A Discussion on Married Priests

[PhuturePriest]

@Peace, here's an interesting quote for you:

"Martin Luther gave back to the priest sexual intercourse with women; but three quarters of the reverence of which the common people, especially the women among the common people, are capable, rests on the faith that a person who is an exception at this point will be an exception in other respects as well... Luther, having given woman to the priest, had to take away from him auricular confession; that was right psychologically. With that development the Christian priesthood was fundamentally abolished, because his most profound utility had always been that he was a holy ear, a silent well, a grave for secrets."

In layman's words, one of the fundamental practical uses of celibacy is that the people of the parish know they are each equal in importance to the priest, and none will be given preference because of who they are. With a family in the mix, however, parishioners suddenly know that a priest's wife and kids will always necessarily (and rightfully) have preference, and that if anything comes between them and his family, he will choose the needs of the family over their needs. In other words, if a priest has had a busy day (meaning every day), and a parishioner comes up asking for a much-needed and potentially lengthy confession, but the priest's wife just called begging him to come home to help with the kids, the priest will likely choose to tell that person to come to a regularly scheduled confession and leave for home. In the celibate priesthood, the priest is no longer his own, but lives in radical abandon to the people. It is fully expected (and is an actual occurrence) that if a parishioner rings the rectory doorbell at three in the morning begging for confession, the priest will smile and accept because hearing that confession is why he exists in his capacity. He is expected to go to a family whose son committed suicide to comfort them at seven in the morning, celebrate Mass at eight thirty, visit a hospital by ten, celebrate a funeral Mass at two, witness a wedding at four, hear confessions by five thirty, celebrate mass by six thirty, and finally have time to himself by eight. Where on earth does family time fit into such a radical lifestyle of self-giving? If a priest had a family, he would not be able to live such a lifestyle of self-giving to his people and would have to prioritize his hindered time in accordance with family time. Practically, it's a recipe for disaster. Pastorally, it hurts the parish. Spiritually, it weakens the integrity and purpose of spiritual fatherhood.

And who wrote the quote, you might ask? Not a Saint, Doctor, or Pope, but a God-hating atheist philosopher who died of syphilis in the form of Nietzche.

[Nihil Obstat]

24 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

And who wrote the quote, you might ask? Not a Saint, Doctor, or Pope, but a God-hating atheist philosopher who died of syphilis in the form of Nietzche.

The worst kind of syphilis.

[Peace]

29 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

In response to 1), you are cheapening the value and deep longing within everyone's heart for family and marital union. We are made for marriage, as is clear by the fact that it is the norm and expected end in each person's life. We are made for intimate communion with another and to procreate, so to give that up for the sake of the Kingdom is indeed a tremendous sacrifice. As Dorothy Day (essentially) said, "To be celibate is to give up the greatest pleasure of man." If you think priestly celibacy is a walk in the park, I would recommend you try spending a week in which the lives and problems of 1,500+ people become your primary concern and you are expected to give up your time radically to tend to their needs to the maximum of your ability and means.

Well you seem more heavily invested into this question than I am. 

Are you proud of the fact that you are making (in your view) such a huge sacrifice for the sake of the Kingdom? It sounds a bit as though you may be, but have I misunderstood you?

Do you believe that you are more qualified or worthy to be a priest than a priest who is married? It sounds as though you may believe that you are more qualified or worthy, but have I misunderstood you?

As for your analysis, married priests also have to serve the needs of their communities so I am not so sure if the 1500 people should factor much into the analysis. We are comparing married priests versus celibate priests, not celibate priests versus a married layman.

I never said that priestly celibacy was a walk in the park. Nor did I state that marriage does not have value. I just so happened to question your conclusion that a celibate life must necessarily be more difficult than married life. You seem to feel strongly about it, and that is perfectly OK with me. But nevertheless I have doubts about whether your assertion is correct. It's not meant as an attack against you personally or your vocation.

So, God willing one day you will become a priest (and I mean this sincerely). From what I understand there are a number of married Eastern rite priests, and even some married Latin rite priests, such as the converts from the Anglican churches. If you happen to run into any of these married priests at say a conference, for example, would you be willing to tell them that the sacrifice you have made as a priest is greater than the sacrifice they have made as a priest?

Perhaps you might be willing to do that, but I would venture to say that some of them may disagree with your assertion. Would that mean that they have therefore cheapened the value of marriage because they disagree with your assessment?

I don't think you have to read all of that into my disagreement with your conclusion.

29 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

2) This seems a very flawed argument to me. Firstly, seminary formation typically lasts 8-9 years (depending on if your diocese does a pastoral year. Mine does not, so it's 8).

I don't think the particular numbers involved change the point of the hypothetical.

29 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

Secondly, "Why choose the Cross? It seems rather arbitrary and self-serving, since it was something Jesus was willing to undergo. Why not suffer extended electro-shock and Indian ant torture for five solid years rather than merely suffering one day?"

I don't get your point, if you care to explain it.

29 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

The number of years of seminary formation is not in any way analogous (a personal favorite phrase from the Holy Father) to celibacy, because one is in preparation for the priesthood, whereas the other is a mystery in which one enters into, becoming "all things for all men", giving up one's life and moment of every day radically for the good of the people. It is an intimate communion with the Lord in which the celibate foregoes earthly marriage and enters into a foretaste of the heavenly marriage, where we will be in communion with the Lord as a bride and bridegroom.

They are analogous at least insofar as they are both a sacrifice that one must make. The sacrifice in one instance is family life, the sacrifice in the other instance is time. You seemed to assert that one can consider a priest to be disqualified (or not having a true desire) for priesthood based upon his unwilingness to make sacrifice A. The question is then why cannot that same logic be applied to some other sacrifice, to deem you unqualified or not having a true desire to be a priest?

But apparently that argument could never apply to you, because you have a perfect desire to be a priest and there is nothing in Heaven or Earth that could even begin to waiver your uncompromising commitment to the Kingdom of God. Shall we make an exception and start your process of canonization immediately, or could I be mistaken in my assessment?

29 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

There would be absolutely no purpose to 50 years of seminary formation, and it would in fact be detrimental to the people of God, whom priests live to serve and be a spiritual father to.

Sure, but that was not the point of the hypothetical.

29 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

In answer to your odd and extreme example, however, if the Church were to make seminary formation last 50 years, I would sincerely still be in seminary.

I have no doubt. 

Have a good night.

47 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

@Peace, here's an interesting quote for you:

"Martin Luther gave back to the priest sexual intercourse with women; but three quarters of the reverence of which the common people, especially the women among the common people, are capable, rests on the faith that a person who is an exception at this point will be an exception in other respects as well... Luther, having given woman to the priest, had to take away from him auricular confession; that was right psychologically. With that development the Christian priesthood was fundamentally abolished, because his most profound utility had always been that he was a holy ear, a silent well, a grave for secrets."

In layman's words, one of the fundamental practical uses of celibacy is that the people of the parish know they are each equal in importance to the priest, and none will be given preference because of who they are. With a family in the mix, however, parishioners suddenly know that a priest's wife and kids will always necessarily (and rightfully) have preference, and that if anything comes between them and his family, he will choose the needs of the family over their needs. In other words, if a priest has had a busy day (meaning every day), and a parishioner comes up asking for a much-needed and potentially lengthy confession, but the priest's wife just called begging him to come home to help with the kids, the priest will likely choose to tell that person to come to a regularly scheduled confession and leave for home. In the celibate priesthood, the priest is no longer his own, but lives in radical abandon to the people. It is fully expected (and is an actual occurrence) that if a parishioner rings the rectory doorbell at three in the morning begging for confession, the priest will smile and accept because hearing that confession is why he exists in his capacity. He is expected to go to a family whose son committed suicide to comfort them at seven in the morning, celebrate Mass at eight thirty, visit a hospital by ten, celebrate a funeral Mass at two, witness a wedding at four, hear confessions by five thirty, celebrate mass by six thirty, and finally have time to himself by eight. Where on earth does family time fit into such a radical lifestyle of self-giving? If a priest had a family, he would not be able to live such a lifestyle of self-giving to his people and would have to prioritize his hindered time in accordance with family time. Practically, it's a recipe for disaster. Pastorally, it hurts the parish. Spiritually, it weakens the integrity and purpose of spiritual fatherhood.

And who wrote the quote, you might ask? Not a Saint, Doctor, or Pope, but a God-hating atheist philosopher who died of syphilis in the form of Nietzche.

Well this is a bit different I think.

As I wrote above, I think that there are plenty of good reasons for a celibate priesthood, and I have no issues with it whatsoever if that is what the pope decides to stick with. The part in Scripture where St. Paul talks about the married man being distracted from the work of God by his wife is particularly persuasive.

I just don't think that the particular rationale you relied upon in your original post is particularly persuasive. That is all.

[Jack4]

On 3/16/2017 at 0:19 AM, Amppax said:

Eastern Catholics have a shortage of priests, and allow married priests.

I don't know about other sui iuris Churches, but the Syro Malabar Church does not seem to be in a vocation crisis.

Also, for some reason, we don't have married priests. 

[Jack4]

19 hours ago, Amppax said:

Easiest citation to quickly pull up would be Aquinas, ST II-II Q. 152 a. 4. If you'd like a magisterial citation, Pius XII's encyclical Sacra Virginitas  puts it pretty plainly.

I'll add the rejected schema, mentioned in another thread. Though it was not ultimately promulgated, it does state the principles correctly. I'll quote here nos. 35 and 36 only; no. 38 has a condemnation too. 

 Chastity, Marriage, the Family, and Virginity

Translated by Fr. Komonchak

 PART III: SACRED VIRGINITY

35. The Excellence of Sacred Virginity

If holy Mother Church has always especially honored chastity as a choice fruit of the Holy Spirit, it has certainly always regarded as among its supremely precious treasures that perfect chastity by which a person consecrates himself to God's service by sacred virginity and, out of singular love for God, for the sake of the Kingdom of God (see Mt 19:12), by a spiritual and free decision abstains from marriage and from its bodily delights. This honor given by the Bride of Christ is still greater when that chastity is undertaken by a permanent bond and is thus surrounded by a greater strength and firmness. 1 By such a consecration, a man emulates in some ways the purity of the Angels, 2 in some degree already here on earth he anticipates the state of heaven, 3 is more perfectly likened to Christ the Virgin, born of the immaculate Virgin, and is more closely united with God, the most pure Spirit. By such a consecration, with the help of God's grace, a person can totally hand himself over to the service of the divine Majesty, more easily engages in the contemplation of divine things, and, free from secular and fleshly cares, undertakes apostolic works in order to spread the Kingdom of God.4

36. Virginity and Marriage

It cannot be surprising, therefore, if Holy Church, taught by the divine Teacher himself and by the Apostle of the Gentiles (see Mt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:25-27, 32-36, 38-40), has never ceased to extol virginity over marriage, even if, as the Lord himself attests, there always have been and will be, those who cannot accept this (see Mt 19:12). Soberly, yet clearly, following as usual other God-speaking Fathers, 5 St John Damascene said, "Virginity is an angelic kind of life, marked by characteristics of an incorporeal nature. Nor do we say this in order to detract from marriage, far be it; for we know that the Lord blessed marriage by his presence and we know who it was who said 'Let marriage be honored,...and the marriage bed undefiled' (Hb 13:4); but we acknowledge that virginity is better thanmarriage, good as this is."6 No less soberly and clearly did the Sacred Council of Trent teach that it is better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibacy (undertaken for God's sake, of course) than to be joined inmarriage. 7 Nor does virginity, by which in a singular way we are conformed to Christ the Virgin impede or diminish the development of one's own personality, rather it augments it and can lead it to a higher level (see 1 Cor 7:33-40). 8

Notes:

1 See Pius XII, Encyclical Sacra virginitas, March 25, 1954 (AAS 46 [1954], 161-91); on the vow, Ibid., p. 165.

2 St. JohnChrysostom, In Matt. hom. 70, 5 (PG 58, 660); St. Bonaventure, De perfectione evangelica, q. 3, a. 3; St. Thomas, Catena aurea in Matth. Evang., ch. 22, v. 30-32 (Parma ed., 1860, p. 254B): "...thus all the virtues are angelic things, especially chastity through which nature is overcome by the virtues;"St. Cyprian, De habitu virginum, 22 (PL 4, 462): "When you persevere as chaste virgins, you are equal to God's Angels; St. Ambrose, De virginibus, bk. 1, ch. 8, n. 52 (PL 16, 202-203); Pius XII, Sacra virginitas, l.c., pp. 167, 173.

3 See Mt 22:30.

4 See 1 Cor 7:32-34.

5 See especially Didymus of Alexandria, Contra Manich., 8 (PG 39, 1096) and St. John Chrysostom, De Virginitate, 10 (PG 48, 450).

6 De fide orth., IV, 24 (PG 94, 1210).

7 Council of Trent, Session XXIV, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Marriage, c. 10 (D 980): "If anyone should say that the conjugal state is to be preferred to the state of virginity or of celibacy and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or in celibacy than to be joined in marriage, A.S."

8 Pius XII, Sacra virginitas, l.c., pp. 176f: "For although all those who have embraced a life of perfect chastity have deprived themselves of the expression of human love permitted in the married state, nonetheless it cannot thereby be affirmed that because of this privation they have diminished and despoiled the human personality. For they receive from the Giver of heavenly gifts something spiritual which far exceeds that 'mutual help' which husband and wife confer on each other. They consecrate themselves to him who is their source and who shares with them his divine life, and thus they do not diminish themselves but make themselves immensely greater;"Pius XII, Speech, September 15, 1952 (Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, XIV, p. 334): "Today we wish to address ourselves only to those, priests and lay people, preachers, orators, or writers, who no longer have a word of approval or of praise for virginity vowed to Christ, who for years, despite the warnings of the Church and in spite of its teachings, assign marriage a preference in principle over virginity, who go even to the point of presenting it as the only means capable of assuring the development and natural perfection of the human person. Those who speak and write such things should become aware of their responsibility before God and before the Church."

5 hours ago, Peace said:

I never said that priestly celibacy was a walk in the park. Nor did I state that marriage does not have value. I just so happened to question your conclusion that a celibate life must necessarily be more difficult than married life.

What I describe below is most probably not what @PhuturePriest is referring to; but some people do use this to argue against celibacy: They are talking about what is sometimes called the "stress-model" of sexuality; according to which continent people have a sort of  "pressure" building up within them, and this pressure has to be "released" by sexual activity. 

It seems that Alice and Dietrich von Hildebrand would lash out against this model...

[Hna.Caridad]

I think that ultimately, the Roman Catholic Church is going to need to decide whether a male, celibate priesthood or access to the Sacraments is more important, because it can’t have both (after all, if it could have both, it would have both, and it doesn’t). Up until now, it would seem that the Church has been prioritizing a male, celibate priesthood.

 

I was talking to a priest once who was in charge of 80 (eighty) worship sites.  Heading into the main town of his parish, I’d noticed that the street was peppered with evangelical churches—nearly one on every block.  I’d certainly noticed the evangelical presence in the nation’s capital (we were one of the few Catholic houses left on our street)—I hadn’t realized the extent to which it had spread throughout the country.  (Thirty years ago, the country was 98-99% Catholic.  One generation later, less than half the people in the country self-identify as Catholic.)

 

Curious, I asked the priest about whether or not the evangelicals had been able to make much of an inroad into the rural communities that he serves—sadly, they have.  Nearly every one of the 78 rural communities in his parish has at least one evangelical church.

 

I asked him why he thought that people who had been Catholic for generations were leaving the Church.  His response? Clericalism.  I asked him to elaborate.

 

Apparently, for generations, the Catholic Church in that area had encouraged the belief that baptisms could only be performed by the pastor/priest of the parish (except in dire emergencies), that weddings could only be presided over by the pastor/priest, and that the ideal funeral was one in which the parish priest was present.

 

With 80 communities, the parish priest was lucky if he could visit each of the communities once or twice a year for one or two days (using primarily mule and boat travel).

 

All it took was an evangelical pastor moving in to town & suddenly, the people were able to have their babies baptized when they wanted them baptized (and not when the priest happened to be in town), they were able to get married when they wanted to get married (and not when the priest happened to be in town), they were able to confess their sins (albeit in a different form and without absolution) when they were ready or felt a need to confess their sins, and they knew that when they were sick or died that the pastor would be there.

 

Despite the fact that the Catholic Delegates of the Word have way more theological training than many of the evangelical pastors, they aren’t able to perform the Sacraments (many of which are basic human “rites of passage”:  i.e. baptism [being welcomed into a community], reconciliation [confession & forgiveness], marriage, anointing of the sick, etc.), so weren’t seen as equal to the evangelical pastors (who, although they don’t perform Sacraments as we know them in Catholicism, do fulfill the very human need for recognized rites of passage).

 

Catholics are taught to believe that the Eucharist is central to our faith, and yet, with so many people throughout the world being denied the Eucharist, one has to wonder if it really holds the central place that it deserves.

[Peace]

7 minutes ago, Hna.Caridad said:

I think that ultimately, the Roman Catholic Church is going to need to decide whether a male, celibate priesthood or access to the Sacraments is more important, because it can’t have both (after all, if it could have both, it would have both, and it doesn’t). Up until now, it would seem that the Church has been prioritizing a male, celibate priesthood.

 

 

 

I was talking to a priest once who was in charge of 80 (eighty) worship sites.  Heading into the main town of his parish, I’d noticed that the street was peppered with evangelical churches—nearly one on every block.  I’d certainly noticed the evangelical presence in the nation’s capital (we were one of the few Catholic houses left on our street)—I hadn’t realized the extent to which it had spread throughout the country.  (Thirty years ago, the country was 98-99% Catholic.  One generation later, less than half the people in the country self-identify as Catholic.)

 

 

 

Curious, I asked the priest about whether or not the evangelicals had been able to make much of an inroad into the rural communities that he serves—sadly, they have.  Nearly every one of the 78 rural communities in his parish has at least one evangelical church.

 

 

 

I asked him why he thought that people who had been Catholic for generations were leaving the Church.  His response? Clericalism.  I asked him to elaborate.

 

 

 

Apparently, for generations, the Catholic Church in that area had encouraged the belief that baptisms could only be performed by the pastor/priest of the parish (except in dire emergencies), that weddings could only be presided over by the pastor/priest, and that the ideal funeral was one in which the parish priest was present.

 

 

 

With 80 communities, the parish priest was lucky if he could visit each of the communities once or twice a year for one or two days (using primarily mule and boat travel).

 

 

 

All it took was an evangelical pastor moving in to town & suddenly, the people were able to have their babies baptized when they wanted them baptized (and not when the priest happened to be in town), they were able to get married when they wanted to get married (and not when the priest happened to be in town), they were able to confess their sins (albeit in a different form and without absolution) when they were ready or felt a need to confess their sins, and they knew that when they were sick or died that the pastor would be there.

 

 

 

Despite the fact that the Catholic Delegates of the Word have way more theological training than many of the evangelical pastors, they aren’t able to perform the Sacraments (many of which are basic human “rites of passage”:  i.e. baptism [being welcomed into a community], reconciliation [confession & forgiveness], marriage, anointing of the sick, etc.), so weren’t seen as equal to the evangelical pastors (who, although they don’t perform Sacraments as we know them in Catholicism, do fulfill the very human need for recognized rites of passage).

 

 

 

Catholics are taught to believe that the Eucharist is central to our faith, and yet, with so many people throughout the world being denied the Eucharist, one has to wonder if it really holds the central place that it deserves.

 

What country are you referring to in your post above?

[Hna.Caridad]

 

I don't feel comfortable naming the country (I've given out enough information in previous posts that if I name it, someone could probably figure out who I am & I'd really rather not have my real identity revealed in an anonymous online forum.)

I will say that what I described is fairly typical in Latin America (which is where it took place). 

[Peace]

4 minutes ago, Hna.Caridad said:

 

I don't feel comfortable naming the country (I've given out enough information in previous posts that if I name it, someone could probably figure out who I am & I'd really rather not have my real identity revealed in an anonymous online forum.)

I will say that what I described is fairly typical in Latin America (which is where it took place). 

Thanks. Maybe some others would disagree, but it did not occur to me that there is a big problem with lack of access to the sacraments in the US. I can pretty much find confession close to me any day of the week, but perhaps it is different in other parts of the US.

[dominicansoul]

This is going to come off extremely critical, and perhaps even get me banned or warned, but I need to get this off my chest.  Priests today, in my opinion, don't have enough to do to keep them out of trouble.  You might think marriage would fix that, but I think it would hinder them further from completing their priestly duties.

My poor mother died without a Catholic priest at her side.  Apparently, the catholic chaplain was on his way home when he got the call to turn around and come back to the hospital.  This priest, who was not very pastoral in my opinion, decided he wasn't going to turn around and called a Baptist minister to be by her side instead.  

My parish priest was caught knocked out in a hotel room, drugs strewn about the room, his wallet missing and his clothes gone.  A few years ago, same church, same area, our pastor was laicized for his insatiable appetite for young boys.  I think he's rotting in a prison somewhere.

My priests go on vacations more often than most people do in a lifetime, they enjoy the riches of the parish, nice rectories, nice cars.  

Imagine if they could get married?  We rarely see them make hospital visits and bring Viaticum to the dying NOW, I can't imagine we'll ever see them doing any of that if they are married.  

For you young men discerning here on the forum, please change this!  We need devoted priests who work for the salvation of souls and to be servants of their parishes.  If you're offered tickets to some high priced professional sporting game which will make you miss saying Mass, please choose the Mass!  If you are invited to some fancy dinner that will take you away from hearing confessions on a Saturday evening, PLEASE CHOOSE THE CONFESSIONAL!   In this day and age Satan is working tirelessly at winning millions of souls.  In my opinion he's got a head start on our priests!  

I know some of you will be like, "but they do soo much, 3 Masses in one day!  Wow wow wow." 

That's 3 hours of mystical union with Christ.  That's not suffering.  If you ask me, they whine too much about how much they do while neglecting the entire reason they were ordained in the first place.

I'm not saying this about the entire priesthood, only the examples I've had in my life.  If I can recall any priest who effortlessly lived his vocation to the fullest, it would be a foreign one, a young priest who has given his entire life in service to the Church, island hopping every single day to bring Mass and the Sacraments to people who rarely saw a priest.  I'm talking about an old spiritual director I once had.  He lived in Indonesia.  He'd start on one side of his country and walk all over the entire nation bringing the Gospel to all he met.  He was so charismatic that he even converted Muslims to Christianity.  His bishop finally sent him to America because the muslims came into his church one day while he was saying mass and put machetes up on his neck.  Miraculously, they did not follow through with their assassination.  But lucky me, I met him when he came here to my area.  He once shared with me that he was taken aback at all the luxuries the priests have in our country.  He told me, "what is a day off???"   lol.  He never missed saying Mass on his "day off," even putting out the Monstrance for an hour of adoration.  After that, then he'd go visit the sick in the hospital and hear confessions and bring them Communion.  That was his day off.

If only we'd have a million of that type of priest, celibate and dedicated...  

 

[Peace]

That's too bad. My experience has been that most priests seem pretty dedicated. Especially the one who brought me through RCIA. Was willing to meet almost any time I wanted to talk or had questions.

[PhuturePriest]

19 hours ago, Peace said:

Well you seem more heavily invested into this question than I am. 

Are you proud of the fact that you are making (in your view) such a huge sacrifice for the sake of the Kingdom? It sounds a bit as though you may be, but have I misunderstood you?

Do you believe that you are more qualified or worthy to be a priest than a priest who is married? It sounds as though you may believe that you are more qualified or worthy, but have I misunderstood you?

As for your analysis, married priests also have to serve the needs of their communities so I am not so sure if the 1500 people should factor much into the analysis. We are comparing married priests versus celibate priests, not celibate priests versus a married layman.

I never said that priestly celibacy was a walk in the park. Nor did I state that marriage does not have value. I just so happened to question your conclusion that a celibate life must necessarily be more difficult than married life. You seem to feel strongly about it, and that is perfectly OK with me. But nevertheless I have doubts about whether your assertion is correct. It's not meant as an attack against you personally or your vocation.

So, God willing one day you will become a priest (and I mean this sincerely). From what I understand there are a number of married Eastern rite priests, and even some married Latin rite priests, such as the converts from the Anglican churches. If you happen to run into any of these married priests at say a conference, for example, would you be willing to tell them that the sacrifice you have made as a priest is greater than the sacrifice they have made as a priest?

Perhaps you might be willing to do that, but I would venture to say that some of them may disagree with your assertion. Would that mean that they have therefore cheapened the value of marriage because they disagree with your assessment?

I don't think you have to read all of that into my disagreement with your conclusion.

I don't think the particular numbers involved change the point of the hypothetical.

I don't get your point, if you care to explain it.

They are analogous at least insofar as they are both a sacrifice that one must make. The sacrifice in one instance is family life, the sacrifice in the other instance is time. You seemed to assert that one can consider a priest to be disqualified (or not having a true desire) for priesthood based upon his unwilingness to make sacrifice A. The question is then why cannot that same logic be applied to some other sacrifice, to deem you unqualified or not having a true desire to be a priest?

But apparently that argument could never apply to you, because you have a perfect desire to be a priest and there is nothing in Heaven or Earth that could even begin to waiver your uncompromising commitment to the Kingdom of God. Shall we make an exception and start your process of canonization immediately, or could I be mistaken in my assessment?

Sure, but that was not the point of the hypothetical.

I have no doubt. 

Have a good night.

Well this is a bit different I think.

As I wrote above, I think that there are plenty of good reasons for a celibate priesthood, and I have no issues with it whatsoever if that is what the pope decides to stick with. The part in Scripture where St. Paul talks about the married man being distracted from the work of God by his wife is particularly persuasive.

I just don't think that the particular rationale you relied upon in your original post is particularly persuasive. That is all.

Your every retort is an irrelevant ad hominem. 

Firstly, I am not "proud" of celibacy. I was explaining some of its purposes, its mystery, and the practical issues of married priesthood in the Roman Rite.  Do not attack my person because you do not like my points. Secondly, even if I were proud it would be besides the point. Pride has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments, and instead of engaging them, you chose  to publicly accuse me of pride and believing I'm perfect.  I'm sorry if I fail to see how this is appropriate on a Catholic message board. 

No one is worthy of the priesthood. Qualification has nothing to do with priesthood, either. 

I have met married priests. They are good priests. However, they themselves will tell you how marriage has limited their abilities to tend to their flock, which was my point. 

You again accuse me of being proud and as if I believe I am worthy of canonization. Please do not judge those you don't know in this way. 

I don't see how continuing this conversation would be fruitful at this point. 

[Peace]

2 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

Your every retort is an irrelevant ad hominem. 

Firstly, I am not "proud" of celibacy. I was explaining some of its purposes, its mystery, and the practical issues of married priesthood in the Roman Rite.  Do not attack my person because you do not like my points. Secondly, even if I were proud it would be besides the point. Pride has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments, and instead of engaging them, you chose  to publicly accuse me of pride and believing I'm perfect.  I'm sorry if I fail to see how this is appropriate on a Catholic message board. 

No one is worthy of the priesthood. Qualification has nothing to do with priesthood, either. 

I have met married priests. They are good priests. However, they themselves will tell you how marriage has limited their abilities to tend to their flock, which was my point. 

You again accuse me of being proud and as if I believe I am worthy of canonization. Please do not judge those you don't know in this way. 

I don't see how continuing this conversation would be fruitful at this point. 

I asked you a question and gave you an opportunity to clarify whether my understanding was true. You indicated that it was not. I am willing to take you on your word on that, although your initial posts did strike me as somewhat prideful. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but you seemed to use celibacy as a litmust test for those who have sufficient desire or quality for priesthood, indicating that "we don't want such people" who might be dissuaded by the celibacy requirement. It struck me as prideful, and it is not as though seminary students are above correction. Whether you fail to see the appropriates of me raising the question is no particular concern of mine, but as you indicated that it is not a soure of pride there is nothing to correct.

Now, as for my other point, as you admit that you do not have perfect desire to become a priest, then there should theoretically be something that would dissuade you from entering priesthood (just as there probably would be with most people). And there would be someone who is willing to do whatever it is you are unwilling to do. Would that then give such a person the right to assert that you are unqualified or otherwise don't have sufficient desire to be a priest? It seems to me that this is essentially what you have done, and I raised the analogy to illustrate the point. Either the analogy applies or you are perfect and there is nothing that could ever dissuade you. You can't have it both ways.

I object to the idea that celibacy is some sort of test that can be used to determine who is qualified and who has sufficient desire to be a priest, and this seems to be implicit in your arguments.

If you feel as though I have done no more than hurl ad hominem personal attacks without responding to the substance of your argument, and that further discussion would be unfruitful, that is perfectly fine by me. We can agree to disagree.

Have a nice weekend.

[Guest]

I think of celibacy as a gift including the desire to live out a celibate life.  All the vocations are gift and gift to The Church.  It is not something one can choose apart from the gift being granted -  and as one continues in the formation process whether one actually has the gift or not will probably become apparent.  If one is having much difficulty with celibacy, it might be that one is not so gifted and further discernment on the point of celibacy is probably required.

I am sure that other qualities besides celibacy are necessary gifts for priesthood.

I don't think that celibacy can be regarded as gifted to a person more virtuous or deserving.  The gift is granted wheresoever God may choose and for His Reasons we cannot know - it is a gift to The Church.  Celibacy is regarded as superior to marriage and that is the objective theological determination.  It does not mean, I don't think, that a priest is destined for a higher degree of holiness than a non celibate person.  All the virtues are trumped by Charity.  St Paul "and the greatest of these is Charity"

Quote

 

1 Corinthians Ch13

¹ If I speak in human and angelic tongues ² but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing............⁵ So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love"

 

 

As things are in The Church at this point, the gift of celibacy is necessary for a vocation to the priesthood.

[HisChildForever]

I would like to point something out, and I hope I articulate it properly. It seems that when we (a general "we Catholic's") discuss this topic, the typical mode of thought is that the main difference between priestly life and married life is sex. In other words, I often see/read comments like "Men would rather marry and be able to have sex than commit to a life of celibacy." This is just one aspect of it though. While sex is an integral part of marriage, marriage is not all about sex. I guess this is a pet peeve I have. One thing I love about married life is that I live with my best friend and share everything with him. It is a full, selfless commitment to your spouse. So, I can completely see how a man would be torn between these two vocations. What I think is that it is super healthy and needed for our priests to have rich, spiritual friendships with each other, a family member, and/or people of the parish. This way they are free to experience Christian love, much how spouses of the faith have that Christian love for each other. I am sure for some priests celibacy is hard, but I think what would be harder is loneliness. (And to be clear, in an unhealthy marriage a spouse can experience loneliness, which I think would be worse than having to deal with a period of abstinence in the marriage for whatever reason.)

[CatherineM]

My favorite priest talked about how different it was as a young priest living in a full rectory. He lived the second half of his life living alone. He said he'd accepted the idea that he would die alone, and unfortunately he did. I think loneliness is another reason they end up in trouble. Families would change that one aspect. 

[Nihil Obstat]

4 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

My favorite priest talked about how different it was as a young priest living in a full rectory. He lived the second half of his life living alone. He said he'd accepted the idea that he would die alone, and unfortunately he did. I think loneliness is another reason they end up in trouble. Families would change that one aspect. 

I certainly think that priests need to live in a community with brother priests whenever possible. For a time my community had two priests assigned, who lived together near the church, and things worked really well. It was a lot more difficult when one of them was sent away, and now we have had only one priest for nearly two years.

[PhuturePriest]

How ironic that this should come about: http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/03/21/married-catholic-priest-thinks-priests-get-married

 

Quote

My wife and I, we have four children, all younger than 7. Ours is not a quiet house. ... But here's what's strange about us: I'm a Catholic priest. And that is, as you probably know, mostly a celibate species. 

...

Now you might be surprised to know most married Catholic priests are staunch advocates of clerical celibacy. I, for one, don't think the Church should change its discipline here. In fact, I think it would be a very bad idea. Which brings me to my particular bête noire on the subject.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Not strictly relevant to what has been discussed... Yet, but we all might be careful to keep in mind that bronzy celibacy and continence are not the same thing. Different concepts with different implications inasmuch as they might arise in this discussion.

[Era Might]

I'd just add that what's at stake here isn't a mere discipline; but the nature of what a priest is and what the institutional church is. A priest isn't the church.

I think the whole institutional structure of Catholicism needs to be rethought, not to destroy Catholicism but save it, much as Jesus told the Apostles, when they pointed out the beautiful temple, that not one stone would be left standing. The Apocalypse isn't a sensational foretelling of Hollywood proportions, it's just a simple necessity: the old must be destroyed before the new can come. It won't be destroyed from without but will break apart from within (nations at war, the earth convulsing, etc.) If judgment is to begin, let it begin with the house of God.

I went to a talk by a LC priest, a young guy. He had that clean cut look, talked about his decision not to pursue marriage, etc. I don't care if he was a priest, I could tell the guy had very little experience of life. He was part of the institutional recruitment. I don't know if he was happy or not, that's his business, but the guy couldn't do anything for me spiritually that a man who has known the world could. Maybe the church needs some clean cut institutional types, but it's missing out on a lot by absolutizing that institionalized model.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Era Might