached the same proportion in other faiths. Come on. I’m open to whatever course the church takes but it is not genuine to claim celibacy is not a factor at all.

 

[IanM]

Hi Bear…on this point I’d actually say the biggest growth in Catholic vocations (or Catholic clergy) is coming from married men. In depends on how one defines vocations of course. There were ~2,700 Deacons in 1975 and there are ~45,600 Deacons in 2017 40% of which are in the US. There would certainly be desire among married men to play an even bigger clerical role…i.e. a priest. I agree there are many details to work out such as how to handle divorce, salary, and problematic children. These issues can be worked out though.

There is a school of thought that the introduction of married Deacons was in fact a Trojan Horse to acclimatise the laity to the idea of “married clergy” i.e.married priests. I know of at least one married Deacon who believes this to be the case and who now bitterly believes he was exploited to achieve this. He never desired to be ordained priest and suffers in his belief that he may have unwittingly helped the movement towards ending celibacy in the priesthood. We are living in “interesting times” and the curse of wishing an enemy live in such times, seems very apropos.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Let’s agree to disagree on this issue, as I don’t find your arguments convincing and I think you feel the same way about mine.

Have a nice day. God bless.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I could see a role for viri probati - older, married men - but this too isn’t without it’s complications and realistically, we’re talking only a very small pool of potential candidates.

I wondered about this because the older, married men seem to often be the ones joining the permanent diaconate. Also, for a man of retirement age (perhaps one taking early retirement), the loss of secular salary is less of an issue, and any children he has are more likely to be launched on their adult life.

The next thing that would come up in my mind would be that a married man of this age likely has an established life and has put down some roots in a community, such as already owning a home, etc so there might be a geographical constraint on where he could serve. But this might not apply to all couples and in dioceses that aren’t geographically huge, it’s probably manageable the same way as one would commute to work.

However, if you’re saying it’s a relatively small pool of candidates anyway, maybe there isn’t a justification for it, especially since the diocese would be expending more administrative effort for significantly fewer years of service.

 

[commenter]

Americans have always had a strong suspicion of celibacy. Single men were rarely promoted into management. This was true of Protestant ministers, for whom a wife is a career necessity.

On TV and the movies, we might accept an unmarried hero, only if we were assured he had a bevy of hot girl friends.

Out of the countless challenges or opportunities of the nun’s life, most Americans will zero in on celibacy. They might say “that’s nice” but really they’re thinking something else. It’s unamerican.

With the hyper emphasis on sexuality in recent decades in the US, celibacy is more of a contradiction to Americanism than ever.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

With the hyper emphasis on sexuality in recent decades in the US, celibacy is more of a contradiction to Americanism than ever.

I think the general attitude in US for the last several decades has been if you aren’t having sex of some sort (including self-pleasuring) on a regular basis, you’re living in an unhealthy way and there may well be something wrong with you physically or psychologically, and if you dispute this, you’re in denial.

The only time I see this attitude set aside is when the person is abstaining because they are practicing some kind of ascetism based in Eastern religion or other non-Christian religion, like being a Buddhist monk. Then it’s admired as being self-control, cleansing the mind etc. Christians who abstain don’t get the same respect and it’s also often assumed that the Christian isn’t really abstaining but is just hiding some kind of covert sexual activity or perversion.

 

[Cathoholic]

Kindnessmatters

. . . but it is not genuine to claim celibacy is not a factor at all.

These non-celibate guys are all in trouble for
NOT being celibate.
Yet you link
celibacy as the problem.

REVELATION 14:4 (New Jerusalem Bible) These are the sons who have kept their virginity and not been defiled with women; they follow the Lamb wherever he goes; they, out of all people, have been redeemed to be the first-fruits for God and for the Lamb.

NOT REVELATION 14:4 (New Jerusalem Bible) These are the sons who have thrown-away their virginity and are misusing the priesthood for support for their objectively disordered lifestyle and are hirelings but they are the first-fruits for God and for the Lamb anyway.

Such wayward men need many prayers. . . . .

ROMAN CATECHISM Some are attracted to the priesthood by ambition and love of honours; while there are others who desire to be ordained simply in order that they may abound in riches, as is proved by the fact that unless some wealthy benefice were conferred on them, they would not dream of receiving Holy Orders. It is such as these that our Saviour describes as hirelings, who, in the words of Ezechiel, feed themselves and not the sheep, and whose baseness and dishonesty have not only brought great disgrace on the ecclesiastical state, so much so that hardly anything is now more vile and contemptible in the eyes of the faithful, but also end in this, that they derive no other fruit from their priesthood than was derived by Judas from the Apostleship, which only brought him everlasting destruction.

 

[Brendan_64]

The next thing that would come up in my mind would be that a married man of this age likely has an established life and has put down some roots in a community, such as already owning a home, etc so there might be a geographical constraint on where he could serve.

Which could also in itself be a bit of an issue if the bishop felt that circumstances that a parish was in (and circumstances change) meant that it would benefit from a change of priest. If the priest has his own house, a wife who may have her own job, children, grandchildren etc living in the area, and very deep roots in the area, it would be difficult for the bishop to move the priest to another parish. Such a move could cause deep upset and hardship, not just to the priest, but to his family. What if the priest’s wife point blank refused to move? The bishop would have no authority to compel her to and this could cause a real rift between a man and his wife.

 

[jack63]

married Deacons was in fact a Trojan Horse to acclimatise the laity to the idea of “married clergy” i.e.married priests. I know of at least one married Deacon who believes this to be the case and who now bitterly believes he was exploited to achieve this. He never desired to be ordained priest and suffers in his belief that he may have unwittingly helped the movement towards ending celibacy in the priesthood.

This is a very dark view that I don’t share at all. In the US Catholic Deacons were not needed to acclimate people to the idea married priests. I just don’t buy this. All that was needed to acclimate us to married priests was to walk out of your house and interact with the rest of society including our protestant brothers and sisters.

This view is so strange that I’d assume other things were going on with this Deacon and his experience.

 

[Cham65]

Celibacy is a wonderful gift from God and it signifies how special the Priesthood is, I think it should continue and I also dont think it would increase vocations should it be abolished. I think people are maybe to matrialistic now in society and this could be the reason.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

This is a very dark view that I don’t share at all. In the US Catholic Deacons were not needed to acclimate people to the idea married priests. I just don’t buy this. All that was needed to acclimate us to married priests was to walk out of your house and interact with the rest of society including our protestant brothers and sisters.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I don’t feel that just being around Protestants “acclimatizes” Catholics to married priests. There are Protestant ministers who are unmarried or divorced/ remarried, and the job of a priest is significantly different from that of a Protestant minister. The administration of a Protestant congregation is also often significantly different from that of a Catholic church.

Certainly seeing married deacons in the sanctuary assisting at Mass does more to get people in the mind of “hey, a married guy can do priest-type stuff” than seeing Protestant Minister and his wife doing whatever it is they do in the community. Not to mention that there are plenty of Protestant ministers running around whose marriages are not in great shape, or who have been divorced and remarried. The last time I went to a Protestant church (About a year ago), half of the homily that day was about the pastor’s marital troubles.

At the same time, I don’t see married deacons as being a Trojan Horse just to push the married priest idea. Married deacons have their own unique role within the parish and they help a lot.

 

[commenter]

Kindnessmatters:

Well, quite a few have left for marriage.

Speaking as one who lived through that era when every other young priest was leaving to get married, many of them became priests with the expectation that Vatican II would allow priests to marry soon. When that didn’t happen they chose to leave because they didn’t get what they expected.

Unfortunately, a significant number of priests ordained from about the 1960s through the 1990s simply did not take the commitment to the priesthood very seriously.

Priests are drawn from the Laity. When many laity are holy, we get many holy priests. When commitment is shaky in society, and there is extreme preoccupation with sexual gratification, that shows up in the priesthood too, in terms of quality and quantity.

Seminaries are partly to blame. They drastically cut back on doctrinal and spiritual formation in favor of Peace and Justice, and relativism. They were too glued to the Secular culture. They failed to address the problem of “the World, the Flesh, and the Devil”.

But in fairness, they can only work with the raw material they get.

 

[Kindnessmatters]

Many become Episcopal priests. We can try to characterize their reasons to suit our agendas or listen to them and take them at their word.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Why should priests be celibate?

Good question.
Here’s a few others.
Why should priests wear vestments?
Why should they keep the seal of confession?
Why can’t they run for Congress/Parliament?

 

[Gorgias]

Let’s not pretend it has reached the same proportion in other faiths. Come on.

You’re right. Research has shown that often, it’s even more profoundly present. The percentage of Catholic priests who abuse is smaller than the general population. Thanks for bringing this up.

it is not genuine to claim celibacy is not a factor at all.

Have you read the literature on the subject? Celibacy, as such, is not seen as a causative factor in incidents of child sexual abuse.

There is a school of thought that the introduction of married Deacons was in fact a Trojan Horse to acclimatise the laity to the idea of “married clergy” i.e.married priests. I know of at least one married Deacon who believes this to be the case and who now bitterly believes he was exploited to achieve this.

This is an interesting assertion; I can’t say I’ve ever heard it before. In what way does your deacon friend feel “exploited”?

maybe there isn’t a justification for it, especially since the diocese would be expending more administrative effort for significantly fewer years of service.

Good point. The costs of preparing a seminarian aren’t trivial: six to eight years of graduate and undergraduate education, living expenses over that time, the costs of clergy who form and advise these seminarians, the assumption of medical and retirement obligations for these men as they age, etc, etc. The question isn’t merely an ROI evaluation… but it’s certainly a consideration.

Married deacons have their own unique role within the parish and they help a lot.

This!

Many become Episcopal priests.

It would be interesting to characterize what we mean by “many.” Many “newly ordained priests”? Or maybe just many “among those who leave the priesthood”? The denominators are very different, here, so no matter how “many”, I’m not sure that you’d be able to demonstrate that this is endemic or even vaguely representative.

That being said, there are those who leave the Catholic priesthood for ministry in the Episcopalian church, and these men seem to tend to want “priesthood” without “celibacy.” The fact that they find this out in the course of their priesthood is often reflective of a failure in the priestly formation process (although, to be honest, there are men who have been priests for a couple of decades who just decide that they no longer want the lifestyle of a Catholic priest).

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Good point. The costs of preparing a seminarian aren’t trivial: six to eight years of graduate and undergraduate education, living expenses over that time, the costs of clergy who form and advise these seminarians, the assumption of medical and retirement obligations for these men as they age, etc, etc. The question isn’t merely an ROI evaluation… but it’s certainly a consideration.

I would also presume that the married priests who were previously Protestant ministers might get some kind of a fast-track formation. The ones I’ve met seem to all have advanced degrees, were ministers in Anglican or Lutheran churches for decades before converting, and were involved in some kind of theology activity before they made the switch. Those guys certainly don’t need any more college education and they probably didn’t need more than a couple years of formation, if that.

 

[otjm]

The Church for 2000 years has had both celibate and married priests; it has married priests today in the Eastern rites - which are not some sort of second cousins we easily dismiss - and has married priests in the Roman Rite; primarily from the Anglican/Episcopal church, Lutherans, Methodists, and in Oregon we had one who was from the Presbyterians (ordained by then Archbishop Levada).

And the Roman rite had married priests for centuries (as well as celibate priests), ending somewhere around the 10th century.

Our model currently is that the great majority of priests (diocesan) are assigned to parishes and are responsible for the administration of the parish (and if it has a school, that too) and so a good deal of their work has little to do with evangelization or sacraments; it has to do with budgets, repairs, and other administrative work.

And often we hear that a married priest couldn’t do that as the priest is “24/7/365” - that, in itself varies widely and wildly depending on the priest ad the parish. That, however, does not mean that all priests who are ordained must have that schedule; in fact it ignores the priests who have positions other than as a pastor.

Just as permanent deacons go through a several year (5, in this archdiocese) process towards ordination, and if they are married their wife yearly is consulted to affirm that she strongly supports his ordination, so anyone who was married would have to have a wife who strongly supported his ordination, and that in itself would be part of a “weeding out” process. It appears to be working quite well for the deaconate, so there is no reason to presume it would not work also for the priesthood. Additionally, the Church is not likely to consider ordaining anyone with young children (although Deacon Harold Burke Sivers has made an outstanding support of ordaining men when they reach the age of 35, as opposed to what appears closer to the age of 50).

However, it is because many do not have an ability to see beyond the current model of “priest = parish administrator” , or to put it another way, the ability to think outside the box, that many are automatically against ordaining married men. A married priest could be a non-administrative priest, spending time administering the sacraments in one or more parishes, which is the first need for priests.

I have long suspected that there is a reluctance, to put it mildly, to consider any alternatives. A married clergy is part and parcel of the history of the Church just as a celibate clergy is. And after 2000 years, the world has not fallen apart when married men are ordained. I seriously doubt there would be a massive rush of married men applying; and as noted with permanent deacons, their wife would have a very significant part of the decision making.

 

[jack63]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Tis_Bearself:

maybe there isn’t a justification for it, especially since the diocese would be expending more administrative effort for significantly fewer years of service.

To have an honest conversation on ROI…

1. Likely older married men who become priests will be drawn from the Diaconate. These men will already be well educated. Many will have obtained a Masters degree related to their training to be a Deacon. Their education and training will overlap with that of a priest shortening the time necessary for additional training.
2. Honestly, the ROI on investment in the present model of training a priest doesn’t seem to be that good. In the last 50 years there are something like 25,000 laicized priests in the US alone. On top of that the drop out rate from seminary is fairly high (~20%). Seminary is expensive and many of these men get help on on student loans from Catholic charities just to enter seminary.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Its very doubtful that celibacy is related to sexual abuse. Supposedly, the rate of abuse in Protestant churches is on a par with the Catholic Church and they do not need to be celibate. There was actually a huge sexual abuse scandal brought to light involving the southern baptist denomination recently. From my reading it seems that it’s even easier for a predator to hide by jumping from one independent church to another, than it is to hide as a predator in the Catholic Church. We just hear about the Catholic Church more because we are all under the same umbrella with one head, while each Protestant church is independent and so no one can bunch them together when reporting accusations. But the rate of abuse in other churches is no less than it has been in the Catholic Church.

 

[Gorgias]

married priests who were previously Protestant ministers… certainly don’t need any more college education and they probably didn’t need more than a couple years of formation, if that.

Right, but they’re not the main thrust of the present discussion nor are they in significant numbers such that they’re representative of the question at hand, no? The question is the celibate priesthood and the potential for viri probati to enter into the priesthood. They’d need the full priestly formation program (and they’d be old enough that the ROI discussion would be relevant).

Our model currently is that the great majority of priests (diocesan) are assigned to parishes and are responsible for the administration of the parish (and if it has a school, that too) and so a good deal of their work has little to do with evangelization or sacraments; it has to do with budgets, repairs, and other administrative work.

At least in my diocese, we’re becoming aware that priests are ordained for ministry, not “budgets, repairs, and other administrative work.” We can hire competent staff to do those things; we have priests so that they can perform priestly ministry. They might act in the role of pastor – but that doesn’t mean that they should be accountants and maintenance men.

And often we hear that a married priest couldn’t do that as the priest is “24/7/365”

That doesn’t necessarily mean “2am”. It also means that he’s got a schedule that includes evening meetings – which would keep him away from his family in the evenings. That’s not a healthy approach for solid Christian fatherhood.

anyone who was married would have to have a wife who strongly supported his ordination, and that in itself would be part of a “weeding out” process. It appears to be working quite well for the deaconate, so there is no reason to presume it would not work also for the priesthood.

In my diocese, deacons are not moved from parish to parish; I would take that to mean that the diocese is cognizant that this would be detrimental to and destabilizing for family life. Priests, on the other hand, are moved on a regular basis. “There is no reason to presume it would not work also for the priesthood”? Ask any family member how they’d feel about being forced to move every six years: high-school-aged children being forced to move from school district to school district; wives being forced into difficult career / job decisions. Are you sure that’s a workable construct?