Why should priests be celibate?

[Gorgias]

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.

It’s always easier to pooh-pooh an assertion when you demonize those who are making it, eh? “Ad hominem” much, do you?

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.

This is a reasonable point. Yet, what is it, precisely, that you’re suggesting? “Working priests”, who hold down a secular job Monday through Friday, but celebrate Mass on the weekends? We’ve already tried that, and it failed miserably. Or, perhaps, you’re suggesting that we swell the ranks of (paid) 40-hour-a-week priests? Where would the funds to support them (and their families) with a living wage come from? We already find it rather difficult to support the (meager) ranks of priests that we have!

Look – I’m cool with "thinking outside of the box’! However, “married priests” isn’t the panacea that many make it out to be.

I seriously doubt there would be a massive rush of married men applying

I was trying to find the post upthread that contradicted this assertion, but apparently, my search fu isn’t as strong as I might have thought. The assertion that had been made was that this was precisely where the only uptick in vocations is being realized – in married men who approach the permanent diaconate. So… no: your doubt seems to fly in the face of the data.

 

[Gorgias]

To have an honest conversation on ROI…

Cool… I’m up for it!

Likely older married men who become priests will be drawn from the Diaconate.

That’s a relatively small pool, however. Moreover, that’s not a model for sustainable vocations: once we run through the existing deacons who wish they’d have become priests, we’re back to forming men without any prior religious formation. So… at best, we cherry-pick for a few years, and then the ROI goes in the tank.

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.

Except that intellectual formation is only one of four pillars of priestly formation. We seem, in general, to think that a man trains to become a priest in academia. He doesn’t. He learns philosophy and theology there, but he also spends as much time (if not more) on the other three pillars of formation, which are just as important as being able to answer the question “what are the four last things?”

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.

“The last 50 years” are hardly representative, and have quite a litany of extraordinary circumstances which skew the statistics:

• the expectation that priests would have been allowed to marry
• the seismic shift in the theology of holy orders, which greatly affected priests in the decade following VC2.
• the well-documented problems in formation programs in the U.S.

Remove those from your denominator, and I assert you’ll find that it’s the “signs of the times”, and not “the model of priestly formation” that’s at fault.

On top of that the drop out rate from seminary is fairly high (~20%).

That’s pretty characteristic. Moreover, it’s a good thing – after all, the costs to the community of losing a priest (not only financial, but also spiritual and in terms of morale) are far greater than the costs of losing a seminarian! The goal of seminary isn’t to be a “priest factory” – it’s to be a safe space where Catholic men are able to discern God’s will for their lives. A 20% dropout rate is low, and not unacceptable!

 

[jack63]

Except that intellectual formation is only one of four pillars of priestly formation.

Personally I’d think being a Deacon for several years would be profoundly good for the formation of the human, spiritual, and pastoral pillars. That’s just my opinion though…

That’s a relatively small pool, however. Moreover, that’s not a model for sustainable vocations: once we run through the existing deacons who wish they’d have become priests, we’re back to forming men without any prior religious formation. So… at best, we cherry-pick for a few years, and then the ROI goes in the tank.

…so why not do it then? What is wrong with using the pool of men you have who are married and truly called to be a priest?

“The last 50 years” are hardly representative

There are always periods of stability and chaos. Yes there are fewer priests who have been laicized in the last 20 years. However, you can’t always plan for a model based on a stability. I’ve often wondered if we’re heading towards a far more chaotic time myself. For example, we hardly have society now where a celibate priest immediately finds his place, is respected, and is without doubt and temptation.

 

[jack63]

That’s pretty characteristic. Moreover, it’s a good thing – after all, the costs to the community of losing a priest (not only financial, but also spiritual and in terms of morale) are far greater than the costs of losing a seminarian!

I don’t disagree by the way. It’s just that you could be paying this man’s education, room and board for years as well as helping him with student debt. If you are just going to look at ROI, working with a married man who is perhaps a Deacon to discern priesthood is going to be much cheaper and far less of a burden if they don’t work out.

 

[otjm]

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.

So the Knights of Columbus are not good Fathers? No, I know that is not what you mean; but you will have to tell me why that priest has 5 night meetings a week. I don’t know any now who do.

I also know men and women who are doctors and good parents men and women who are accountants and not seen once tax time starts (12 to 14 hour days is not unusual) and they are good parents; business owners who haven’t seen an 8 to 5 day in years; attorneys who are trial lawyers and 12 to 14 hour days are not the least unusual… and the list goes on and on and on. Not everyone is a worker bee doing the 8 - 5. A friend of mine and a cousin of mine were both firemen, 24 on, 48 off. They got caught with Sundays duty day. Still good parents. And to that list we can add permanent deacons…

The point I was making is that is is nothing more than an urban myth that if we have married priests, they need to work 24/7/365. It would not be impossible to have a married priest who was a teacher; I grew up with priests whose day work was as a teacher; they filled in for Mass but taught high school.

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?

We have a permanent deacon; he is not at the parish every day; some days he is at the chancery; but he is retired. And he does not have a multitude of evening meetings; once a week is closer to the norm, and that is not year-round.

Most of the teachers I know worked in one district until retirement; maybe your teachers move around a lot. The same can be said for middle managers of larger corporations; unless they spend their career in the “head shed” they move; often more regularly than 6 years.

None of that militates against ordaining married men.

 

[otjm]

It’s always easier to pooh-pooh an assertion when you demonize those who are making it, eh? “Ad hominem” much, do you?

No, that is not an ad hominem; it is a reality that many people are not taught critical thinking. That is not to disparage them; it is simply stating a fact. They tend to see, for example, priests being in some sort of 24/7 role when the actual fact is that they are not. I have known a multitude of priests. Some were administration focused and were poking around at most of the meetings of the week; others let the laity do the laity work with less oversight. some were excellent liturgists, others somewhat pedestrian. Some were evangelists, others were there to administer the sacraments and didn’t have much involvement beyond that necessary to keep the parish afloat. They all did God’s work, and many the bishop’s work (i.e. administration).

If you are referring to the Worker Priest movement in France, I would agree with you. However, we currently have deacons who have day jobs, and not with the diocese. Ni=either the Church , the parishes which they may serve, nor the deacons have fallen apart. and not all the deacons I have known are solely or necessarily focused on parish work.

I am not suggesting any panacea. I have known more than several of the 25,000 priests who have been laicized; most bought into the supposition that Vatican 2 would allow priests to marry. They apparently knew nothing of the history of the Church on the matter… but that is a different issue than ordaining married men.

It would be up to any diocese ordaining a married man as to whether or not they would pay a full-time salary and expect them to be in a parish full time (or the chancery, which some priests do). The net effect whether they were there for sacraments - Mass, Confession, perhaps teaching RCIA - is that they would not be committed full time to a parish; if we can do that with deacons, it seems that issue is a non-issue. Panacea? No, but one more priest means that perhaps a rural parish might have Mass each week; it might mean that having a priest who is a hosptial chaplain would not have to travel 100 miles round trip to say Sunday Mass at a local parish which has 11 Masses on the weekend. It might mean that a local parish with 4 Masses on the weekend would not have to have tghe single pastor saying them all.

No, I don’t think there is any panacea; I don’t think we would suddenly be overrun with married priests and no one showing up to be a celibate priest. I think we would still have a majority of celibate priests; having some more who are married would help to carry the load.

 

[Gorgias]

Personally I’d think being a Deacon for several years would be profoundly good for the formation of the human, spiritual, and pastoral pillars.

It’s profoundly good for the formation of a deacon. Not of a priest. They’re two distinct vocations.

…so why not do it then? What is wrong with using the pool of men you have who are married and truly called to be a priest?

The way I was trained, in the business world, is to seek solutions, not band-aids.

By the way: the pool of men who are married, by definition, at this point, are not “truly called to be a priest”. In fact, if a married man walks into deacon formation intake today and says “I was really called to be a priest”, he’ll be given a hearty handshake and will not continue in formation. Deacons are not “mini-priests”, and this is one of the misunderstandings under which some continue to labor.

you can’t always plan for a model based on a stability.

Moreover, you can’t look at a rather unique fifty-year period and invalidly extrapolate based upon it.

It’s just that you could be paying this man’s education, room and board for years

That’s a “cost of doing business”, in the formation realm.

as well as helping him with student debt.

I don’t know about your diocese, but in mine, undergrads who drop out of the formation process are required to pay their tuition costs; they’re only picked up by the diocese if they complete the program and are ordained.

So the Knights of Columbus are not good Fathers? No, I know that is not what you mean; but you will have to tell me why that priest has 5 night meetings a week. I don’t know any now who do.

Keep looking, then. Priests have monthly meetings with finance and pastoral councils, other ministries in the parish, and also with individuals who seek counseling, as well as those who are preparing for marriage and other sacraments. “Five nights a week”? Maybe more, some times. And definitely, that would get in the way of a dad’s commitment to his children’s extracurricular and other activities.

 

[Gorgias]

And to that list we can add permanent deacons…

Who don’t have the commitments that priests have. C’mon, man…

It would not be impossible to have a married priest who was a teacher; I grew up with priests whose day work was as a teacher; they filled in for Mass but taught high school.
Gorgias:

Again, the “working priest” experiment was attempted, and it failed.

We have a permanent deacon; he is not at the parish every day; some days he is at the chancery; but he is retired. And he does not have a multitude of evening meetings; once a week is closer to the norm, and that is not year-round.

Right. And that’s the typical ministry of a deacon… not of a priest.

Most of the teachers I know worked in one district until retirement; maybe your teachers move around a lot.

I’m talking about priests, not teachers. . Most of the priests I’ve known over the past 20 years haven’t had an assignment that lasted 12 years or more. Those days are long gone.

The same can be said for middle managers of larger corporations; unless they spend their career in the “head shed” they move; often more regularly than 6 years.

Ahh… but they have the opportunity to take another job. Middle managers don’t make promises of obedience to their executives. Priests do.

it is a reality that many people are not taught critical thinking. That is not to disparage them; it is simply stating a fact.

Still, it doesn’t allow you to disregard their arguments on the basis of who they are.

If you are referring to the Worker Priest movement in France, I would agree with you. However, we currently have deacons who have day jobs, and not with the diocese.

Deacon =/= priest. Attempting to conflate the two is invalid extrapolation.

It would be up to any diocese ordaining a married man as to whether or not they would pay a full-time salary and expect them to be in a parish full time (or the chancery, which some priests do).

Umm… really, no. Not in the Latin Rite Church. (But, to be fair, what you’re suggesting is a complete overhaul of what it means to be a priest in the Catholic Church.) And, don’t forget, we’re not talking merely salary – we’re talking total compensation package. Which, as it turns out, is more extensive (and committed) than the ordinary white-collar worker in the secular world.

 

[otjm]

Keep looking, then. Priests have monthly meetings with finance and pastoral councils, other ministries in the parish, and also with individuals who seek counseling, as well as those who are preparing for marriage and other sacraments. “Five nights a week”? Maybe more, some times. And definitely, that would get in the way of a dad’s commitment to his children’s extracurricular and other activities.

Ah, but you are assuming I said something which I did not. My point is that if we were to have married clergy, it is not a given that they would be in the parish every week in evening meetings. My current pastor is not at evening meetings even 3 days a week on average; a married priest who would not be a pastor would not have the pastoral responsibilities. The mot important duty of any priest is administering the sacraments. Many people (and you seem to be joining this group) seem to think that the only model is a pastor in a parish. I am not suggesting we get rid of that model; I am suggesting we would be able to add an additional model. As I noted above, a parish near me has 11 Masses on the weekend; they only have a pastor and an assistant priest; the rest of the Masses they have to find someone available to say the rest. “Dad” won’t be the parish priest.

 

[otjm]

Again, the “working priest” experiment was attempted, and it failed.

otjm:

No, it has not failed; we still have priests whose duties are not in a parish as pastor.

Right. And that’s the typical ministry of a deacon … not of a priest .

otjm:.
Don’t be obtuse. Some deacons are full time in a parish; some are part time, and some have duties which are not parish related. There is no reason a married priest would have to be automatically on parish track.

Your comment was about teachers moving to other districts. All the ones I have known taught in one district until retirement. Point being, a married priest does not have to be moved every 6 years, as he is not assigned as a parish priest (who gets moved).

Sorry, the system does not seem to want to copy over your comments with attribution. No, I am not suggesting a complete overhaul of what it means to be a priest in the Catholic Church; I am suggesting that we have an additional definition; not identical to what was referred to in some orders as a priest with limited faculties, but one with limited duties. The first and foremost duty is making the sacraments available. It would include a far more limited duty of the administrative and/or counseling duties.

 

[IanM]

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?

I recently had a conversation with an Anglican minister friend that touched on this very topic. He actually said that it can take as long as nine months, in his experience, for an Anglican minister and family to be moved to another parish within his diocese, owing to the logistical problems already mentioned in various posts in this thread. He particularly mentioned family accommodation upgrading and schooling as being very problematical. He also mentioned that often the wife of a minister now had her own career aspirations and consideration had to be given when assessing movement. He said he was in awe of the Catholic system that enabled a priest to be moved within days should it be considered necessary. He is married by the way!

 

[twf]

Ask any Priest. Celibacy is a gift .

Should that be taken away from the Church?

I agree with you, that celibacy is a gift…but there are definitely priests, and bishops, pushing for a relaxation of the celibacy discipline.
Regardless, even if the disciplined is relaxed, celibacy will never go away. The Eastern Churches have married parish priests as the norm, yet retain a thriving celibate monastic vocation…and their bishops are drawn from the celibate monastics. Even if more married men are ordained as secular priests, we will always have celibate religious. A married priest is possible…a married religious is, by definition, impossible.

 

[IanM]

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.

I will have to be circumspect as I know he would wish me to be concerning his personal details.
In a nut shell I think that he felt a calling (whilst married) to enter some form of pastoral church ministry. He sought advise and it was suggested that the position of Deacon in a parish, whilst continuing his career in a reduced form, might be the answer. He studied appropriately and was created Deacon and agreed to parish work. He was supported by his wife at all times. He apparently had never desired ordination to the priesthood hence his marriage. He apparently feels that some of those who advised him have subsequently strongly advocated a married priesthood and he also says that he feels that he (and others, of whom I am unaware) consider they were part of a strategy to bring about an accommodation in the mind of the parishioners to the idea of married clergy and the opening of their minds to the idea which previously they would have considered “Protestant” He did mention some experiences with parishioners that he felt illustrated the correctness of his belief. I will not post further details regarding these for confidential reasons. All of this has led him to feel disillusioned and upset at what he believes is the cynicism of some now leading clerics.

 

[commenter]

Even if more married men are ordained as secular priests, we will always have celibate religious. A married priest is possible…a married religious is, by definition, impossible.

Almost all the discussion has focused on practical difficulties. But what about spiritual ramifications of celibacy? Perhaps celibacy is not just a practical need for some priests (men living in a monastery or friary, wives wouldn’t be possible), but what if it were inherently part of spirituality for Diocesan priests?

In recent years the Church has returned to formally recognizing consecrated virgins, who live in the community. There are no “practical” obstacles for them having a spouse.

But in a sex obsessed era, it’s a Sign of Contradiction, a public witness. If you read the works of St John of the Cross, or St Teresa of Calcutta (who ministered alone for some time) or other priests or sisters, there is something related to their celibacy in their spirituality, not just because of practical consideration.

The Church might have developed coed religious orders, with priest and sister spouses, with everything but celibacy. But the Church never did.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think the problem we run into with this line of thought is that it could be read as suggesting celibacy is somehow more holy or spiritual than having a marriage and marital relations. This viewpoint would have been generally accepted in the days of St Augustine and St Bridget. Not so much today.

 

[Gorgias]

No, it has not failed; we still have priests whose duties are not in a parish as pastor.

Right – I’m talking about having “outside jobs”.

Don’t be obtuse. Some deacons are full time in a parish; some are part time, and some have duties which are not parish related.

I’m not being obtuse (I think I understand the situation quite well, TYVM), but thanks for that, anyway.

I think you mischaracterize the working status of deacons. It’s more like:

• some deacons have full-time jobs; others are retired.
• of the deacons who have full-time jobs, some work as staff at parishes, while others work in other charitable or secular institutions.
• all deacons have an assignment which includes ministry of various types (hospitals, prisons, etc), and usually, an assignment at a parish.
• all deacons work part-time in ministry.

With priests, the situation is more like:

• diocesan priests are generally assigned to a parish, where they minister the sacraments
• generally, diocesan priests are assigned full-time as pastors or parochial vicars in the parish where they are assigned. others are assigned full-time to other ministries (chaplains, for instance, or work in the chancery).
• all diocesan priests work full-time in ministry.

Your comment was about teachers moving to other districts.

Actually, you were the one who brought up teachers; I was talking about priestly assignments in parishes.

I am suggesting that we have an additional definition; not identical to what was referred to in some orders as a priest with limited faculties, but one with limited duties. The first and foremost duty is making the sacraments available. It would include a far more limited duty of the administrative and/or counseling duties.

Oh! So… you’re suggesting a system in which we have two classes of priests? Just wait till you open that Pandora’s box, and see what the reaction of “second-class priests” is…

As I noted above, a parish near me has 11 Masses on the weekend; they only have a pastor and an assistant priest; the rest of the Masses they have to find someone available to say the rest. “Dad” won’t be the parish priest.

So… the model you suggest is one of “part-time priests”? Still problematic, and runs counter to the notion of what a ‘priestly vocation’ truly is. (Hint: it’s not a side hustle.)

All of this has led him to feel disillusioned and upset at what he believes is the cynicism of some now leading clerics.

OK. So… some priests and some laity are advocating for married priests. One of their arguments includes pointing to married deacons and saying “see… they can do it; why can’t priests?”. Still, though, that’s a far cry from asserting that they set him up to be a poster boy for their pet project, isn’t it?

 

[Gorgias]

I think the problem we run into with this line of thought is that it could be read as suggesting celibacy is somehow more holy or spiritual than having a marriage and marital relations. This viewpoint would have been generally accepted in the days of St Augustine and St Bridget. Not so much today.

If you’re suggesting that it’s counter-cultural… then yeah, absolutely!

On the other hand, it’s not just something Augustine or Bridget would suggest: Paul makes this very case in Scripture itself!

 

[jack63]

That’s a “cost of doing business”, in the formation realm.

See…it’s tough to really make the case that on ROI alone the present model for priestly formation is a good one. Just sayin…

Again, the “working priest” experiment was attempted, and it failed.

You should really have a chance look at how many types of parishes are run in the United States. The working priest model is alive and well in the US. Many Jesuit parishes in the US follow exactly this model. There could be a dozen Jesuits to a larger parish with only 2-3 being full time. The rest work regular jobs as teachers, researchers and grad students in their respective fields.

if a married man walks into deacon formation intake today and says “I was really called to be a priest”, he’ll be given a hearty handshake and will not continue in formation.

Different people are called to different ministries and different points in their lives. If a Deacon is later called to be a priest, this seems like a non-issue to me.

By the way: the pool of men who are married, by definition, at this point, are not “truly called to be a priest”.

…not Catholic teaching…never been Catholic teaching…Vatican II made this crystal clear.

Please read section 16 of Vatican II’s Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priest

(Celibacy is to be embraced and esteemed as a gift). Perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, commended by Christ the Lord(33) and through the course of time as well as in our own days freely accepted and observed in a praiseworthy manner by many of the faithful, is held by the Church to be of great value in a special manner for the priestly life. It is at the same time a sign and a stimulus for pastoral charity and a special source of spiritual fecundity in the world.(34) Indeed, it is not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood, as is apparent from the practice of the early Church(35) and from the traditions of the Eastern Churches .

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_presbyterorum-ordinis_en.html

 

[PennyinCanada]

Second, celibacy is a shield preventing family or friends questioning or noticing a priest’s sexuality, allowing them to fly under the radar. This certainly was a motivation for some gay men to enter vocations.

I agree that men with devious intent found a place in the priesthood to fly under the radar, to have a position of trust, to have access to families with children. And yes, the guilty built a network, and they protected each other. The faithful knew that something was off when these men made fun of the faithful who prayed the rosary, who didn’t believe that Jesus actually did miracles, etc. I could say more. One priest would leave then another just the same came in. Many times the faithful in my area asked the question ‘Why on earth is this man a priest?’ The grief that they caused.

All that said, I do not believe the solution is married priests.

If you have 100 priests and 10 are married, there is still plenty of room for devious men to hide. Allowing married men will not mean that men are going to be stepping forward in numbers to sign up.

As an Eastern rite Catholic, I know married men have wives that often have jobs, and kids in schools. These guys settle in a spot and do not have the flexibility of moving. The idea that with married men we will have more priests and remote areas will have the sacraments. I don’t think that will happen. If anything a married priest gets settled in a parish and that parish will have to support his family. You’d be asking Catholic families, who already likely will have more than 2 children, perhaps one income, to be more generous in paying for the priest’s additional expenses. I came from a parish that had to keep the expenses of the parish paid plus a house as well. Everything was doubled. Both required new roofs, new furnaces, heating bills, plumbing issues, snow removal, taxes paid and so on. Doubled up bills. Our parish closed and the land sold.

 

[PennyinCanada]

(Celibacy is to be embraced and esteemed as a gift)

In the end, the Pope can open the door and put things in motion, regardless of the tradition of the Church. Regardless if ‘celibacy is to be embraced and esteemed as a gift.’

Today we desperately need holy men, chaste men, to be a witness of Christ to this sex saturated world. Men who wear a collar in public, serve humanity, and show us what Love looks like.

Friends, keep praying and calling on God.