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

[Gorgias]

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

LOL… the way the insults were flying around here, it sounded like an accusation…

The 400 priests in Portugal were throwing down the glove, challenging the Roman hierarchy to rethink celibacy.

The “400” broke their promises. It’s difficult to see how that’s a “challenge” to “re-think”. Rather, it’s a breach of one’s personal honor. Telling an institution, “change your rules (which I agreed to) or else I’ll pick up my toys and go home” isn’t ‘challenging’, it’s ‘pouting’.

And you think celibacy is going to save it?

I think celibacy is irrelevant to it.

Priestly celibacy didn’t cause the “decline in the Church in America”, and it didn’t cause the decline in the number of ordinations. Rather, it seems, the decline comes from poor catechesis of our youth, coupled with a societal trend away from making life-long commitments, and topped with an unwillingness to eschew what the world offers for the sake of Christ. Your “400” in Portugal are an example of why we have problems in the first place: people want religion on their own terms, not on Christ’s or the Church’s. In the final analysis, letting married men become priests won’t fix these issues.

At best, we’ll get men who didn’t say ‘yes’ to a vocation in their youth and married instead, or those who, later in life, decide they can ‘retire’ into the priesthood. While each of these would be helpful, neither will stem the tide.

 

[sallybutler]

In Titus 1:8-9 and 1 Timothy 3 St Paul gives some instructions on what would be required of a married elder of any church. I think these would apply to a married priest in a parish. One of the items is that his children can not be wild or rebellious. Another is that his wife must be blameless.

I think the wife of the priest would need to commit to this decision.

In other words, two people would have to have the calling, not just one.

 

[Seraphignatius]

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

bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-27686569

Honestly if they are willing to do this we are better off without them. As my childhood pastor used to say: “We don’t need many priests; we need good priests.”

 

[Seraphignatius]

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.

Without respect to whether my sacrament could beat up your sacrament, it is better and more blessed to remain celibate.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The “400” broke their promises. It’s difficult to see how that’s a “challenge” to “re-think”. Rather, it’s a breach of one’s personal honor. Telling an institution, “change your rules (which I agreed to) or else I’ll pick up my toys and go home” isn’t ‘challenging’, it’s ‘pouting’.

You think of these men as cads? Well, bring on the insults. You’re getting pretty good at it.

I’d call it a wake-up call. If the Vatican isn’t rattled by this defection, and responds by behaving as it behaved when Luther offered his wake-up call, you can pretty much count on the continuing decline of the priesthood.

My own take is that the married diaconate in America has, at least for a time, saved the American Church from complete dissolution. Married men are flocking into the diaconate. There is no reason to believe these same married men would not flock into the priesthood if they could prove themselves worthy.

With that, I’ll take my toys and go home. :tiphat:

 

[Seraphignatius]

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

For the record I’m not fond of the prohibitions against Eastern Catholics ordaining married men in the US; I think the missionary need it addressed is probably obsolete anyway. We aren’t talking about the eastern churchs though; we are talking about for the Roman Church. Even when we permitted married priests it was hardly the norm.

 

[Seraphignatius]

You think of these men as cads? Well, bring on the insults. You’re getting pretty good at it.

I’d call it a wake-up call. If the Vatican isn’t rattled by this defection, and responds by behaving as it behaved when Luther offered his wake-up call, you can pretty much count on the continuing decline of the priesthood.

My own take is that the married diaconate in America has, at least for a time, saved the American Church from complete dissolution. Married men are flocking into the diaconate. There is no reason to believe these same married men would not flock into the priesthood if they could prove themselves worthy.

With that, I’ll take my toys and go home. :tiphat:

Have you read the book Goodbye, Good Men by Michael Rose?

 

[Abu]

As the celibacy required for priests from the apostles was mandatory, and obligatory , and St John Paul II is one of the greatest popes if not THE greatest the Church has ever had, we can be well assured that the Synod of Bishops which he called that confirmed that Apostolic Norm explained in *Pastores Dabo Vobis *(I Will Give You Shepherds), 1992, is what real Catholics realise and accept…

The Case for Priestly Celibacy
George Sim Johnston
‘Years ago, he was an Episcopalian priest who decided to convert to Catholicism. He was married with children and was given the option of becoming a Catholic priest. He agonized over the decision. He was already an ordained minister (although the Church does not recognize the validity of Episcopalian orders) and was deeply attracted to the Catholic priesthood. But at the same time, he recognized that there must be serious reasons why the Church insists on a discipline that is such a sign of contradiction to the modern world.

‘The debate went on, until finally there came the moment of clarification. He was up all night with one of his children who was seriously ill. Feeling drained and haggard, he went to Mass the next morning, and the priest celebrating Mass came out looking equally drawn. During the brief homily, the priest mentioned in passing that he had been up all night with a parishioner’s child who was dying of meningitis. A light bulb went off over my friend’s head: You can’t do both. If you fully understand the vocations to marriage and to the priesthood—the total availability and self-emptying that each demands—you would not choose to do both. And so he became a lay theologian and, apart from raising a large family, has served the Church in ways that he probably could not have as a member of the clergy.

‘As my bleary-eyed friend discovered at that early morning Mass, the sacraments of Holy Orders and matrimony are too consuming to allow for both. A married priest can’t help giving his first thoughts to his wife and children. To the extent he does so, he may be forgoing his priestly role as “father,” and people who call a married priest “father” would rightly get the idea that they are second in line as spiritual children. Paul understood this perfectly well when he wrote to the Corinthians, “For he who 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 this world, how he may please his wife; and he is divided” (1 Cor 7:32-34).’
September 2006 issue of Crisis Magazine.
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/priestly-celibacy/the-case-for-priestly-celibacy/

 

[Gorgias]

You think of these men as cads?

Well, how do you characterize people who make holy promises and then break them? How would you define a person who gets married, promising fidelity to one’s spouse, and then decides to cheat on them? Would you say that they’re making a statement about the unrealistic expectation of fidelity in marriage… or would you say that they’re acting dishonorably?

What about a soldier who promises to defend the Constitution, and then goes AWOL while on his post? Would you say that they’re making a statement about the unreasonableness of making soldiers stand guard… or would you say that they’re defectors?

Well, bring on the insults.

Not an insult: rather, I’m calling a spade ‘a spade’.

I’d call it a wake-up call.

These men went through 6-8 years of priestly formation. At the end of that period of formation, they freely chose celibacy. What’s the ‘wake-up call’ here? That celibacy’s difficult? We all know that; and seminarians are told, over and again, that it’s a good thing but not easy. Or maybe, the wake-up call is that forced celibacy doesn’t work? Nope, not that, either … these men freely made their promises. There’s no wake-up call here, just an inability to keep ones’ promises.

My own take is that the married diaconate in America has, at least for a time, saved the American Church from complete dissolution. Married men are flocking into the diaconate. There is no reason to believe these same married men would not flock into the priesthood if they could prove themselves worthy.

Apples and oranges. Deacons aren’t paid for their service. Deacons’ service is part-time. Not all deacons are able or capable to turn aside their careers and engage in full-time ministry. I think that your assertion about ‘flocking’ to the priesthood (unless, by that, you only mean “celebrating Mass”) is naive.

With that, I’ll take my toys and go home. :tiphat:

I really hope you don’t. You keep calling this a “wake-up call”, but you haven’t answered my basic question: why is abandoning one’s vows – which these 400 made freely and in full knowledge and understanding – a good thing? Why is it honorable? Why does it not represent a shortcoming in either their discernment or commitment to ministry?

 

[Abu]

Facing Reality.

**After years of decline, Catholics see rise in number of future priests
Cathy Lynn Grossman | Sep 24, 2013 **
Extracts:
WASHINGTON (RNS) After decades of glum trends — fewer priests, fewer parishes — the Catholic Church in the United States has a new statistic to cheer: More men are now enrolled in graduate level seminaries, the main pipeline to the priesthood, than in nearly two decades.

This year’s tally of 3,694 graduate theology students represents a 16 percent increase since 1995 and a 10 percent jump since 2005, according to Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA).

Seminary directors cite more encouragement from bishops and parishes, the draw of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and the social-justice-minded Pope Francis, and a growing sense that the church is past the corrosive impact of the sexual abuse crisis that exploded in 2002.

Monsignor Craig Cox, rector of St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, Calif., said the upward trend leading to their current record class of 92 graduate seminarians began six years ago.

He also cited “a renewal of idealism,” a stronger push for vocations by priests and bishops, and “receding damage” from the abuse crisis.

“Catholics don’t live where they lived 15 years ago. They’ve moved south and west, from urban to suburban areas and they didn’t take their parishes with them,” Gautier said. “The smaller, older lay-led places without a resident priest are often the first to be closed.”

The Church keeps growing – 1 percent a year. CARA offers two totals, varying by the source: 78.2 million if you go by self-identification recorded in surveys; 66.8 million if you go by the “Official Catholic Directory” where parishes report their numbers.
Meanwhile, the declining numbers of people who identify with Protestant denominations has led to falling numbers in their seminaries since 2006, said Eliza Brown, spokeswoman for Association of Theological Schools, which represents more than 270 seminaries.
religionnews.com/2013/09/24/years-decline-catholics-see-rise-number-future-priests/

 

[AussieTrish]

A practical consideration as parishes diminish, number of agnostics and atheist, and non-attending Catholic escalate, as they are…

Would allowing priests to marry in the Roman Catholic Church
in these times only create another set of problems?
In many areas the numbers of Catholic attending the Roman Catholic Church are greatly decreasing. It must in some place be difficult enough to support a priest or two, and to support the parish needs.
If the priest and his wife are good Catholics, there may be a number of children who will need feeding, clothing, educating.
Can these parishes, with the diminishing number of practicing Catholics now and in the future, require priests need to take a second job to support their families, and thereby only be part time in each of these two full-time jobs.

And when any of their marriages break down, they will still be obliged to support their children, and also go through the business of trying to obtain an annulment if they wish to marry again though presumably their first marriage should have carefully been valid.
If they marry again, there are likely to be more children to support…just a practical consideration.

The solution of marriage for the Roman Catholic priesthood, may only create a different set of problems. It is a fact that the number of active and contributing Catholics continues to decline.

pewforum.org/2013/03/13/strong-catholic-identity-at-a-four-decade-low-in-us/

 

[AussieTrish]

?
Even if priests don’t get married and have children, they still have personal families to tend to and take care of–parents, siblings, nieces and nephews, aunts and uncles.

By the way, a priest can adopt a child, can’t they?
There is no rule against that?

If so, then he can have dependents and children to take care of even if he stayed single and celibate.

.

If a single celibate priest were permitted to adopt children, he must be mother and father. My son was a single father. The only way he coped with with considerable help from his parents. The priest would need to be home when the children were sick, able to cope with all their issues alone…it would be unfair to his parish and unfair to his children. In every crisis, who does he choose and who neglect, his children or his parishioners.

A nice idea but also fraught with problems.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Well, how do you characterize people who make holy promises and then break them? How would you define a person who gets married, promising fidelity to one’s spouse, and then decides to cheat on them? Would you say that they’re making a statement about the unrealistic expectation of fidelity in marriage… or would you say that they’re acting dishonorably?

What about a soldier who promises to defend the Constitution, and then goes AWOL while on his post? Would you say that they’re making a statement about the unreasonableness of making soldiers stand guard… or would you say that they’re defectors?

Not an insult: rather, I’m calling a spade ‘a spade’.

These men went through 6-8 years of priestly formation. At the end of that period of formation, they freely chose celibacy. What’s the ‘wake-up call’ here? That celibacy’s difficult? We all know that; and seminarians are told, over and again, that it’s a good thing but not easy. Or maybe, the wake-up call is that forced celibacy doesn’t work? Nope, not that, either … these men freely made their promises. There’s no wake-up call here, just an inability to keep ones’ promises.

Apples and oranges. Deacons aren’t paid for their service. Deacons’ service is part-time. Not all deacons are able or capable to turn aside their careers and engage in full-time ministry. I think that your assertion about ‘flocking’ to the priesthood (unless, by that, you only mean “celebrating Mass”) is naive.

I really hope you don’t. You keep calling this a “wake-up call”, but you haven’t answered my basic question: why is abandoning one’s vows – which these 400 made freely and in full knowledge and understanding – a good thing? Why is it honorable? Why does it not represent a shortcoming in either their discernment or commitment to ministry?

While, I agree with almost everything that you have said on this thread, I think that you have went too far here. The repudiation of the vows of celibacy is indeed serious and should not be help up as a model of virtue, nor do I think the Church will or should release people from the vows they have already taken other than the normal process of laicization.

BUT, and I feel very strongly about this, you have went too far in your condemnation. We are all sinners and we all make mistakes. It is very important that we have sympathy with people who have struggled with their vows even when that struggle turns to anger (in my mind unfair anger) at the Church. These are people who have contributed to the Church and still want to contribute. While I don’t think it would be in their best interests nor the interests of the Church to give in to them, empathy is more warranted and helpful than insults.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

There is so much arguing in this thread and yet it mostly seems to cover the same stuff over and over. Yet, I feel that there is a lot being left out.

1. Linking the married priesthood with trying to increase the number of priests is unfair to both married and unmarried priests and is a gross oversimplification of the reasons for the priest shortage and how grave it actually is. Further it confounds two problems a shortage of priests (for administering the sacraments) and a shortage of all other ministers. I don’t think that lay ministers are doing enough nor are the being paid enough. The idea that people are flocking to the diaconate seems to be false as well; I know of quite a few priests that are begging people to become deacons.
2. I don’t think the Church will or should consider allowing priests who were ordained as celibate to become married and retain their priestly responsibilities. The issue is whether or not to ordain NEW married ministers probably on the model of the very early Catholic Church’s model of married ministers with (name removed by moderator)ut from the model that the Eastern Rites use.
3. The issue of where the Church is going to find the money for this is not important, in my point of view. If it is the right thing to do we will just have to find a way to do it. It is my understanding that on average Catholics in the US donate about half as much as Protestants so I think we can find a way to do it, if it is determined that it is the right thing to do. Although, maybe I have to be a little careful here, for in my point of view, we don’t pay our lay ministers near enough and haven’t ever since we tried to replace the inexpensive but very important labor of our religious sisters with volunteer work. If we can’t find the strength to pay our youth ministers and music ministers and religious education coordinators enough that they can do their ministry full time even after 30 years, I wonder if we can function at all as a Church with or without the extra expense of married priests.
4. The most important reason (and maybe the only reason) that I am for married priests is that it strengthens the choice of celibate priests and the choice of celibacy. How many of us know anyone other than a priest that is celibate? And yet as long as celibacy is mandatory there is a persistent feeling that it wasn’t a choice. Allowing married and celibate priesthoods strengthens both. The celibate priest follows in the footsteps of Jesus and Paul, the married priest follows in the footsteps of Peter and others. Allowing both married and celibate priests strengthens the choice of both.
5. Using the Protestant minister as a model for the Catholic priesthood can be very misleading. In particular, since there is no one experience for the cost or responsibilities of a Protestant minister. It depends drastically on the denomination and size of the congregation for many loosely organized denominations. Many ministers have jobs that are more in line with what we would call lay ministers, as well.
6. As I mentioned earlier we don’t just have a priest shortage we have a minister shortage, both of ordained and lay. We not only lost priest but we lost religious women and men and have not replaced all that they did for the Church. We need to reinvigorate our seminaries for the lay ministers as well, and pay them what they are worth and that is going to cost just as much if not more money than paying married priests.
7. The loneliness of priests (if it exists) is not just a loneliness of proximity and a physical loneliness. Priest also needs colleagues. Wives are great and important but cannot nor should they be forced to play the role of a colleague.
8. Too many on the ‘pro-married’ priest side seem to want to replace the celibate with the married priest rather than add to the total number of priests when they say that a married priest cannot perform the same way that an unmarried priest can. If the number of celibate priests goes drastically down then it has failed in my opinion. Adding married priests to the existing celibate ones makes everyone’s workload go down. Further, I think the term ‘married to the church’ can be abused. Both the married and the unmarried minister should have the same reasonable time for ministerial works and for prayer. The celibate priest should use the time not with his own family for prayer and talking with colleagues, else burnout is a very real problem.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

see www.catholic.org/news/national/story.php?id=54791

The problem may be that if celibate chastity is a gift of the Spirit (and relatively rare for red blooded young men) then it cannot really be “given” by institutionalising/demanding it of permanent roles in the Church.

It does not appear (as either a doctrine or an observed fact) that institutional ordination confers the grace/gift of celibacy.

It would seem prudential (if not an observable) fact of life that young men these days are not yet in a position to fully understand their own psychosexual/emotional trengths/weaknesses/needs - and possibly even orientations. This seems more true of the intellectual/idealistic ones.

Therefore it does seem likely that a significant number of seminarians will have set themselves on a conveyer-belt trajectory to ordination without actually possessing the rare gift of celibate chastity. After ordination these “late bloomers” may find themselves in deep trouble. It takes a very brave priest to leave if he doesn’t have the gift.

I don’t know what the answer is.
All I know is that you cannot really institutionalise what is meant to be a gift.

Perhaps the high percentage of priests in the past was an abberation and many did not in fact have the gift. A contradiction/tension and a suffering only appearing to work because of heroic virtue, a path out of poverty, the love of status/power,over indulgence in hobbies, alcohol abuse, child abuse retreat from the world and eccentricity - or more or less hidden relationships.

I believe that if we keep to the present discipline we must expect far fewer priests (at least they will be happy ones) who should probably get ordained later.

The Church has never allowed priests to marry after ordination as far as I know.

 

[Abu]

Tony the mad #57
The issue is whether or not to ordain NEW married ministers probably on the model of the very early Catholic Church’s model of married ministers

Such a false supposition re “the very early Catholic Church” has been shown clearly, repeatedly, to be merely fanciful. Apparently there is an inability to face the facts of reality that continence was mandatory for both priests and bishops.

Fr Cochini examines the question of when the tradition of priestly celibacy began in the Latin Church, and he is able to trace it back to its origins with the apostles. He examines evidence about the marital status of every known bishop, priest or deacon of the period and gives an exhaustive list of married clerics from apostolic times until the end of the seventh century, a list that includes not only the Western Church, but the East and also the Nestorian, Novatian and Pelagian Church. Then Cochini examines the relevant Church documents for the same period, including council and synod documents, papal letters, ecclesial and even secular legislation as it relates to the problem. He also provides a survey of scholarly literature on the topic. This is the definitive scholarly statement on the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Church East and West.

What Cochini shows through patristic sources and conciliar documentation is that from the beginning of the Church, although married men could be priests, they were required to vow to celibacy before ordination, meaning they intended to live a life of continence. He provides extensive documentation, a bibliography and an index. “This work is of the first importance. It is the result of serious and extensive research. There is nothing even remotely comparable to this work in this whole century.” – Henri Cardinal de Lubac.

From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – for Early Church Tradition the most important studies are: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).

Post #52 shows the increasing numbers of priests in the U.S.A., and there is a healthy increase in Australia.

 

[Gorgias]

BUT, and I feel very strongly about this, you have went too far in your condemnation. We are all sinners and we all make mistakes. It is very important that we have sympathy with people who have struggled with their vows

empathy is more warranted and helpful than insults.

Fair enough. Yet, again, I assert that I’m not insulting them. Rather, I’m making a case against Charlemagne’s assertion that what they did was along the lines of ‘protest’ or making a ‘wake-up call’ to the Church. It was not. I agree with you that the proper response is empathy and prayers for their reconciliation. Still, it’s important to recognize that this is the situation, and not that it’s some sort of ‘civil disobedience’ which we should hold up as praiseworthy, which seem’s to be Charlemagne’s approach…

 

[MorEphrem]

For the record I’m not fond of the prohibitions against Eastern Catholics ordaining married men in the US; I think the missionary need it addressed is probably obsolete anyway. We aren’t talking about the eastern churchs though; we are talking about for the Roman Church. Even when we permitted married priests it was hardly the norm.

Yes, but you see when absolute value or objective statements are made it’s not as though the value only pertains to one part of the Church. If one says that celibacy is a divinely mandated part of priesthood communicated through Paul, then it applies to all priests and not just Latin Church priests.

However, how do you substantiate the claim that married priests were hardly the norm in the West? What time is that even referential to since the practice was permissible for over a millennium in the West? I don’t think the Latin Church should or should not permit married clergy because it’s none of my business like it’s none of theirs to impose their particular disciplines in the East. I simply ask because it seems a bit revisionist to just claim retrospectively that celibate clergy was irrelevant in the West seeing as how it was something that needed to be continually put into council canons such as the Lateran Councils and Trent - seemed to be an issue. And another implication is if the Latin Church claims all these local synods are Ecumenical Councils and they don’t have qualifying statements like “applies only to the Latin Church” like V2 documents it seems it applies to the whole of the Church.

It seems when arguments become driven by degrading married clergy, then the East necessarily becomes involved because there is an attack on our holy clergy.

 

[Abu]

MorEphrem #61
What time is that even referential to since the practice was permissible for over a millennium in the West? I don’t think the Latin Church should or should not permit married clergy because it’s none of my business like it’s none of theirs to impose their particular disciplines in the East.

1. Continent priests were the Apostolic Norm from the beginning throughout the Church.
2. The Apostolic Norm was breached unilaterally at the Council of Trullo.
   From Father Thomas McGovern:
   The Compulsory Marriage of Priests
   While Trullo did not in fact forbid celibacy in the strict sense for priests, the tone of the canons was such that priests were expected to be married and to live conjugal life like the rest of the lay faithful. By the eleventh and twelfth centuries this counsel had in fact become a precept, and celibacy as known in the Latin rite for priests and deacons was definitively rejected. [71]
   [71. Cf. Stickler, *The Evolution and Discipline of Celibacy, pp 544ff.]

It’s also useful to note that: “One of the consequences of this is the lack of emphasis on the supernatural aspect of the priestly vocation. Another is that all the higher positions in the Eastern Church are reserved for celibate monks who are generally better trained, as well as being free from family ties. It is not surprising, then, that a system which effectively accommodated two priestly castes gave rise to its own particular problems." [73]
[72. In Greece since 1923 civil law prohibits celibates from being appointed as parochial clergy- cf Cholij, op. cit., p. 137].
[73. Cf. ibid.].
christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/celhist3.html

 

[adawgj]

If the priests were to follow the same rules as our Eastern Catholic brethren then I don’t have an issue. However it would be very difficult.