Calibacy For Priests - Vatican Secretary Of State

[Selah]

I have a  gut feeling that if we were ever going to allow priests to marry. So many people would then demand Woman priests. Under the banner of  "Two have become one flesh" with the reasoning that if one has the mark of holy orders and the two are now one then the wife also has that mark. I know it is ludicrous and other Rites may not have that problem. But People have done/said worse.  

 

Bah, rubbish. Priests have wives in the East (Presbyteras) and we aren't making women priests. Hell, the Eastern Church, it could be argued, actually places more restrictions on women than in the West. 

[arfink]

Thank you for your unique view.

 

I honestly side with Jason Evert (And Sister Mary Jeremiah above) on this issue. Jason Evert said that yes, dropping the celibacy requirement for Priests might make a boom in vocations, but imagine if the Marines said "We need more Marines, so instead of making our recruits run, let's give them golf carts!" There would be a gigantic boom in Marines, but those Marines wouldn't be conditioned for battle. This isn't to say married Priests are less holy in any sense, but as Saint Paul himself says, when you are married, your heart is divided between God and your spouse and family, and a Priest should have his heart devoted completely to God. He is our spiritual Father. And let's face it: in terms of practicality, being married and being a clergymen at the same time is almost impossible. You can't fulfill the duties of both vocations to the full. A husband should be devoted to his wife and kids, and a priest should be devoted to his parish and the Church at large. Priests get calls at three in the morning for car wrecks, they wake up early every day and have to do the Liturgy of the Hours no matter what, they work all day until late at night, how on earth is a priest to be a good husband and biological father if he's working with other people all day? In the Fishers of Men video, a priest says that priests don't have time off or days off. They are working 24/7, and are always on call to their parish and any Catholic that asks for help. That's not a fitting job if you are married, because your wife will feel sad that you won't be around her pretty much ever, and the same for your kids. It will put a lot of strain on the relationship, and I just don't see how that would work in any practical sense, theological senses aside.

 

Ambulance drivers and firemen and soldiers and a whole host of other people shouldn't get married either then. The Marines analogy is disingenuous, because if anything, asking a man to handle a family and priesthood is harder than just doing one. And I actually am friends with a Byzantine priest and another who is a sub-deacon who are married and do just fine as both fathers of families and fathers of a local parish.

[Nihil Obstat]

Bah, rubbish. Priests have wives in the East (Presbyteras) and we aren't making women priests. Hell, the Eastern Church, it could be argued, actually places more restrictions on womendo than in the West.

The East also did not implode their liturgy in the 60s and 70s. Perhaps for various disparate reasons they are in a doctrinally healthier position to begin with.

[Aloysius]

since bishops must of course still remain celibate, this would likely result in a radical shifting of the ecclesiastical order as monasteries would then be the places where most if not all bishops came from.  it would be fascinating to see how this played out, but it would certainly strengthen monasteries in our ecclesiology, it would be very interesting to see that... and that prospect makes me rather amenable to the idea.

 

the logistics on the parish level would also be interesting to see develop--priests would need to be paid more to raise families, standard rectories would no longer be sufficient, and moving priests between parishes would be much more difficult, et cetera.  which is a factor that would involve so many headaches that I would not want to bother with it.  however, I wonder if it would be possible to maintain the celibate priesthood for groups of pastors and associate pastors to live and work at the church, and allow for a supplemental married priesthood of men who did not necessarily do daily mass, did not get paid (or at least not that much), and actually had other jobs/careers.  that solution would nullify the effect on monasteries I previously suggested... the danger would be that many who might have otherwise become fully dedicated priests might go that route instead, and we would end up with less priests who were always available.

[Nihil Obstat]

That is a fascinating point on the nature of monasteries. I had not considered that before.

[KnightofChrist]

I don't think getting rid of the tradition of celibacy for priests in part or in whole would be good for the Church. The faithful and priests need more discipline not less of it. One of the causes for the crises in the Church today is because so many have become so lax and given up, forgotten, thrown away traditions and disciplines of the Church in the West. Married priests will not fix or help the crises of Faith in the Church today. We would have the same problems, only we'd have them with married priests. Properly teaching the faith in word and deed far more than today and taking action (not just words) against those that reject the faith in word and or deed is far more important and will do far more to help the Church for the better. For example action needs to be taken against those that believe they can support the mass murder of children and still present themselves as being in full union with the Church. I cannot tell you how many times Pro-Life non-catholics I've talked to, in an attempt to bring them in the Church have told me no because they view the Church as hypocritical. Because while she says she is prolife her Bishops allow their flock to be pro-abortion and they do nothing but talk. I have also spoken to Catholics who've lost their faith or fear losing because they have similar views as the prolife non-catholics.

I also believe Nilih is has a point, allowing married priests would only embolden the enemies of the Church who wish to conform her to the World's morals, or to destroy her.

[arfink]

Here are some of my reasons why I personally think a married priesthood might be an OK idea:

 

1: Our seminaries don't really teach men how to be celibate anymore. They expect men to do it, expect a charism of celibacy, but don't generally teach it. This seems very odd to me, since celibacy is not a natural state for man.

2: In the US, isolation is a very serious problem for priests.

3: In the US, many Catholics need to have holy matrimony modeled for them. Who better to do this than a priest?

 

Allowing for priests to be married is not a decrease in discipline, but would actually require more discipline. Assuming it's a lowering of standards is a rather ridiculous assumption. :P

[Nihil Obstat]

Your first point seems more a defect in seminaries than a reason for dropping celibacy.

[Aloysius]

That is a fascinating point on the nature of monasteries. I had not considered that before.

indeed, it's something I never really considered before either, it's a thought that has occurred to me having lived among the Coptic Orthodox in Egypt for the summer, their bishops and popes all come from the monasteries and most of their regular parish priests are married.  

[arfink]

Your first point seems more a defect in seminaries than a reason for dropping celibacy.

 

And yet fixing the seminaries doesn't seem to be on the radar.

 

The thing is, yes, priesthood is a call. But it's not a call you can just expect to be able to do just because you have been called. Grace builds on nature, so if you're going to ask for celibacy (a super-natural state) you need to do seminary differently. A married priesthood may in fact require less re-tooling of the seminary than training men in celibacy would take.

[KnightofChrist]

Here are some of my reasons why I personally think a married priesthood might be an OK idea:
 
1: Our seminaries don't really teach men how to be celibate anymore. They expect men to do it, expect a charism of celibacy, but don't generally teach it. This seems very odd to me, since celibacy is not a natural state for man.
2: In the US, isolation is a very serious problem for priests.
3: In the US, many Catholics need to have holy matrimony modeled for them. Who better to do this than a priest?
 
Allowing for priests to be married is not a decrease in discipline, but would actually require more discipline. Assuming it's a lowering of standards is a rather ridiculous assumption. :P

The first point can be helped by seminaries giving better teachings on how to be celibate.

As for second point, the priesthood is a call that does isolate or separate one from the rest of society, so without further clarification, that's the way it is suppose to be. They give up a lot wives and families for God and the bride of Christ. Devoting one's life to God completely can feel and look like isolation, because so much is given up for it.

As to the third point, in the west priests are married, to the Church.

I disagree it would not be a decrease in discipline, it takes more discipline to be a priest and give up a wife and a family than it does to be a priest and to not give up a wife and a family. Loosening traditions continually as we have done the last couple of decades will not help but hurt the Church. Edited September 11, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[arfink]

The first point can be helped by seminaries giving better teachings on how to be celibate.

As for second point, the priesthood is a call that does isolate or separate one from the rest of society, so without further clarification, that's the way it is suppose to be. They give up a lot wives and families for God and the bride of Christ. Devoting one's life to God completely can feel and look like isolation, because so much is given up for it.

As to the third point, in the west priests are married, to the Church.

I disagree it would not be a decrease in discipline, it takes more discipline to be a priest and give up a wife and a family than it does to be a priest and to not give up a wife and a family. Loosening traditions continually as we have done the last couple of decades will not help but hurt the Church.

 

This attitude is precisely why the seminary I attended ruined so many good men. A few, somehow, only by the grace of God, have managed to become good priests in spite of this attitude that priests ought to be isolated from society, isolated from families, and isolated from the very people they are being called to serve.

 

I am not talking about some appearance of isolation. To be celibate without being isolated is not something people can just do without training, and I for one count the Church in the US as being flagrantly irresponsible for doing so little about it. If some folks in the Vatican think opening this question might fix this problem, I say by all means, let it be tried. Plenty of other things have been tried, I can assure you.

[Apotheoun]

The Roman Church, instead of making unnecessary changes to its nearly one thousand year old discipline of priestly celibacy, should focus on restoring a proper sense of Tradition by cleaning up its liturgical life. Honestly, if there is one thing that the Latins do not need at the present time it is more change.

[KnightofChrist]

This attitude is precisely why the seminary I attended ruined so many good men. A few, somehow, only by the grace of God, have managed to become good priests in spite of this attitude that priests ought to be isolated from society, isolated from families, and isolated from the very people they are being called to serve.
 
I am not talking about some appearance of isolation. To be celibate without being isolated is not something people can just do without training, and I for one count the Church in the US as being flagrantly irresponsible for doing so little about it. If some folks in the Vatican think opening this question might fix this problem, I say by all means, let it be tried. Plenty of other things have been tried, I can assure you.

What exactly are you placing blame on with the 'attitude' I presented? The Priesthood is a great sacrifice, one sacrifices a lot and gives up a lot to be a priest. These sacrifices separate the priest from the rest of us. Devoting one's life completely to God for the salvation of souls and giving up many earthly things such as families is a kind of isolation. Giving up yet another tradition and giving priests two 'masters' to serve is not I think a good idea for the Church in the west. If one feels called to both marriage and the priesthood perhaps they are called to first become Eastern Catholic. Edited September 11, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Apotheoun]

. . .  If one feels called to both marriage and the priesthood perhaps they are called to first become Eastern Catholic.

That would be a terrible reason to become Eastern Catholic, and any man who changes ritual Churches for that purpose would not be ordained if his reasons became known. 

 

That said, the West needs to stabilize itself after years of constant (usually unnecessary) changes* before even considering any new alterations to its liturgical life and discipline.

 

 

* Some examples of unnecessary changes:  the priest facing the wrong direction during the prayers of the Mass, communion in the hand, lay people distributing communion, women readers in the sanctuary, female altar boys, use of banal 1970s soft rock / elevator music during the liturgy, turning the holy altar into a supper table, removal of sacred images from Churches, the substitution of modern abstract images, which fail to properly reflect the incarnation, for traditional hieratic iconography, et cetera.

[Apotheoun]

Here is an example, from a parish near my house, of the really bad modern images that I am talking about:

 

Holographic Jesus cross

 

Recently renovated parish, which looks a lot like the old Methodist Church I attended as a boy (just replace the table with a pulpit).

Edited September 11, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

you may be right, though there is another possibility that could recognize that the best way to really move away from those errors is a proactive measure to completely change the game, bringing in a married priesthood as part of an overhaul through which many of the bad things could be swept away.  if a married priesthood were brought in through the right context and with the right other moves, it could provide the right cover for really infusing people with a love of proper liturgical senses.  any effort that can be painted as a "return to pre-Vatican II times" is strongly resisted by large portions of the clergy and the laity.  but if the move towards allowing a married priesthood, subordinate to the celibate priesthood in monasteries (or in rectories as the only really salaried members of the clergy), was framed as part of an overture towards East/West unity by restructuring the ecclesiology to have strong monastic centers connected to the episcopacy (thus eliminating some of the views of bishops as careerist churchmen and emphasizing a bishop's monastic experience in prayer, which I think has been viewed positively when there are bishops that come from monastic orders), and along with that overture we infused our liturgies with some of those ancient practices that we should have in common with the East as part of our apostolic heritage, it could be part of a way forward out of the mess we find ourselves in.

 

that's all a bunch of pipe dreams maybe, I'm sure your view is a much more realistic picture of how this would likely take shape, but one can dream.

[Apotheoun]

Supplanting the Roman Church's ancient liturgy with a 1969 scholarly fabrication wasn't enough of a game changer? I think stability is what the Roman Church needs, because there is not much sense of Tradition in Roman parishes anymore.

[Apotheoun]

. . .  if a married priesthood were brought in through the right context and with the right other moves, it could provide the right cover for really infusing people with a love of proper liturgical senses. . . . 

Would it be brought in with that context in mind or would it more likely be simply another example of the Roman Church caving into modernist (often hyper-sexualized) ideas within Western societies? I tend to think it would merely be a new cause for division in the Roman Church.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

. . . was framed as part of an overture towards East/West unity by restructuring the ecclesiology to have strong monastic centers connected to the episcopacy (thus eliminating some of the views of bishops as careerist churchmen and emphasizing a bishop's monastic experience in prayer, which I think has been viewed positively when there are bishops that come from monastic orders) . . . 

It is not episcopal "careerism" that is separating East and West; instead, the division between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches is founded upon a different conception of the nature of the Church as a communion of Churches. It is also caused by a different understanding of authority within the Church, and allowing the ordination of married men as priests would not alter either of those things.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Apotheoun