Will the Church abolish mandatory celibacy?

[otjm]

Nope. Statistically, even the Anglican numbers are insignificant in the big picture.

Not that most secularists with whom it’s the seemingly largest or Protestants and modern non-demoninationals who don’t understand the discipline one bit, much less the distinction of the presbyterate and the episcopate and they would be falling into classic slippery slope would then ceaselessly clamor asking why not the episcopate and then why not same sex, etc etc.

I disagree with you that it is statistically insignificant. It is a phenomenal change (I was born well before Vatican 2). Further, I was in the seminary, and it was taught as an absolute - if you are going to be ordained, you are going to be celibate. It obviously is not an absolute.

There was no such thing as permanent deacons back then, either.

Elsewhere there was an on-going discussion among several Canon lawyers about deacons having to live a continent marriage once they were ordained. That seemed to be pretty much a discussion a la how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, as the Canonists didn’t bother to do a survey before they put pen to paper.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

I hope so. I think this tradition is PROFOUNDLY unfair and antiquated. It may have been justified in the medieval era, but there is no need for it today.

 

[gracepoole]

The financial aspect of removing the celibacy requirement has to be considered. Providing for a priest, his wife, and their children is a far different kettle of fish than what the Church is on the hook for currently.

 

[seagal]

I hope so. I think this tradition is PROFOUNDLY unfair and antiquated. It may have been justified in the medieval era, but there is no need for it today.

Why do you think it’s unfair? Men who have a vocation to the priesthood know full well what’s expected of them and they freely choose celibacy. And why would it be more easily justified in medieval times but not now? I’m not arguing here, just wanting to know your reasoning.

 

[otjm]

Why do you think it’s unfair? Men who have a vocation to the priesthood know full well what’s expected of them and they freely choose celibacy. And why would it be more easily justified in medieval times but not now? I’m not arguing here, just wanting to know your reasoning.

Recent history could call that into question. I have seen far, far too many priests leave the priesthood and get married. That may have more to do with discernment than anything, and is not an argument for relaxing the rule on celibacy; but I don’t think you can make such a blanket statement.

 

[Marchelli]

I hope so. I think this tradition is PROFOUNDLY unfair and antiquated. It may have been justified in the medieval era, but there is no need for it today.

“Marriage and the family, the Pope stressed, is a real vocation, but there are also others who are called to the vocation of celibacy and commitment to the Kingdom of God.”

“I stand by Benedict XVI, who said that celibacy should be maintained.”

~Pope Francis

Also if one looks in the history of the Church, married clergy in the early church were individuals who’s children were no longer dependents and both the man and woman took vows of perfect and continual continence (no sex) as laid out in Canon 227 of the Church. Priest have long been required to be celibate before they were not permitted to be married.

So if we take this line of thought according to tradition (small t tradition), married men could only become priest after their children are no longer dependent (which the average age of marriage being 27 in north america and a child being a dependent until the age of 21-25 depending on the child) at the very earliest, they could apply for the priest hood at 48, plus the six years formation required by canon law, ordination at the age of 54 at the earliest, which was generally the case when this tradition was in practice.

In my personal opinion, men call to the priesthood are called to be (name removed by moderator)ersona Christi** and therefore are called to be examples of Christ on earth. I think it would be unChristlike for a man to not dedicate himself completely to the church as a celibate man. This also lays a huge burden on a man to provide fully for his wife, but also for his flock.

Although the doctrine of married priest is theologically sound, the discipline of celibate clergy/religious life in my opinion is the greatest life giving sacrifice an individual can make for the good of the Church, devoting their entire being to the work of the salvation of souls as instruments of the Church.

 

[commenter]

One reason the Church is reluctant to have many married priests is that the “marriage crisis” in the Church may be even a bigger problem than the vocations shortage. Catholics, as well as others, are having horrendous problems with marriage. Devout laity sometimes get divorced due to over commitment in many areas, including religious activities. It’s not a simple question of whether a married man can meet the demands of priesthood, but whether a priest nowadays can simultaneously meet the demands of marriage and family life today. Both priesthood and marriage are much harder than they used to be.

In the 1950s when marriages were much stronger, and the priesthood was much less stressful and demanding, a married priesthood would have been much more feasible than today.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Why do you think it’s unfair? Men who have a vocation to the priesthood know full well what’s expected of them and they freely choose celibacy. And why would it be more easily justified in medieval times but not now? I’m not arguing here, just wanting to know your reasoning.

Why should one have to give up marriage and sex, which we are told is a “gift from God,” in order to serve as a priest?

During the medieval era, when Priests lived in monasteries to focus entirely on transcribing the Bible, lighting candles, engaging in prayer, etc. I can see how having a family might have been problematic. Well, how many priests live in monasteries today?

 

[Marchelli]

During the medieval era, when Priests lived in monasteries to focus entirely on transcribing the Bible, lighting candles, engaging in prayer, etc. I can see how having a family might have been problematic. Well, how many priests live in monasteries today?

That is incorrect. It is only recently that there have been a large number of ordained clergy in the monastery and historically few monastics were priest in the middle ages. St Francis was only a Deacon, not a priest contrary to popular belief.

 

[seagal]

Recent history could call that into question. I have seen far, far too many priests leave the priesthood and get married. That may have more to do with discernment than anything, and is not an argument for relaxing the rule on celibacy; but I don’t think you can make such a blanket statement.

What blanket statement, that men who are called to the priesthood know what’s expected of them in terms of celibacy? I’m sure they’re fully aware of that. They may enter the priesthood with the best of intentions only to find that it’s just too hard for them to bear, but that is another matter.

 

[thistle]

From the Revelations to St. Bridget of Sweden:

She is entitled to her opinion. Fortunately her revelations are NOT Church doctrine and never will be.It makes no difference if they are deemed worthy of belief!
Those who have private revelations often make mistakes, misinterpret or misunderstand what they are alleged to have been told. Further mistakes can even take place when these are written especially if someone else is doing the writing.
One of the tests for a truthful message is whether it speaks out against and threatens the Pope and other clergy. If it does then that means it is not true.

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t understand this thread, all the arguments about rules and doctrine and expectations.

Celibacy is a calling from God. It is not about bans or rules or disciplines but what state of life God has created us for and called us to. The celibate priesthood is not about accepting the rule of celibacy in obedience but about the individual recognizing that God has created and called them to a celibate life and also called them to the priesthood. Anyone, anywhere, any day can discern a call to celibacy and live it, priest or otherwise, in perfect freedom. If they also discern a call to the priesthood then they can become priests.

A celibate priesthood isn’t about accepting the yoke of celibacy any more than married life is about accepting the yoke of marriage. It’s about recognizing what God created us for and what work God has for us to do - our vocation - and living it. It is about being free to choose God’s plan instead of our own.

Everyone on this thread should read When God Asks for an Undivided Heart: Choosing Celibacy in Love and Feedom by Andrew Apostoli.

bks2.books.google.com/books?id=TiK1IQAACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&imgtk=AFLRE71Pe9PeU9_2LgOQ-Yu7HHYIo_X48LVw_40x_C0wFtYa9QGoolnP_OYh3-9CpwTQx3YhoGWiWrcj6zj-R3GiHsYY5L-gJgT4VAYxAQiuUKt2ULCET5gED3o4elk808jojByQ_qXG

-Tim-

 

[tommydude2112]

Priests’ celibacy is a doctrine that has been upheld for nearly 2000 years so to break it would be pointless. I have heard, however, that many Catholics believe it would be a good idea to allow priests to marry and that it many encourage more youths into the priesthood.

 

[RyanBlack]

Priests’ celibacy is a doctrine that has been upheld for nearly 2000 years so to break it would be pointless. I have heard, however, that many Catholics believe it would be a good idea to allow priests to marry and that it many encourage more youths into the priesthood.

It is a discipline, not a doctrine. Furthermore, it is a discipline that has not been in place for nearly 2000 years.

 

[RyanBlack]

I think it would be unChristlike for a man to not dedicate himself completely to the church as a celibate man.

So all the Eastern (as well as those in the West ordained under the Pastoral Provision) with wives and children are unChristlike?

 

[commenter]

The issue of optional celibacy can be argued on its own merits, but I definitely don’t see it having much impact on the priest shortage. Most men get married later nowadays. The Church wouldn’t consider admitting a married man to the seminary until he has been stable- married many years, with limited child concerns. Lots of Catholic laymen whom I know have children with severe issues well into their teens, and beyond. Add on at least 4 years for seminary, likely longer given the man can’t devote the same intensity as a single, boarding student.

You are looking at ordaining men well in their 50s. Even then they would likely be given limited assignments - a very small parish, or a chaplain 9 - 5, with weekends off, or helping out at a large parish with strictly limited days and hours. He would never be encouraged to take on the back breaking, constantly on-call work schedule of most secular priests today. The nightmare for the Church would be a priest’s marriage stressed out.

 

[Marchelli]

So all the Eastern (as well as those in the West ordained under the Pastoral Provision) with wives and children are unChristlike?

I am sorry if that comment came off as a blanket statement. From my interaction with eastern Catholics, and those who are married in the western church, they are not full time pastors, having a second job in order to care for their family. My conclusions I was trying to draw was for those men in the Latin church that want to be full time pastors in addition to the father of a family, would not be able to make the full commitment required of being a full time pastor as Christ did.

I have had the great fortune of knowing many great married eastern clergy and they are very much Christlike, however they are not full time pastors. Hopefully that makes some sense.

 

[AdvocatusVerbum]

I disagree with you that it is statistically insignificant. It is a phenomenal change (I was born well before Vatican 2).

Have any numbers?

 

[ProVobis]

It is a discipline, not a doctrine.

I’m careful in using the term “discipline” but is it even that? It’s allowed on an individual basis, as someone has already noted. As any ordination would, for that matter.

But why should it really matter? Does a priest’s celibate state or lack of it affect the validity of the sacraments we receive from him? Or the liturgy, for that matter?

 

[Daphnexyz]

The financial aspect of removing the celibacy requirement has to be considered. Providing for a priest, his wife, and their children is a far different kettle of fish than what the Church is on the hook for currently.

Historically, I think this is an important part of why priests were not permitted to marry. In addition to the moral justifications, it is just more practical to manage unattached men without “camp followers.” No disrespect intended. And perhaps it is a time to take an honest look at whether a celibate priesthood is still workable and realistic and practical in today’s world. It may not be, but perhaps there is much to be gained.