Will Marriage Solve Priests' Problems? A Married Catholic Priest Advocates Celibacy for Priests

[chero23]

I think the Church should keep the way that they have it. Being a priest even of a small congregation is hard word. Add to that, being married and kids. The priesthood is one of humility, if we begin to have a lot of married priests then, were going to see Dioceses going bankrupt, people trying to catch priests cheating on their wives, its just to troubling.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

St John Paul II – hot air, really?catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0014.html

Who said St. John Paul was full of hot air? There is room for disagreement with any pope on any matter not a matter of doctrine but of discipline. And there is room for disagreement, or haven’t you heard that during St. John Paul’s papacy approval was granted for the ordination of married Protestant clergy right here in America?

I was speaking (partly) of the cheap shots made against Catholics; that they would never be able or willing to pay for the priest’s kids braces or college tuition the way Protestants do for their pastors.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The priesthood is one of humility, if we begin to have a lot of married priests then, were going to see Dioceses going bankrupt, people trying to catch priests cheating on their wives, its just to troubling.

It’s just too troubling that people have caught plenty of single priests playing with little boys, and that these dioceses where this was common went bankrupt.

Scandal follows the Church everywhere throughout Church history.

Whether celibate or married, we are never going to have a perfect clergy.

Clergy are the devil’s favorite target.

 

[MorEphrem]

For historical accuracy the reality is that while the fact of priestly celibacy is a discipline, it is also more than a discipline because it is an Apostolic norm from the choices made by Jesus, and Sacred Scripture attests to its roots. The celibacy required for priests from the apostles was mandatory, and obligatory, and yes, they did very well.

That view is…interesting - so would you say the Eastern Churches are Apostolically abnormal?

It seems many Latins in their attempt to defend their own discipline attack the Eastern Churches, unknowingly or knowingly. The changing of the discipline in no way decreases the position of celibacy and, dare I say, there are benefits to married clergymen. All the Latins that complain and insult the married priesthood, do you even know married priests [of an Apostolic tradition]? The priest generally has an easier time with lay women because his wife bridges the gap and while the priest does not live luxuriously he can generally make ends meet with his monthly stipend - and if his wife has a job, then there’s no question about it.

I think the Church should keep the way that they have it.

You’re right, so the Latin Church should stop trying to impose their discipline on other Churches in North America.

 

[anixx]

This all idea, that celibate priest, poor them, are having a hard time, and I know best that a priest needs a wife, comes from the secular, modern world, which cannot stand the idea of holiness. Why not drag these holy priests to our level?
Priesthood is a vocation, as marriage is. The concern of the world is not about the priest getting married, but of him not giving in to sinful acts. That’s what is so diabolical.
St. Augustine at one point was about to marry, and he recalls in his Confessions, that he only wanted to get married to legitimate his lust, not actually living a life of marriage.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

nbcnews.com/news/world/pope-francis-says-door-always-open-rethink-priestly-celibacy-n115136

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This all idea, that celibate priest, poor them, are having a hard time, and I know best that a priest needs a wife, comes from the secular, modern world, which cannot stand the idea of holiness. Why not drag these holy priests to our level?
Priesthood is a vocation, as marriage is.

Priesthood is a sacrament, as marriage is. Both should be holy estates, and so we should not say that priesthood is superior to marriage as a sacrament. The married priests are not dragged down from their priesthood, as many a married priest would be glad to tell you if you opened your ears and your heart to their holiness.

 

[anixx]

we should not say that priesthood is superior to marriage as a sacrament.

Saint Paul would disagree.

EDIT: But this was not what I was saying. I was saying that if you will not order your sexual desires you won’t be able to fulfill the priesthood, nor marriage.

 

[OraLabora]

Many of the usual objections to married priests are full of hot air.

What’s hardly ever mentioned is that the early Church was full of married priests and did quite well.

There are currently married priests in the Church.

With the manpower shortage the way it is, I’d say it would be solved overnight.

I doubt it. The Anglicans in our area are screaming for vocations as well, and they’re allowed to be married. The shortage of priests has as much to do with young men not wanting to give up worldly pleasures to follow God in ministry, as anything.

Moreover, a great many Protestant ministers who have looked seriously into Catholicism may take another serious look and come in, some possibly bringing their congregations with them.

A great many do, witness the Anglican ordinariate. Note that Protestant minsters that convert, particularly those from some of the liturgical Protestant churches (Anglican, Lutheran) can and do become ordained as married Catholic priests.

As for racking up medical bills and college tuition bills for the priests’ kids, Protestant seem to handle that without resentment. Should Catholics not be just as good as Protestants helping out their pastors?

I too see that as a weak argument against priests. My wife’s Anglican priest is married, has daughters and somehow manages to clothe, feed and educate them. Of course we have universal health care here in Canada… but still. But no, he won’t be buying them a convertible for graduation or keeping them dressed in designer clothes.

I’m not against married secular priests, and in fact would be quite welcome it, if properly framed. Perhaps men of mature age, financially independent (like permanent deacons), and only able to be a parochial vicar, not responsible for a parish. And of course not for consecrated religious or those living in congregations, societies, etc.

However many of the arguments in favour of married priests are quite weak, including those above.

 

[Gorgias]

However, mockery doesn’t change facts like the following:

–Until 2009, the Diocese of Pittsburgh owned a Jacobethan Revival mansion along Fifth Avenue. Cardinal Wuerl lived there for two decades, as did his four predecessors. The 9,842 square foot mansion had 39 rooms including 11 bedrooms, six full baths and one half-bath, and was one of the largest homes in the Shadyside neighborhood of Pittsburgh. The property was sold for more than $2 million in 2009.

And $2 million is ‘palatial’? In fact, it served not only as a residence, but a place at which Pittsburgh bishops held important meetings and social events. Such a facility is necessary for a diocese, don’t you think? The fact that it doubles as an episcopal residence is evidence of good stewardship!

Moreover, even if all dioceses don’t have residences like this, the point is that the US Catholic Church is not so broke that it is unable to support priests’ children.

Here’s the problem, though: “support [of] priests’ children” is an on-going expense. What are the numbers these days – something like $300K, including college? – to raise a child in the U.S.? That’s one child! Now, when you sell the ‘palatial mansions’ – let’s say for $15 million – you have enough for 45 children. Then what? If married priests will bring a deluge of vocations, how do we deal with the resulting deluge of children?

Moreover, arguments that the Church cannot support priests’ dependents fail to account for the fact that a large number of married women in the U.S. in 2014 work outside the home, and there is no reason that is not expected to continue (although some on this site wish it wouldn’t…)

This is true. However, now you’ve just added another expense: day care. For many couples, the costs of day care make it meaningless to have two parents working. Moreover, there’s a potential justice issue here: if there were to be financial support for priests and their families, are you suggesting that the support be predicated on whether the wife works? That is, for families with a stay-at-home mom, a priest’s salary is $X, but for two-income families, it’s $(X - Mom’s salary)? That’s not fair, and, in fact, under U.S. law, is discriminatory!

1. As to asking for backup to the contention that married priests equals more priests…it’s essentially impossible, as you presumably know. Why? Because it is impossible to state with certainty who would become a priest if “facts change” when the facts (i.e. married clergy) have not changed.

Thank you. In other words, there is no empirical evidence that allowing married priests will solve the vocations crisis. End of story.

If that’s not good enough, I’ll just return the favor and ask you: Other than your unsubstantiated opinion, can you back up your (unstated) implication that married priests will not help solve the priest shortage?

Fair enough; yet, let’s be honest: if you’re advocating for a change, the burden of proof that this change will solve the problem is on you, and you admit that you cannot. Nevertheless, let’s look at some statistics.

Now, in a way, I have the same problem you do: there aren’t statistics out there about what happens in 21st-century America when a Christian denomination begins to allow priestly vocations among men. Yet, we can look at the current state of vocations in those denominations. In this study, the state of clergywomen was studied. However, since they offer statistics, we can look at the numbers of men who are clergy. Among the four largest denominations that they polled (Assemblies of God, Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church, and United Methodist Church), all except the Assemblies of God show decline in the numbers of men in the clergy. On average, the trend is a downturn on the order of 14%. In other words, married men are not flocking to ministry; in fact, they appear to be abandoning it (or avoiding it altogether)!

But, what about the question of whether having married priests will be a good thing? In this study, pastors were asked a variety of questions:

• 57% “said they would leave if they had a better place to go–including secular work.” * 77% “felt they did not have a good marriage.” * 38% “said they were divorced or currently in a divorce process.” * 30% “said they had either been in an ongoing affair or a one-time sexual encounter with a parishioner.”

That study also analyzed other research, and summarized it as follows:

• Fifty percent of pastors’ marriages will end in divorce
• Almost forty percent polled said they have had an extra-marital affair since beginning their ministry.

At the turn of the century, the Episcopal Church authorized a study centering on their clergy. The results aren’t surprising. Although they noted that two-income families among the clergy are the norm, they found that, nevertheless, clergy still felt highly stressed – not by a lack of income (after all, their ministers make almost double the amount that Catholic priests do!), but by the lack of time that they are able to spend on their family!

So, clearly, marriage is not the silver bullet for ministry that you make it out to be!

 

[Gorgias]

I, however, point to sites like futurechurch.org, which estimates that well over 100,000 priests worldwide (25,000 in the US alone, if memory serves) have left the ministry to marry, which gives some insight into the sheer number of priests who have left for that purpose and who presumably would not have left if they could marry.

Two problems here (besides the fact that you haven’t given us anything from futurechurch, against which we can verify your assertions ):
First, the vast majority of men who have left the priesthood in order to marry have done so as a result of the Vatican II experience. Studies have shown two causes for this bleeding: first, the theological expression of the relationship between the episcopacy and the presbyterate was demoralizing for many priests: they had been ordained under a theological framework that claimed that bishops didn’t have any ‘greater’ priestly character, but that their role was (in a certain way), just one of greater authority. However, Vatican II provided a new perspective: the fullness of the priesthood is found in the episcopal order, and the presbyterate aids them in their apostolic ministry. This change was more than many priests could handle, and they left in droves. Secondly, others, convinced that the Church would allow them to marry, became disillusioned when no change was forthcoming, and left for the vocation they craved: marriage. (Let’s be honest – if there’s any change that is possible, it’s that married men will be allowed to become priests, not that priest will be allowed to break their promises and marry. So, the notion that men left the priesthood for marriage doesn’t help your case at all.)

Second problem: you’re making quite the assertion, there! How do you come to the conclusion that “presumably, [they] would not have left if they could marry”? After all, allowing existing priests to marry – that is, to break the promise they made at ordination – was never on the table! They were free to marry or be celibate, and they chose ordination and celibacy. Why, then, do we want to suggest that marriage – which was never promised and never even suggested as an option – was what drove them from ministry? You’re setting up an unsubstantiated argument, here…

That site also provides details on the vast growth of Catholic laity in recent years, which by implication indicates the number of people at least interested enough in Holy Orders that they may be open to the priesthood if they could marry.

No, it indicates that the changes of Vatican II – which called for greater lay participation in the Church – have been effective. It doesn’t mean that laity are clamoring to become clergy. Again, your suggestions are unsubstantiated!

So, what we see is a clear trend: there’s a certain desire to have married priests in some quarters; there’s also a decline in vocations. Although there is no basis upon which to suggest a linkage between these two, it’s clear that those who wish to see married priests are spinning their arguments as if it’s a solution to low numbers of vocations. These who make the arguments might, in good conscience, believe that this is a reasonable solution; however, it’s obvious that this is more hand-waving than it is logical argumentation.

 

[Gorgias]

400 priests in Portugal are looking for a silver bullet For them marriage is the silver bullet.

I see. So, men who made a promise of celibacy, and later decided that they wanted to marry, and either applied for a dispensation (or, as in the case of these 400, simply left the Church), are our golden standard? Men who, with full knowledge and intent, promised never to marry, but instead broke their promise, are the ones whom we are holding up as the solution to vocations problems? Since they are willing to abandon ministry for marriage, I might suggest that their departure isn’t necessarily a bad thing…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Saint Paul would disagree.

EDIT: But this was not what I was saying. I was saying that if you will not order your sexual desires you won’t be able to fulfill the priesthood, nor marriage.

So the married priests who have received valid Catholic ordination in America have fulfilled neither their marriage vows nor their vows as priests?

Then why does the Church ordain married men?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

However many of the arguments in favour of married priests are quite weak, including those above.

I doubt the married priests would appreciate that remark.

 

[MorEphrem]

I doubt the married priests would appreciate that remark.

Indeed. I also find it funny how many Latins think they know better than all the aggregate of bishops and popes since the Apostles…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I see. So, men who made a promise of celibacy, and later decided that they wanted to marry, and either applied for a dispensation (or, as in the case of these 400, simply left the Church), are our golden standard? Men who, with full knowledge and intent, promised never to marry, but instead broke their promise, are the ones whom we are holding up as the solution to vocations problems? Since they are willing to abandon ministry for marriage, I might suggest that their departure isn’t necessarily a bad thing…

The 400 priests who left are making a collective statement. They voted with their feet, refusing to accept as a “golden standard” that celibacy is all there should be. They did not say celibacy is the wrong standard. They did not say that celibacy is not the gold standard. They said it was the wrong standard for them. I agree. Priests should have the option of being celibate or married, especially priests who live in the world as opposed to those who live in congregations or orders.

This is a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine. If it were a matter of doctrine, the converted married clergy who have been ordained could never have been ordained. To speak of them as if they had no part in the gold standard for priesthood strikes me as un-Christian. I imagine it would also strike a great many Orthodox Christian priests the same way.

Is it your view that married priests are inferior in holiness to celibate priests?

 

[Gorgias]

The 400 priests who left are making a collective statement. They voted with their feet, refusing to accept as a “golden standard” that celibacy is all there should be. They did not say celibacy is the wrong standard. They did not say that celibacy is not the gold standard. They said it was the wrong standard for them.

Fine… except that this explicitly isn’t what they said! By virtue of the promises they made at ordination, they literally said that celibacy was their choice! So, the problem here isn’t whether celibacy is good or not; but that men who freely chose celibacy as the result of a 6-to-8-year formation process, later decided to break their promise. If “celibacy was the wrong standard for them”, as you claim… then they shouldn’t have accepted entry into a celibate priesthood.

To speak of them as if they had no part in the gold standard for priesthood strikes me as un-Christian. I imagine it would also strike a great many Orthodox Christian priests the same way.

You misunderstand me: I’m claiming that these men – not the issue of celibacy – are not the gold standard on which we should discern the issue.

Is it your view that married priests are inferior in holiness to celibate priests?

No; but thanks for smearing me with that accusation…

 

[OraLabora]

I doubt the married priests would appreciate that remark.

Why? I am not criticizing married priests, nor the valid reasons for having married priests.

I am simply pointing out that some arguments in favour of married priests are weak. If one is to make a case for married priests, it should *not *be on the basis:

1. there used to be married priests in the Church when there are currently married priests in the Church, including the Latin Rite Church
2. the manpower shortage will be solved overnight, when in fact many mainstream Protestant denominations, all of which allow married priests, have their own shortages of vocations to ministry
3. it will somehow make it more attractive for Protestant ministers to convert when the Church already provides a mechanism for, in particular, married Anglican priests to convert (and bring their parishes with them).

Those are weak arguments.

More compelling would be: there are married men that feel called to the vocation but cannot in the Latin Rite Church; God may truly be calling some married men to the priesthood, but our man-made discipline may be interfering with God’s will, and it would make the vocation less lonely for those who are called, to name a few reasons. Every profession in life is enhanced by a supportive spouse, even couples where both work.

We can’t reduce the priesthood to a numbers game. It is a calling and vocation. There are compelling reasons for maintaining the discipline, and compelling reasons for modifying it. We should stick to the arguments (on either side) that are on solid ground.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No; but thanks for smearing me with that
accusation…

A question is not an accusation. Relax, old man.

The real question is not the holiness of celibacy but the efficacy of the priesthood.

It is true that some married priests are holier than some celibate priests. It is likewise true that some celibate priests are more efficacious than some married priests. It seems to me that Paul was concerned with a celibate priesthood for the sake of efficacy. Celibate priests in his day could no doubt be the more easily on the move in their missionary work, and more easily escape the search-and-destroy parties of the Jews and the pagans.

Today, in settled communities, there is less of a requirement for priests to be efficacious by being celibate. Of course, the young candidates for priesthood who wish to be more efficacious in missionary work or in their prayer life will gravitate toward the missionary orders or the monastaries. And in that way the efficacy of celibacy will be preserved.

If the secular priesthood is to be truly efficacious, it will open its doors to married and unmarried men, as it did in the early Church, which was certainly efficacious as we know by the fruits of their labors. To say this cannot happen again, or that there is no evidence it could happen again, is itself without evidence. The 400 priests in Portugal were throwing down the glove, challenging the Roman hierarchy to rethink celibacy.

We will see if Rome is open to rethinking celibacy.

For the sake of North America, I hope he is. We have become a nation that no longer produces its own priests in abundance and relies on missionary priests from such places as Africa, the Phillippines, Mexico, and India to fill the ranks of our local churches.

Catholicism in America is in decline. Or haven’t you noticed?

And you think celibacy is going to save it?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We can’t reduce the priesthood to a numbers game. It is a calling and vocation. There are compelling reasons for maintaining the discipline, and compelling reasons for modifying it. We should stick to the arguments (on either side) that are on solid ground.

I never meant to reduce all this to a numbers game.

The compelling argument is need, not numbers. And we need more numbers.