Married Priest debate

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I just saw a "debate" on NBC's Today Show concerning allowing priests to marry.

A peition signed by priests asking for relaxation of the discipline has been presented to the Unites States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This peitition was made to allow priests to marry in an effort to ease the shortage of priests.

The most important issue that came out of the Bishops's last meeting was the efforts made toward a plenary council (a full council of American bishops). If it happens, it would be about 2 years away. (Due to the bureacacy of the church)

It is my belief that a plenary council would address the marriage issue.

Question -- Why couldn't a bishop now allow a priest to marriage? Could a bishop (or religious order superior) allow all his priests to marry?

By canon law, I believe that this is possible.

What do you think?

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), August 20, 2003

Answers

I think they would have to address the issue of benefits (spouse, children) first. I'm not sure that I would want my donations to be supporting someone with 6 kids. What about housing/car allowances, etc.? Many priests now don't live in rectories any longer--they live away from the parish, and in many cases cannot be reached directly by parishoners, only by calling the office. That is not good.

Maybe allow married priests, but no benefits support for the family? This might limit the pool to retired married men, but hopefully they would be more mature anyway.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 20, 2003.


Hey John,

Perhaps you'll check out the foll. link : http://www.ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp? source=/vexperts/conference.htm

which explains why Catholic priests MUST be celibates. This teaching pretty much rules out any priest getting married - not in the Catholic Church anyway. Don't know what Canon Law you were refering to.

-- Melody (melody@glorify-god.com), August 20, 2003.


I think that it would not be a good thing if priests could get married. What about property? This was one of the main reasons that celibacy was instituted in the first place. Second, what about contact? Also, could a priest move then without any reason why? Would this make it easier for a person to leave the priesthood? Would the Bishop still have the same authority that he does now? Or would a priest be hired in a parish like a protestant minister? Also I would never want to see religious orders with this kind of thing.

If this does happen though I would like it to be that married men could become priest but priests could not marry. So if you are a priest and you want to get married you can't. Also once a priest and your wife dies then you also can't get remarried.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), August 20, 2003.


John,

Two quick answers. I think we need to distinguish between diocesan priests and priests who are members of religious orders, congregations or societies (as you mentioned the possibility of permission from a religious superior). While celibacy is not an intrinsic part of priesthood - merely part of the disciplinary law since about the year 1000, celibacy IS intrinsic to monasticism. Any relaxation for Diocesan clergy would not/could not, by definition, include the religious.

Also, currently canon law would NOT permit a Bishop of the Latin Church to dispense the requirement for celibacy for his clergy (or potential clergy, i.e. seminarians). That is part of the common law of the whole Church.

As an aside, celibacy is NOT mandatory for priests of the Eastern Churches, however if they wish to marry they MUST marry before ordination. No marriage is allowed after ordination - except under the most extreme circumstances (for instance dispensation was granted in Romania after World War II in an effort to help to re-populate the country).

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), August 20, 2003.


Scott,

I don't believe what you said about property is true, at least in terms of the development of the practice. In my (brief) studies of Church history, it seemed more that celibacy arose organically out of Christian practice as the demands for purity became more accentuated. Chaste celibacy had always been a highly praiseworthy vocation in the early Church; it was only a matter of time (but not without much debate) that the Diocesan clergy was demanded to follow suit.

Property issues were ancilliary.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), August 20, 2003.



All the same, my current understanding is that I'm called to a celibate priesthood whether it's optional or not. The reaon why celibacy is called the 'jewel' of the Catholic priesthood is that it glimmers beautifully and testifies to the devotion and counter- culturality of the whole Church. For what other reason would someone choose celibacy than for love of the Lord and hope in his Kingdom? The celibate priesthood is especially apologetic in this respect. Making it optional is just one more step towards dissolving the Catholic Church into the bland sameness of secularism.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), August 20, 2003.

Fr. Mike and Melody, We have married priests now, some with children.

Check out this link:

http://www.lsj.com/news/local/030531_anderson_1b.html

There is speculation, strong speculation, that a specific order may be (and de facto has been)created by allowing married priests of other Churches to convert and become Roman Catholic priests. My question is: Given the fact that there are exceptions now.

Could a Bishop legitimately disolve the vow of celibacy for his priests thus allowing existing priests to marry if they wish?

What specifically in canon law would prevent this?

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), August 20, 2003.


Fr. Mike, By the way, what doe JCL stand for. I'm not familiar with it. God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), August 20, 2003.

Fr. Mike, Duh ... I'm sorry I went brain dead for a second.

So, you're a canon lawyer?

Typically, what do you handle?

Are you assigned to a tribunal?

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), August 20, 2003.


John,

Yes I am assigned to a Tribunal. Also I am currently working on a JCD (doctorate in canon law) at Catholic University.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), August 21, 2003.



Thanks padre. You are a great resource for this forum.

We need you! God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), August 21, 2003.


John,

To answer another question you asked above... Yes, Episcopal priests are being allowed to become Roman Catholic priests under, what is normally referred to as, the "pastoral provision." They become Diocesan priests though and not part of a religious community. I'm personally acquainted with two such priests.

Again part of the definition or a religious community, whether it be an Order, a Congregration, Society or whatever, are the three vows. Canon law specifically mentions the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. These are intrinsic to religious life. Diocesan priests, on the other hand, take no vows. Priests of the Latin Church make a promise of obedience to their bishop and his successors at their ordination. The first act of obedience their bishop asks of them then is celibacy.

Hopefully that helps and doesn't confuse the matter more.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), August 24, 2003.


Skoobouy

"I'm called to a celibate priesthood whether it's optional or not."

Thats the point isnt it?

Logic surely folows then that the only priests who will be called to serve as married clergy will be those who would not have been called by God for celibate service.

EVeryone, especially God, wins?

Are there any pastoral vocations that are open to single men or women who wish to devote their lives to serving the Catholic Church full time but may wish to get married in the future?

God Bless

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 25, 2003.


There are no vocations which call an individual to take a vow of celibacy with the provision that he/she can later reject that vow, if that's what you mean. But there are ample opportunities for lay people, single and married, to provide essential ministries within the Church, full time or part time, without taking such vows. If an individual desires to serve the Church, but is not open to a vow of celibacy, then he/she should take that provision either as an indication of which ministries God is NOT calling them to; or, if they feel strongly drawn to such a ministry, pray for greater openness to God's will in embracing the requirements of the ministry they feel called to.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 25, 2003.

What about "optional" marital fidelity to "solve" the "adultery" crisis? Why is lowering moral standards always the first "option" for some people?

Look at all the churches with ordained priests. Are they booming in numbers and influence? Are the the heralds of the gospel and moral authority? nooooooooooooo.

If this is the case (and it is), why in the world should the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church change 1700 years of tradition and custom?

The unspoken argument is: "well, gee, celibacy seems tough TO ME, so gee, it must be tough for everyone, and it must explain a vocational crisis"

In fact, it's always "been tough" - without grace, and always easy with grace (called a "vocation"). If you enter the seminary with your eyes fixed on loving Christ and being willing to witness to Him unto death, the lack of sex or more specifically, a spouse, just doesn't capsize your emotional boat, because Christ is the pilot and the Holy Spirit fills your sails.

The "crisis" of vocations is largely man-man (or woman-made if you count nuns running "theology" departments and chanceries). It is not a crisis of men rejecting the idea of holiness and sacrifice so we'd better lower the standard...

ALL THESE SO-CALLED PRIESTLY "EXPERTS" who now come out in favor of seminarians getting married prior to ordination... oh wait, that's not how they describe it do they? No, they call it priests' getting married...(ol sleight of hand there), are men who don't love Our Lord enough to be faithful to their vows. What message does this give us lay people? If they can change their vows after the fact, when middle age sets in....will they eventually "allow" lay people to dispense with marriage vows?

The sleight of hand is, seminarians or non-catholics can MARRY, AND THEN BE ORDAINED - that's what we see in Acts of the Apostles and Paul's Letters... but once ordained a man cannot marry! If your first spouse dies, you cannot marry again. That's been the constant tradition even in those rites that have married clergy.

The Priests leading the charge for a change want to get married after first getting ordained. And their theological, philosophical and symbolic reasoning is????

The symbol is loud and clear: 40 to 50 year old men, who went through seminary back in the 70's when many so-called "theologians" were teaching them that clergy would "eventually" be allowed to marry... are wondering when that prophecy will come true.

But in the meanwhile the truly prophetic nature of their celibacy - which they were supposed to embrace "for the sake of the kingdom" is left to rot. Men who renounce wives and possessions for the sake of the kingdom of Christ are great witnesses to the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ who is alive and therefore can call us and save us.

I wonder if any of these so-called "experts" have read and took to heart the Pope's book "Gift and Mystery"?

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), August 25, 2003.



Thanks Paul, I did just mean what meaningful vocations (as opposed to doing the parish gardening or working at the local second hand charity shop) are open to those who want to serve the Church but dont think celibacy is for them.

Heil Joe

Im not exactly clear about what you are ranting about, trying to say nor to whom your post is directed at. If youve got something you wish to say to me spell it out and address your message personally please. You seem rather emotional, irrational and confused in your above post if you were talking to me. The issue Im discussing, with a trainee priest is not about your single minded republican conservative obsession (sexual morals) and any link you may be trying to make is very much in your own mind . Personally I think I favour celibacy for priests but eed to read more on the issue. I believe there needs to be expanded roles and responibilities for married couples in the Church structure. Celibacy is the least of the Protesatant worlds problems and is not a factor in any downturn you may percieve IMO .

BTW werre you posting as "Art" and didnt you train to be a priest? WHat happened?

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 26, 2003.


KIWI for goodness sakes, when I say "You", unless I specify by using your name KIWI, I'm talking rhetorically about the "you" of those priests who claim that a married clergy for the Latin Rite is the magic silver bullet solution to anything. I also pointed out that what they are arguing for is a bait and switch. Yes, we all agree that theologically and in practice there are married priests. That it's possible and OK for married men to become ordained. But what has any of this to do with them? THEY ARE ALREADY ORDAINED! And there is absolutely NO TRADITION and no theology for them to stand on to say that after ordination, men can or should be married! That's my point. They obfuscate the issue, turn our attention to true and good and valid ordinations and then sniff that what they want is "the same" when it's not.

I do not and am not posting anything aimed at you "KIWI" so let's not go ad hominem here. I am posting my OPINION about the non-theological motives of those priests in Milwaukee AND ELSEWHERE who are making noise about "married clergy" and stirring the pot as though this was what the Church REALLY NEEDS.

In this debate I think I have a little bit more to say than you do, since I was a seminarian for 11 years, 4 of which I spent in Rome, surrounded by hundreds of other seminarians, half of whom were diocesan. I also worked with priests who ran seminaries around the world and who have personal experience with the Eastern rite seminaries which include married men.

If you have a bone to pick about sexual morality, fine. If you know anything about theology, good. Let's hear it. But my opinion is that these priests and so-called (self-proclaimed) experts who want a married clergy are missing the boat by missing the point of celibacy in the first place, by not knowing the history of that discipline, by not presenting even basic knowledge of the dynamics involved and by aligning themselves with those elements of the Church calling for change without first studying what it is that they want to change!

Your (their) argument for change can't be "yeah, well why not?" What scriptural, traditional, spiritual, theological and psychological points do they - or you - bring up to support your position?

Most of the time so-called "progressive" theologians begin by evading the whole need for scripture (by either dismissing clear texts in favor of innuendo), or dismiss tradition by evoking the snob appeal of "well what could they know? They were just a bunch of white men".

Now, if you think those kinds of "arguments" are solid, God bless you. I don't.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 26, 2003.


Joe, Are you a priest? If not, why not?

Skoobouy, Are you a priest, seminarian or what?

Thanks and God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), August 26, 2003.


The thought of married priests is upsetting to me. Celibacy is following Christ in His earthly life. Priests are more Christlike and Fatherlike to all people when they are not married with their own children. ( it takes away from the Fatherhood of the parish) It would negatively affect the priesthood. To allow marriage would not increase numbers into the priesthood, but it would increase problems. Divorce scandel, talk of blessed homosexual unions....this is what others have with married church leaders...we would be no different. I will add two other points. The Eastern Church does not allow a Bishop to be married...only pre-ordained men...that should tell us something right there and all of the priests that have been mentioned as being married with children in the Catholic Church is nothing more than Anglican converts whose ministries are a mess anyway because of the sin of their forefathers who thought divorce and beheading was OK and started a new religion with it. Personally, I do not think we should let these guys be a priests in the Catholic Church...I would not go to a Church with a married Anglican convert priest...now we can see that this has been a mistake because it has brought this notion again of married priests (it is desensitizing people to what the Church has always been to accept watered down Catholicism.)

-- Pamela (rosylace@aol.com), September 01, 2003.

Dear Pamela,

While I agree with some of your points, and with your overall feeling about married priests, I disagree with some of your statements ...

I do think allowing married priests would increase the number of men entering the priesthood; however I believe it would also decrease the level of commitment and effectiveness such priests could offer to the Church.

The married priesthood of the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church has not been plagued with divorce, talk of homosexual unions, or any other doctrinal/moral problems stemming from the fact of a married priesthood.

It is true that the Eastern Rite does not allow married bishops; however, priests and deacons are not "pre-ordained men". They are ordained men.

Most of the married Catholic priests now serving the Church are NOT former Anglican priests, but Eastern Rite priests who were originally ordained in the Catholic Church. A small percentage of married Eastern Rite priests may be converted Anglican priests, and a higher percentage of married Latin Rite priests are former Anglican priests - but that is still a very small percentage of priests in either rite. In any case, a former Anglican priest - or a former ANYTHING - who has been duly ordained by the Catholic Church is a Catholic priest in good standing and in full communion with the Church. Any discrimination against such a priest on the basis of his past history would be wrong. I wonder if this feeling of yours extends to John Henry Cardinal Newman? Should the Church have excluded this former Anglican priest from the Catholic priesthood?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 01, 2003.


Dear paul, All of my discussion is concerning the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church... I often refer to the Catholic Church as that only of the Latin Rite.....my mistake....and as you said most of those that are married priests in the Latin Rite are former Anglicans.... maybe they could belong to other rites and there would not be as many problems with people in the Latin rite. I have no problem with a celibate Anglican becoming a priest in the Latin Rite...but I believe that if we allow married priests from the Anglican church to invade the Latin Church it will cause big problems with our tradition....not ever going to go there...It is like sucummbing to cultural pressure. Cardinal Newman was a Cardinal Right???? Was he married? I have no problem with celibate or even widowed converts being priests. In my previous post I mentioned pre-ordained men. I meant that the eastern Church allows priest who are Already married to be priest...not Bishops....but it also does not allow priests who are already ordained (obviously) to be married after the sacrament of Holy Orders. That is what I meant. I guess I had always thought that the priest was married to the Church and that is why he had all these children...is this mentioned in the sacrament of Holy orders? Are they wed to the Cburch...because they are Christ to the Church in the most Holy Sacraments? they are the iconography of Christ. This is a good reason for the male only priesthood....if you attack this theology you might open yourself up to destroy the reason to not ordain women....Was Jesus a ploygamist? I think not neither should his priests.....this is the Latin thinking that I have heard on this....

-- Pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), September 01, 2003.

To look for the answer to this question, many things must be taken into consideration. Let us Roman Catholics of the latin rite take a logical look at our close eastern neighbors history to see how they handle this issue. I must say as a gentleman, I certainly fail to see the point when so often we look to men to answer a question that only a woman can answer. How often is the womans view in the world noticed? Unfortunately infrequently, thus, I give you these links straight from "the horses mouth"!

http://www.roca.org/OA/96/96h.htm http://www.theologic.com/oflweb/inchurch/clergywife.htm http://www.byzantines.net/epiphany/ordination.htm

-- Christopher William McAvoy (chris@jazzgame.com), September 25, 2003.


i read the previous discussions and i didn't understand anything about it. may point is i want to know all the advantages and disadvantages of priest marrying. what implications it would bring to society? hope to get you're answer sooner! thanks and god bless!

-- jonna salvania (tud5_jonna@yahoo.com), October 01, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ