Will the Church abolish mandatory celibacy?

[TimothyH]

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?

Secular parish priests didn’t live in monasteries. Only members of the monastic religious orders such as the Benedictines and Cistercians lived in monasteries. Parish priests lived in ordinary homes like they do today.

Parish priests are secular men. They have bank accounts, play golf, go on vacation, etc. It was the same in Medieval times.

-Tim-

 

[MorEphrem]

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.

Ask a Latin priest who’s well versed in the history of the Latin Church. This discipline is less than a millennium old and even as late as 1300 there were areas of the Latin West where married clergy were common.

Furthermore, the claim that Eastern Catholics use unfairly imposed (and very much so still imposed) priestly celibacy as an excuse for the supposed decline of Eastern Catholicism in the US is pure nonsense. First of all, if it were truly a non-imposed ordeal the number of married clergy would at least somewhat reflect the amount of married clergy in the “homeland” - in Lebanon, around ~60% of the secular clergy are married… I dare anyone to guess out of 100 priests in the US how many clergy are married (answer: none). Secondly, Catholicism in general is on the decline but I haven’t seen any statistics to see the decline of the EC Churches… in fact we usually attract the malcontents and disgruntled traditionalists of the Latin Church so I wouldn’t say we’ve shrunk at all.

Lastly, the argument of financial logistics is also nonsense; an employer pays a man X for Y work and is not contingent upon the size of his family. I don’t see why priests are any different; with the amount of income a Maronite priest in the US receives he could easily support a wife and they needed more income his wife could work as well.

Now apply the following to the Latin Church’s arguments against changing the discipline: there is a natural propensity towards marriage, and in fact it was the common tradition for all of Christianity until around 7 centuries ago for the West. Logistics is a bit of a scapegoat excuse. That being said, just because it is logistically possible and historically founded doesn’t mean the Latin Church should permit the ordination of married men - people should just stop generalizing against married clergy.

 

[ProVobis]

Ask a Latin priest who’s well versed in the history of the Latin Church. This discipline is less than a millennium old and even as late as 1300 there were areas of the Latin West where married clergy were common.

You’re calling it a discipline. Okay, who gets disciplined if a bishop ordains a married man? He’s still becomes a valid (duly authorized) priest, doesn’t he? Have any bishops been excommunicated because of this? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.

 

[MorEphrem]

You’re calling it a discipline. Okay, who gets disciplined if a bishop ordains a married man? He’s still becomes a valid (duly authorized) priest, doesn’t he? Have any bishops been excommunicated because of this? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.

First of all, you’re conflating the canonical definition of a discipline with the vernacular usage. It is a discipline of the West, not the East (you did, after all, take it out of context by me saying it was a Western discipline and then asking me what [Eastern] bishops have been disciplined for it). I never claimed it to be a discipline of the East. What I do claim, however, is that it is unfairly imposed on Eastern bishops in the US. I cannot provide a document from the USCCB stating such an admission of injustice (for obvious reasons) but, as I said, there’s a reason why 60% of secular Maronite clergy are married in Lebanon and 0% in the US.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419332/Popes-right-hand-man-says-priests-allowed-marry-says-celibacy-tradition-law.html

I am 100% behing priest’s celibacy. I found out that for a job like being a priest, you must be fully commited and cannot be married. You can only be 100% devoted to God if you are in a celibacy. So what do you think? Do you support celibacy or not? Since priest’s celibacy is not a dogma will they change it?

I never saw the need to have a wife and kids since as a priest you are a Fr. to all souls. The marriage act is not the only way to beget children. Priest can beget children when they baptize, Bishops do so when they ordain seminarians to the priesthood, and so forth. Priests are already family men, and the joy is you have a vocation which allows you to have a HUGE family, one that is too big for any women to possibly provide you with.

 

[Elizium23]

A real issue that comes up with the question of a married priesthood is inheritance. I think this was the crux of the matter 1000 years ago when the discipline was introduced. When a priest marries and has a family, and thus heirs to his estate, the property which he owns passes out of control of the Church and into private hands. Therefore it is impossible to maintain control. This alone is a strong argument for priestly celibacy, even if we accept no other. And this is an issue that is not a relic of medieval times, nor has it gone away, rather I would say that it is an even greater obstacle today than ever.

 

[ProVobis]

I never claimed it to be a discipline of the East.

I said nothing about the East. Didn’t you yourself claim there have been instances where bishops have ordained married men in the West? Still, valid priests, no?

As to why the bishop won’t ordain certain men, I’m sure he has his reasons. I hear many men in the seminaries don’t make it.

 

[AndyP2010]

A real issue that comes up with the question of a married priesthood is inheritance. I think this was the crux of the matter 1000 years ago when the discipline was introduced. When a priest marries and has a family, and thus heirs to his estate, the property which he owns passes out of control of the Church and into private hands. Therefore it is impossible to maintain control. This alone is a strong argument for priestly celibacy, even if we accept no other. And this is an issue that is not a relic of medieval times, nor has it gone away, rather I would say that it is an even greater obstacle today than ever.

First of all Secular priest don’t own Church property. The original issue had to do with Fiefs given to Bishops by temporal powers. Under the law of the Franks the Bishops fief would be divided evenly between his sons. This was a problem with Feudal society and is no longer an issue.

 

[MorEphrem]

I said nothing about the East. Didn’t you yourself claim there have been instances where bishops have ordained married men in the West? Still, valid priests, no?

As to why the bishop won’t ordain certain men, I’m sure he has his reasons. I hear many men in the seminaries don’t make it.

When you said "You’re calling it a discipline. Okay, who gets disciplined if a bishop ordains a married man? " you were saying there was some bishop under a discipline (i.e. that of ordaining celibate men). Why would you be asking that in regards to Latin bishops, as they would obviously get reprimanded if they were to just ordain a married man. It was obvious the answer was implicitly asking what Eastern bishops were under such a discipline. And even if I concede that it is not a canonical discipline of Eastern bishops in the US because it doesn’t make a different - just because something isn’t a discipline doesn’t mean one is irreproachable - I know Latin priests who have been reprimanded by their bishops for use of their liturgical language…

I also never claimed anything about married men being ordained in the West. I said there are 0% married Maronite priests in the US.

 

[johnthebaptist2]

Yes I see what you mean,but PRIEST should not be married at all,they became priest to serve God,and to lead us to Jesus, especially Catholic priest they decide to take that part not to get married to serve GOD,when they enter the seminary,and I give credit to those priest,that took they vows and remain strong,to serve God,and comfort us when we having problems. God help the priest of the world to follow the way of your son Jesus.Amen.

 

[TimothyH]

A real issue that comes up with the question of a married priesthood is inheritance. I think this was the crux of the matter 1000 years ago when the discipline was introduced. When a priest marries and has a family, and thus heirs to his estate, the property which he owns passes out of control of the Church and into private hands. Therefore it is impossible to maintain control. This alone is a strong argument for priestly celibacy, even if we accept no other. And this is an issue that is not a relic of medieval times, nor has it gone away, rather I would say that it is an even greater obstacle today than ever.

This is not an issue. The Church does not control secular parish priest’s property or finances.

Secular parish priests are allowed to own personal property. Property which a priest owns is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it. A priest’s property does not pass to the control of the Church upon his death. He can leave his money and property to the ASPCA if he wants. Even his chalice is his own personal property.

It is not an issue now nor was it ever an issue.

-Tim-

 

[JackyB]

I often hear that allowing priests to marry would in turn increase the number of priests. Has this been evidenced in other denominations?

 

[ProVobis]

Why would you be asking that in regards to Latin bishops, as they would obviously get reprimanded if they were to just ordain a married man.

It appears my understanding of what constitutes a discipline is different from yours and others here. (Personally I like PJM’s or Father Hardon’s definition.) It takes a long time to properly train someone for the priesthood. I still think it’s more of a regional custom than a discipline that single men study for the priesthood, although I do know that there are married men and even women studying in seminaries. It’s more than the seminary, however, that constitutes the proper formation. Society plays a role in it as well, something that the Vatican can’t do much about.

But going back to what you said, how does a bishop get reprimanded if he’s done due diligence and attempts to ordain someone who has the proper qualifications to become a priest (such as a well-trained seminarian or an experienced minister from another Christian faith, for example)?

 

[RyanBlack]

Yes I see what you mean,but PRIEST should not be married at all,they became priest to serve God,and to lead us to Jesus, especially Catholic priest they decide to take that part not to get married to serve GOD,when they enter the seminary,and I give credit to those priest,that took they vows and remain strong,to serve God,and comfort us when we having problems. God help the priest of the world to follow the way of your son Jesus.Amen.

You don’t get to make that call. The Church acknowledges the legitimacy of the married priesthood among the Eastern Catholic Churches, as well as the fruitfulness of the ministry of married priests. (CCC, 1580)

 

[MorEphrem]

It appears my understanding of what constitutes a discipline is different from yours and others here. (Personally I like PJM’s or Father Hardon’s definition.) It takes a long time to properly train someone for the priesthood. I still think it’s more of a regional custom than a discipline that single men study for the priesthood, although I do know that there are married men and even women studying in seminaries. It’s more than the seminary, however, that constitutes the proper formation. Society plays a role in it as well, something that the Vatican can’t do much about.

But going back to what you said, how does a bishop get reprimanded if he’s done due diligence and attempts to ordain someone who has the proper qualifications to become a priest (such as a well-trained seminarian or an experienced minister from another Christian faith, for example)?

With all due respect, there is too great a discrepancy in what each of us are saying to be an actual fruitful conversation.

It is part of Western discipline to not ordain married men (keyword: discipline, i.e. not a divine doctrine or unchangeable rule but a general practice). All I was saying is there is social pressure in the Western countries (which I understand through the US since that is my personal scope) that Eastern bishops follow this Western discipline to which we have no canonically binding obligation. This is essentially my personal account so you have no compulsion to believe what I’m saying, but several bishops have claimed a certain pressure to not ordain married men in the West as it will touch off a war of “numbers.” Furthermore, there’s a historical basis of this idea in the very idea that it was canonically banned for married men to be ordained by Eastern bishops in the US for a while. Although the statute itself has expired its effects are very much in affect. Some might cite the Greek bishops in the US such as the Melkite bishops who have ordained married men to signal some kind of end to this pressure but that’s untrue; the Greek Catholics, and Melkites in general, have been inclined to simply outright disagree with the Latin Church and do as they please (for instance the widespread rejection by Greeks of the “ecumenical councils” after the 7th as local Latin synods, etc.).

Yes I see what you mean,but PRIEST should not be married at all,they became priest to serve God,and to lead us to Jesus, especially Catholic priest they decide to take that part not to get married to serve GOD,when they enter the seminary,and I give credit to those priest,that took they vows and remain strong,to serve God,and comfort us when we having problems. God help the priest of the world to follow the way of your son Jesus.Amen.

You’re right! Jesus, God and Truth, was wrong in selecting the Apostles. In fact, Peter’s episcopacy was invalid because of his marriage and the Latin Church had an extremely flawed priesthood until the 1300s when celibacy was widely instituted. That is a truly fallacious mentality.

 

[Horacio]

Yes I see what you mean,but PRIEST should not be married at all,they became priest to serve God,and to lead us to Jesus, especially Catholic priest they decide to take that part not to get married to serve GOD,when they enter the seminary,and I give credit to those priest,that took they vows and remain strong,to serve God,and comfort us when we having problems. God help the priest of the world to follow the way of your son Jesus.Amen.

Most Eastern Catholic priests are married.

 

[johnthebaptist2]

I often hear that allowing priests to marry would in turn increase the number of priests. Has this been evidenced in other denominations?

As long as I can remember,they were always against catholic priest getting married,and still are,it might Increase members of priest,but I still against the Idea…God give us strength,too leave things the way they are…

 

[Aramis]

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419332/Popes-right-hand-man-says-priests-allowed-marry-says-celibacy-tradition-law.html

I am 100% behing priest’s celibacy. I found out that for a job like being a priest, you must be fully commited and cannot be married. You can only be 100% devoted to God if you are in a celibacy. So what do you think? Do you support celibacy or not? Since priest’s celibacy is not a dogma will they change it?

I think that the married Catholic priests I’ve known are all excellent and very devoted priests. Two of them are Byzantine Rite Catholic Priests, and the other is a Roman Rite priest.

And then, there is Fr. Erik - he’s a widower who, after his wife died, went to the seminary.

As a married man, they understand far better my trials as parent and husband than the celibate priests do.

 

[AdvocatusVerbum]

Most Eastern Catholic priests are married.

But how many of their bishops?

 

[MorEphrem]

But how many of their bishops?

A bit of an irrelevant question. If I remember my Church history correctly we had a celibate episcopate before the West because of the practice of selecting bishops from monks (in hopes of getting reluctant holy men to lead as a penance rather than greed of power - see St. Isaac of Nineveh/Pope Benedict).