Let’s start with one as opposed to none. Try naming any Roman rite married priest prior to 1965, and going back 300 years. Or make it 500 years. Or 700… it was an absolute.Have any numbers?
For some. Many/most of those clamoring for a married clergy especially on the secularist side but to a large degree on the Protestant/evangelical, would very quickly be raising that demand/question next.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).
Celbacy taces back about 2000 years, and there were historical periods that were horrible; the current one notwithstanding. There is nothing about the current social milieu that would cause an end to celibacy; in fact, the general libertine period is likely to encourage some to a celibate life.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.
You may not have seen the need; but I certainly have met my share of men, married, who still feel a calling to the priesthood.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.
You misunderstand the secular priesthood. I just looked through a seminary report on contributors, and there were a number of secular priests who not only have given, but have also set up further giving upon their death.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.
My cousin Thomas would likely be a functioning priest still if he’d been allowed to marry prior to ordination. Instead, he wound up laicizing after several years - and not long after my baptism. In my last conversation with him, he implied that my baptism was the point where he started questioning his vocation as a celibate.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.
There are many married men in the Latin Rite ordained as priests. The married Anglican priests who come home to the Catholic Church cannot serve as priests in the Church until they are ordained as Catholic priests. That has to be done by a Bishop. So the answer is yes Catholic Bishops ordain married men and do not get disciplined or excommunicated.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.
That is an ancient rule - no ordained man may marry, but a married man may be ordained to the diaconate and the priesthood.There are many married men in the Latin Rite ordained as priests. The married Anglican priests who come home to the Catholic Church cannot serve as priests in the Church until they are ordained as Catholic priests. That has to be done by a Bishop. So the answer is yes Catholic Bishops ordain married men and do not get disciplined or excommunicated.
My understanding is that such priests cannot become bishops and also if their wives die they cannot remarry.
I agree. My comments were simply reinforcing ProVobis’ post in reply to MorEphrem who stated that Bishops cannot ordain married men or they would be reprimanded. Clearly, the position of MorEphrem is wrong.That is an ancient rule - no ordained man may marry, but a married man may be ordained to the diaconate and the priesthood.
Traditionally, a widower priest was eligible to be ordained a bishop, but few were.
No, he’s not wrong. It is indeed the case that some Eastern bishops in the diaspora have been reprimanded by Rome for ordaining married men to the priesthood. The reprimands haven’t necessarily been made public, but they have happened.I agree. My comments were simply reinforcing ProVobis’ post in reply to MorEphrem who stated that Bishops cannot ordain married men or they would be reprimanded. Clearly, the position of MorEphrem is wrong.
Don’t waste your breath, malphono, they’ve made up their mind. They’re not interested in genuine discussion because once again it boils down to they’re starting from the definitively correct position and we just have to come to terms with it.No, he’s not wrong. It is indeed the case that some Eastern bishops in the diaspora have been reprimanded by Rome for ordaining married men to the priesthood. The reprimands haven’t necessarily been made public, but they have happened.
Oh I do not doubt that you have my friend. Yet what I haven’t heard is how being a married man would benefit a priest? Likewise how would being a priest make a man a better husband?You may not have seen the need; but I certainly have met my share of men, married, who still feel a calling to the priesthood.
That’s amazing. Reprimands have been given but they have not been made public. I guess you have a secret source that you don’t wish to share with us.No, he’s not wrong. It is indeed the case that some Eastern bishops in the diaspora have been reprimanded by Rome for ordaining married men to the priesthood. The reprimands haven’t necessarily been made public, but they have happened.
Yes, reprimands that have not been made public. I fail to see what’s so strange about that. While I am not at liberty to say more, I will add that if one wishes to think it’s “without substance” so be it, but that doesn’t make it any less true.That’s amazing. Reprimands have been given but they have not been made public. I guess you have a secret source that you don’t wish to share with us.
Frankly, I find what you say is without substance as the Eastern Catholic Churches are permitted to ordain married men.
A man whom I looked up to greatly left the priesthood to marry. It broke my heart both to see him leave the priesthood and to understand what it must have been like to make that decision. Discerning the vocation to celibacy is so difficult for some and sadly, some make the wrong choice through no fault of their own.My cousin Thomas would likely be a functioning priest still if he’d been allowed to marry prior to ordination. Instead, he wound up laicizing after several years - and not long after my baptism. In my last conversation with him, he implied that my baptism was the point where he started questioning his vocation as a celibate.
How is it a waste of time to debate a subject.Yes, reprimands that have not been made public. I fail to see what’s so strange about that. While I am not at liberty to say more, I will add that if one wishes to think it’s “without substance” so be it, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
In any case, I am now withdrawing and unsubscribing from this thread. As [post=11325218]MorEphrem[/post] suggested earlier, contributing to it further is evidently a waste of breath, not to mention time and bandwidth.
I recall hearing that, as ordinary for the Ukrainian Catholics in Argentina, Cardinal Bergoglio was at least present for, if not the celebrant of, the ordination of married men to the priesthood. I do know he incardinated married men.Don’t waste your breath, malphono, they’ve made up their mind. They’re not interested in genuine discussion because once again it boils down to they’re starting from the definitively correct position and we just have to come to terms with it.
Since I’m “clearly wrong” without any evidence needing to be presented against me (nor rebuffing the evidence I stated like the very stark stat of 0% of ordained married men in the West as opposed to the 60% in Lebanon for Maronites) I guess I should just withdraw from this thread.
How would it make him a worse husband? Anyone called to the priesthood is going to be an outward-directed person (as opposed to a selfish or self centered person). Being other-directed is what makes a good husband (Men, love your wives as Christ loved the Church, if you want a paraphrase),=.Oh I do not doubt that you have my friend. Yet what I haven’t heard is how being a married man would benefit a priest? Likewise how would being a priest make a man a better husband?
Ps. Married men may be feeling a calling to the priesthood, but have they talked to their wives about this? Are the wives aware of the sacrifice they would be making by having a husband who is also a priest?