Married Catholic Priests. They CAN exist, but do they?

Vinny-Chase

Read a while ago that Protestant, might not necessarily be confined to Protestant minister/ vicars (don't know the correct term) who are married and convert to be Catholic Priests can remain married.

Does any body know of any instances of this happening?

Or is there any chances of the "opposition" turning to the dark side

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Fanny Cradock

I don't have any hard statistics, but a little bit of Googling throws up a number of stories like this. I'm not sure if the priest in question is married but I would imagine that you wouldn't have to look very far to encounter one.

The Smurf

There are some married former Anglican ministers who became Catholic priests and were allowed to keep the wife and children.

There are also married priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches which are in communion with the Pope.

But the norm for the Latin Rite is priestly celibacy and Pope Benedict has spoken often in recent times on the reasons and beauty of this priestly celibacy.

See here: http://www.radiovaticana.org/EN1/Articolo.asp?c=399976 (click on the wee speaker icon) and here: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6619

I don't see why people are so hung up about this. Most of the people talking about this aren't priests and many are unable to be priests.

Also, our Irish priests say they are overworked as it is. Can you imagine if they had wife and kids? They'd be even more inaccessible to their people than they are at present! It's hard enough stealing a few minutes with any of our local priests. I can imagine that the lay people would go out the window of concern altogether if there was wife and kids. God said you can only serve one master. I think if there's a choice between the wife and a parishioner's needs, the wife will win each time. A priest is a shepherd of souls, and should be available to his flock.

Vinny-Chase

As an aside from this but also related. Can anybody provide some info from priests that converted. Reading a little online it appears from the few that I've read about (married aside) they claim that the Anglican church had become too liberal.

Could anybody point me in the direction of some links or articles where the priest discusses his reasons in more detail? Or websites relating to said priests? I'm a little unfamiliar in searching for such things and wouldn't really know where to begin looking. I know about Google before someone says it.

lmaopml

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0801fea3.asp

Here's an article along those lines Vinnychase.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

The Smurf

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

As an aside from this but also related. Can anybody provide some info from priests that converted. Reading a little online it appears from the few that I've read about (married aside) they claim that the Anglican church had become too liberal.

Could anybody point me in the direction of some links or articles where the priest discusses his reasons in more detail? Or websites relating to said priests? I'm a little unfamiliar in searching for such things and wouldn't really know where to begin looking. I know about Google before someone says it.

Fr Dwight Longnecker was an Anglican vicar. He converted and is now a prolific and orthodox Catholic writer - he has a site and a blog:

http://www.dwightlongenecker.com/

http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/

I'm sure you'll find plenty of stuff there.

philologos

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

As an aside from this but also related. Can anybody provide some info from priests that converted. Reading a little online it appears from the few that I've read about (married aside) they claim that the Anglican church had become too liberal.

The Anglican Communion is really a broad organisation.

Firstly, it's split up into independent (in decision making) provinces, all over the world.

Edit: Provinces being like the Church of Ireland, the Church in Wales, Church of England, Anglican Church of Australia, Episcopal Church in the USA, each which make decisions democratically at a General Synod.

Secondly, it's split up by inclination. There are three main contingents of Anglican churches.
1 - Broad Church - Most common. Traditional church structure, but dissimilar to Roman Catholicism in numerous ways. Vestments are worn. These churches would be via-media in between Roman Catholicism and Reformed Protestantism.

2 - Anglo-Catholic - Anglicans who are very similar in practice and belief to Roman Catholics. Often use Father to describe ministers, and believe in transubstantiation, and praying the Rosary.

3 - Evangelicals / Reformed Anglicans - Much more Reformed, emphasising the Protestant tradition of the Anglican Church. More modern evangelical Anglican churches would encourage full immersal baptism, and ministers wouldn't wear vestments. Modern praise songs would be used primarily for worship. Strong emphasis on the Bible. Sydney Diocese in Australia is considered the most Evangelical / Reformed diocese in the Anglican Communion.

I've been to churches that would fit in all three of these categories, but yet would all be Anglican.

Liberal or not-liberal tends to be based on what inclination you are. Broad church tends to be quite liberal, Anglo-Catholicism can be liberal or conservative depending on the church, and more often than not Evangelical / Reformed tend to be conservative, but there are liberal strands as well.

The Global South tends to be more conservative than the Global North, who are changing their teaching much more fluidly in relation to same-sex marriage, abortion, and the role of women in the church. (I would consider the role of women an important issue to examine personally)

decrevit

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

Read a while ago that Protestant, might not necessarily be confined to Protestant minister/ vicars (don't know the correct term) who are married and convert to be Catholic Priests can remain married.

Does any body know of any instances of this happening?

Or is there any chances of the "opposition" turning to the dark side

If you are a Married Catholic man, you can become a Priest. There are many Catholic Rites and some allow married priests (So yes there are married priests in the Catholic church).

For example in the States there are married Catholic priests saying mass in the Greek Catholic rite.

I suggest you apply to become a married deacon.

The Smurf

decrevit wrote: »

If you are a Married Catholic man, you can become a Priest. There are many Catholic Rites and some allow married priests (So yes there are married priests in the Catholic church).

For example in the States there are married Catholic priests saying mass in the Greek Catholic rite.

I suggest you apply to become a married deacon.

It's not as simple as that. I don't think the other Rites look too favourable on 'Rite-Jumpers' switching over simply so as to take advantage.

ISAW

The Smurf wrote: »

It's not as simple as that. I don't think the other Rites look too favourable on 'Rite-Jumpers' switching over simply so as to take advantage.

But they aren't! They already have the "advantage"! they are just changing denomination for reasons other then they already being married priests.

Vinny,
I haven't time to dig out the relevant canons so I apologise for the lazy research


Vinny. the rule in the Roman church is this:

If you are married you may become a priest but if you are a priest and married and say you became a widower then you can't remarry.

In the Orthodox Church priests can marry but monks can't but Bishops are selected from monks. i.e. ther wont be married Bishops or children of Bishops.

There is no absolute rule about it. It is a rule brought in for convenience as far as I remember, principally due to priests having many concubines and children inheritance rights etc. The problem is if you are a Priest and have children you family comes first. Rules can be changed and they ARE in the case of the canon allowing for exceptions. In fact the period Priests could marry is longer in history than the period that they couldn't.

The relevant exceptions I can't locate quickly
The relevant Canons are 1041 /3 and 1042/1

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3S.HTM

Callan57

ISAW wrote: »

But they aren't! They already have the "advantage"! they are just changing denomination for reasons other then they already being married priests.

Vinny,
I haven't time to dig out the relevant canons so I apologise for the lazy research


Vinny. the rule in the Roman church is this:

If you are married you may become a priest but if you are a priest and married and say you became a widower then you can't remarry.

In the Orthodox Church priests can marry but monks can't but Bishops are selected from monks. i.e. ther wont be married Bishops or children of Bishops.

There is no absolute rule about it. It is a rule brought in for convenience as far as I remember, principally due to priests having many concubines and children inheritance rights etc. The problem is if you are a Priest and have children you family comes first. Rules can be changed and they ARE in the case of the canon allowing for exceptions. In fact the period Priests could marry is longer in history than the period that they couldn't.

The relevant exceptions I can't locate quickly
The relevant Canons are 1041 /3 and 1042/1

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3S.HTM

So I take it then it was all right for priests to have 'concubines' and father children as long as neither had inheritance rights or I presume maintenance rights ... in other words as long as the children were in the antiquated term 'illegitemate'?
As we have seen time & again religion my eye it's all about the money.
Oh how very Christian ...

decrevit

The Smurf wrote: »

It's not as simple as that. I don't think the other Rites look too favourable on 'Rite-Jumpers' switching over simply so as to take advantage.

Each rite is as equal as the other. A Married priest is the same as a celibate priest.

But to be honest from my personal point of view, if you are really passionate about the priesthood you would be better serving as a celibate priest. Even in the orthodox church there are many celibate priests. Its hard to juggle family life and the priesthood, its not really a 9 - 5 job. But I have seen catholic married men whose families are grown up become priests in the catholic Church.

The Smurf

decrevit wrote: »

Each rite is as equal as the other. A Married priest is the same as a celibate priest.

But to be honest from my personal point of view, if you are really passionate about the priesthood you would be better serving as a celibate priest. Even in the orthodox church there are many celibate priests. Its hard to juggle family life and the priesthood, its not really a 9 - 5 job. But I have seen catholic married men whose families are grown up become priests in the catholic Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with the Holy See are as Catholic as the Pope.

But what I am saying is this: see how far you get when you present yourself, as a Latin Rite Catholic, telling any of the Eastern Rites that the reason you want to switch rites is because you want to be a married priest and the Latin Rite won't let you. It's not exactly a mature approach to the priesthood and would be very much frowned upon.

decrevit

The Smurf wrote: »

The Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with the Holy See are as Catholic as the Pope.

But what I am saying is this: see how far you get when you present yourself, as a Latin Rite Catholic, telling any of the Eastern Rites that the reason you want to switch rites is because you want to be a married priest and the Latin Rite won't let you. It's not exactly a mature approach to the priesthood and would be very much frowned upon.

You would be surprised.... However I suggest you become a deacon in the latin rite.

Married priests even in the Orthodox church bring certain problems. A priest has to give his life to the church, its a state not a job. Only married men for several years can be ordained and have to be of good standing.

I lived in Romania in the 90's and have many orthodox friends who are priests. Personally I found the celibate priests (who are monks) to be more profound and dedicated, however there are also some good married priests.

Personally I think Catholic Married Men in the Latin rite should be given the option to become priests after meeting certain criteria. But it would be difficult to maintain. A family needs a higher financial support than a celibate priest would. What happens when the priest dies?

Lets face it when Jesus appeared to the apostles after his resurrection it changed the whole dynamic of his teaching, this spurred them to travel and preach is message, none of them married or remarried.

The Smurf

decrevit wrote: »

You would be surprised.... However I suggest you become a deacon in the latin rite.

Married priests even in the Orthodox church bring certain problems. A priest has to give his life to the church, its a state not a job. Only married men for several years can be ordained and have to be of good standing.

I lived in Romania in the 90's and have many orthodox friends who are priests. Personally I found the celibate priests (who are monks) to be more profound and dedicated, however there are also some good married priests.

Personally I think Catholic Married Men in the Latin rite should be given the option to become priests after meeting certain criteria. But it would be difficult to maintain. A family needs a higher financial support than a celibate priest would. What happens when the priest dies?

Lets face it when Jesus appeared to the apostles after his resurrection it changed the whole dynamic of his teaching, this spurred them to travel and preach is message, none of them married or remarried.

But... what if I don't want to become a deacon?

I think priestly celibacy is a good thing and it means that a man is able to dedicate himself completely to the Church. It is also a great witness to the world of the presence and existence of God.

I also think that there is a great danger with any possible change of this discipline. What we need are good, holy priests. I would fear that, were the discipline to be changed, we would have a bunch of faithless lachicos looking for a cushy number, nice wife, children, nice house, and some 'duties' on a Sunday. Believe me, we already have priests like that... We don't need any more and we certainly don't need to encourage them.

As well as the beautiful reasons that Pope Benedict has given recently, there are of course practical questions, like who is going to pay for the wife, children, two cars, house, holidays, pet dog, university fees, healthcare, toys, etc...?

Also, what I don't wuite understand is this: why are people so hung up about priestly celibacy? What are they so concerned about married priests? I am a young man. I am Catholic. I am entertaining the possibility that I might have a vocation to priesthood or religious life - I'm not sure. But one thing I do know is this: I wouldn't want to do both. I don't think I could give myself totally to the Church of Jesus Christ AND give myself totally to my wife and children. There is not enough of me to go around, and something is going to have to give. It's gonna be the wife and children or the Church. Something, somebody is going to have to go to pot.

I think the obsession may actually find its origin, beyond a superficial concern for 'lack of priests', to the fixation the world has on sex. The world says the Church is obsessed with sex. I would say, no, the world is obsessed with sex. That is the world's biggest idol. The priestly celibacy IS a scandal, as the Pope said. It is a scandal to a world that is preoccupied with the here and now, and can't see beyond that. I can't help but think that maybe this desire to end priestly celibacy is really a desire to do away with reminders of the ultimate reality: there is a God, and He does care about us, and He does care about what we do with our lives, in every aspect, including our sexuality.

Pope Benedict beautifully addressed this at the close of the year for priests with a Q&A with priests in Rome:
http://www.zenit.org/article-29632?l=english

Cardinal Humes called priestly celibacy "Christ's Precious Gift to His Church":
http://www.zenit.org/article-19233?l=english

The Smurf

I found this extract from a book interview with the then Cardinal Ratzinger - the whole excerpt is worth reading!

I've attached it as a Word document.

* * *

It is not a dogma. It is a form of life that has grown up in the Church and that naturally always brings with it the danger of a fall. When one aims so high, there [are] failures. I think that what provokes people today against celibacy is that they see how many priests really aren’t inwardly in agreement with it and either live it hypocritically, badly, not at all, or only live it in a tortured way. So people say...
…it ruins them...
The poorer an age is in faith, the more frequent the falls. This robs celibacy of its credibility and obscures the real point of it. People need to get straight in their minds that times of crisis for celibacy are always times of crisis for marriage as well. For, as a matter of fact, today we are experiencing not only violations of celibacy; marriage itself is becoming increasingly fragile as the basis of our society. In the legislation of Western nations we see how it is increasingly placed on the same level as other forms and is thereby largely “dissolved” as a legal form. Nor is the hard work needed really to live marriage negligible. Put in practical terms, after the abolition of celibacy we would only have a different kind of problem with divorced priests. That is not unknown in the Protestant Churches. In this sense, we see, of course, that the lofty forms of human existence involve great risks.
The conclusion that I would draw from this, however, is not that we should now say, “We can’t do it anymore”, but that we must learn again to believe. And that we must also be even more careful in the selection of candidates for the priesthood. The point is that someone ought really to accept it freely and not say, well now, I would like to become a priest, so I’ll put up with this. Or: Well then, I’m not interested in girls anyway, so I’ll go along with celibacy. That is not a basis to start from. The candidate for the priesthood has to recognize the faith as a force in his life, and he must know that he can live celibacy only in faith. Then celibacy can also become again a testimony that says something to people and that also gives them the courage to marry. The two institutions are interconnected. If fidelity in the one is no longer possible, the other no longer exists: one fidelity sustains the other.

ISAW

Callan57 wrote: »

So I take it then it was all right for priests to have 'concubines' and father children as long as neither had inheritance rights or I presume maintenance rights ... in other words as long as the children were in the antiquated term 'illegitemate'?
As we have seen time & again religion my eye it's all about the money.
Oh how very Christian ...

You seem to be mixing up "right and wrong" with what is in accordance with the law. Jesus often pointed out this problem.

decrevit

To the Smurf... Totally agree with your 2 posts. However there should be certain circumstances when Married men should be considered. Half the priests in the Catholic Maronite rite are married. For sure Celibacy is central to the priesthood, it should and will be maintained. But certain married men who have served the church for many years (maybe as deacons) should be given the option to be ordained (maybe once their family has been raised and they are retired).

But I think if a young man wants to serve the church as a priest he should devote his life to christ and not comtemplate married (if he feels called)

ISAW

decrevit wrote: »

For sure Celibacy is central to the priesthood, it should and will be maintained. But certain married men who have served the church for many years (maybe as deacons) should be given the option to be ordained (maybe once their family has been raised and they are retired).

But I think if a young man wants to serve the church as a priest he should devote his life to christ and not comtemplate married (if he feels called)

Deacons ARE ordained!
I don't understand your point. Are you saying that hearing confession and saying Mass are the only important things that married people should aspire to if they feel they are called to a religious life?

decrevit

ISAW wrote: »

Deacons ARE ordained!
I don't understand your point. Are you saying that hearing confession and saying Mass are the only important things that married people should aspire to if they feel they are called to a religious life?

I am married and don't aspire to the priesthood. I think there are many ways I can work in the church without being a deacon/Priests.

And yes Deacons are ordained.

The Smurf

For me, apart from the beautiful theological and practical reasons for celibacy as a priestly discipline, there is the risk that the wrong sorts of people might be tempted to the priesthood.

We've had enough clampits in the priesthood. I fear that the very men who'd be most tempted by a married priesthood right now would be the last sorts of men you would want as priests - men who are heterodox, faithless, and just looking for an easy life and a cushy number. That is not at all what the priesthood is about. I think that now is not the time to be considering any of these things, and I think the Pope would agree with me on that point.

So to summarise, my objection to married priests is based on these factors, in no order:

1. Availability and dedication to the Church
2. Practical problems e.g. supporting families, problems of divorced priests etc...
3. Risk of attracting the wrong sorts of men to the priesthood
4. The beautiful theological reasons for the traditional discipline of celibacy

antiskeptic

The Smurf wrote: »

I think priestly celibacy is a good thing and it means that a man is able to dedicate himself completely to the Church. It is also a great witness to the world of the presence and existence of God.

But lots of people choose to remain batchelors/spinsters - remaining celebate in the process. One needn't draw the conclusion of great sacrifice just because someone enters the priesthood.

I also think that there is a great danger with any possible change of this discipline. What we need are good, holy priests. I would fear that, were the discipline to be changed, we would have a bunch of faithless lachicos looking for a cushy number, nice wife, children, nice house, and some 'duties' on a Sunday. Believe me, we already have priests like that... We don't need any more and we certainly don't need to encourage them.

Which isn't displaying a lot of confidence in the selection process. Can that process (which I gather takes a number of years) not differentiate between a person with a genuine spiritual calling and a .. freeloader?

As well as the beautiful reasons that Pope Benedict has given recently, there are of course practical questions, like who is going to pay for the wife, children, two cars, house, holidays, pet dog, university fees, healthcare, toys, etc...?

A congregation who'd appreciate someone who's life bore a passing resemblance to their own? Someone who shares the same trials that they undergo but who finds strength in the grace of God and can point others to the very source that helped them in their self-same trials?

Also, what I don't quite understand is this: why are people so hung up about priestly celibacy? What are they so concerned about married priests? I am a young man. I am Catholic. I am entertaining the possibility that I might have a vocation to priesthood or religious life - I'm not sure. But one thing I do know is this: I wouldn't want to do both. I don't think I could give myself totally to the Church of Jesus Christ AND give myself totally to my wife and children. There is not enough of me to go around, and something is going to have to give. It's gonna be the wife and children or the Church. Something, somebody is going to have to go to pot.

The above point covers it perhaps. A person might be able to give more but perhaps the quality of the giving is more important than the sheer quantity. Certainly if I was turning to an elder (your priestly equivilent) for guidance on the thorny issues involved in marriage I'd want that counsellor to be someone who had other-than-theoretical insights into what I was talking about.

philologos

The Smurf wrote: »

For me, apart from the beautiful theological and practical reasons for celibacy as a priestly discipline, there is the risk that the wrong sorts of people might be tempted to the priesthood.

There are neither good theological reasons, or good practical reasons for denying ministers the right to marry. Indeed, it is beneficial for ministers to have experience of family life. Indeed, this is a theological reason also:

1 Timothy 3:4-5 wrote:

He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)

The Smurf wrote: »

We've had enough clampits in the priesthood. I fear that the very men who'd be most tempted by a married priesthood right now would be the last sorts of men you would want as priests - men who are heterodox, faithless, and just looking for an easy life and a cushy number. That is not at all what the priesthood is about. I think that now is not the time to be considering any of these things, and I think the Pope would agree with me on that point.

Tempted, makes it sound like it is a sin to desire to share a common goal with another woman and become one under God.

The Smurf

antiskeptic wrote: »

But lots of people choose to remain batchelors/spinsters - remaining celebate in the process. One needn't draw the conclusion of great sacrifice just because someone enters the priesthood.

[True. But a good priest is a man who would also have made a good father. A priest is a father to spiritual children. Therefore a good priest is a man who would experience the sacrifice of giving up marriage for the sake of the Kingdom. ]

Which isn't displaying a lot of confidence in the selection process. Can that process (which I gather takes a number of years) not differentiate between a person with a genuine spiritual calling and a .. freeloader? [I don't actually have very much faith in much of anything that is presently going on at our national seminary. I have inside contacts!]

A congregation who'd appreciate someone who's life bore a passing resemblance to their own? Someone who shares the same trials that they undergo but who finds strength in the grace of God and can point others to the very source that helped them in their self-same trials?
[I don't need to have firsthand experience of marriage in order to advise others on this vocation. It is a modern error which says only those with direct experience are in any way able to comment. The mindset is illustrated when a person says ''What does a celibate old man in Rome know about marriage?'']

The above point covers it perhaps. A person might be able to give more but perhaps the quality of the giving is more important than the sheer quantity. Certainly if I was turning to an elder (your priestly equivilent) for guidance on the thorny issues involved in marriage I'd want that counsellor to be someone who had other-than-theoretical insights into what I was talking about.[see above]

I should issue a reminder that this thread will, by necessity, deal with specifically Catholic ideas which are a given. Many non-Catholics might object to this or that, but this thread is not the place to enter into those kinds of discussions. I know Anti-skeptic or somebody did respect that in another thread. I am just mentioning it now before the thread gets irreparably sidetracked... as tempted as I am to respond to the post above this one.

philologos

The Smurf - You brought up the merits or priestly celibacy on this thread. People should be fully free to disagree with you on this thread, if you bring it up. Non-Catholic opinion is welcome on this board, because it is the "Christianity" forum, and not the "Catholicism" forum.

The Smurf

Jakkass wrote: »

The Smurf - You brought up the merits or priestly celibacy on this thread. People should be fully free to disagree with you on this thread, if you bring it up. Non-Catholic opinion is welcome on this board, because it is the "Christianity" forum, and not the "Catholicism" forum.

You said above:

There are neither good theological reasons, or good practical reasons for denying ministers the right to marry.

The thing is, for Catholic belief, the priest is not just a minister, he is an alter Christus. We could be talking about apples and oranges. Cardinal Ratzinger addressed the issue of the difference in his interview:

“Back to my question: Do you think that perhaps one day priests will be able to decide freely between celibate and noncelibate life?”

I understood your question. I simply had to make it clear that in any event, at least according to what every priest says before his ordination, celibacy is not a matter of compulsion. Someone is accepted as a priest only when he does it of his own accord. And that is now the question, of course: How deeply do priesthood and celibacy belong together? And is not the wish to have only one [without the other] a lower view of the priesthood? Nor do I think that in this matter it’s enough simply to point to the Orthodox Churches and Protestant Christianity. Protestant Christianity has per se a completely different understanding of office: it is a function, it is a ministry coming out of the community, but it is not a sacrament in the same sense; it is not priesthood in this proper sense. In the Orthodox Churches we have, on the one hand, the full form of the priesthood, the priest monks, who alone can become bishops. Alongside them are the “people’s priests”, who, if they want to marry, must marry before ordination but who exercise little pastoral care but are really only liturgical ministers. This is also a somewhat different conception of priesthood. We, on the other hand, are of the opinion that everyone who is a priest at all must be so in the way the bishop is and that there cannot be such a division.

One ought not to declare that any custom of the Church’s life, no matter how deeply anchored and well founded, is wholly absolute. To be sure, the Church will have to ask herself the question again and again; she has now done so in two synods. But I think that given the whole history of Western Christianity and the inner vision that lies at the basis of the whole, the Church should not believe that she will easily gain much by resorting to this uncoupling; rather in any case she will lose if she does so.

“Can one say, then, that you do not believe that one day the Catholic Church will have married priests?”

At least not in the foreseeable future. To be quite honest, I must say that we do have married priests, who came to us as converts from the Anglican Church or from various Protestant communities. In exceptional cases, then, it is possible, but they are just that - exceptional situations. And I think that these will also remain exceptional cases in the future.

The priest is the true pastor of souls. He can only be totally available to his souls if he is celibate, otherwise the souls will come a poor second to wife and kids.

The misunderstanding about the nature of priesthood afflicts the feminists, who just can't understand why they can't use equality legislation to demand priestly ordination. Nobody has a right to be a priest - the Church calls men to the priesthood after the example of Christ and She must be faithful to this example.

philologos

The Smurf wrote: »

The thing is, for Catholic belief, the priest is not just a minister, he is an alter Christus. We could be talking about apples and oranges. Cardinal Ratzinger addressed the issue of the difference in his interview:

The priest is the true pastor of souls. He can only be totally available to his souls if he is celibate, otherwise the souls will come a poor second to wife and kids.

Your position is in contradiction with the Biblical text. In both 1 Timothy and Titus, Paul argues that experience with a family, and in marriage is good for clergy to follow.

Is Paul correct, or is Pope Benedict correct?

The Smurf

Jakkass wrote: »

The Smurf - You brought up the merits or priestly celibacy on this thread. People should be fully free to disagree with you on this thread, if you bring it up. Non-Catholic opinion is welcome on this board, because it is the "Christianity" forum, and not the "Catholicism" forum.

Jakkass wrote: »

Your position is in contradiction with the Biblical text. In both 1 Timothy and Titus, Paul argues that experience with a family, and in marriage is good for clergy to follow.

Is Paul correct, or is Pope Benedict correct?

See, this is what I am talking about. A Catholic-Protestant argument is what I am not prepared to get into as this thread is not the place for it.

(I know you've not read Cardinal Ratzinger's interview!!)

philologos

The Smurf - It's a valid question given that your position is in direct contradiction with the take that Paul took. I've read the quote that you have given, and it also is in direct contradiction with the Biblical take.

If you post something here, people are welcome to question and challenge your point of view. This is a discussion forum.

His position on sacraments is also inaccurate from both Anglican and Lutheran takes on ordination.

The Smurf

Jakkass wrote: »

The Smurf - It's a valid question given that your position is in direct contradiction with the take that Paul took. I've read the quote that you have given, and it also is in direct contradiction with the Biblical take.

If you post something here, people are welcome to question and challenge your point of view. This is a discussion forum.

His position on sacraments is also inaccurate from both Anglican and Lutheran takes on ordination.

Are you saying the Pope is mistaken? I think Protestants are mistaken on both sacraments and morality, as well as other aspects of theology, according to Catholic teaching and the natural law. We've talked about that elsewhere.

Our Blessed Lord lauded celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. Is He mistaken?

Our Catholic priests are meant to be other Christs. They are meant to be shepherds after Christ's own heart. This means they must conform themselves to Christ. The Catholic faith is an incarnational religion. I've come to the conclusion that it is indeed a totally different 'thing' to the Protestant religion.

This is the teaching of the Church on the priesthood. If it is not accepted, then I guess that is anyone's choice. But if I don't like Starbucks coffee, I don't go to the kitchen and complain about it, I go somewhere else, like Costa Coffee. This is what beats me, how people think they can dictate to the Church. If you don't like the product, then that's fine, but don't think you can change it to suit your preferences. That is not how it works.

philologos

The Smurf wrote: »

Are you saying the Pope is mistaken? I think Protestants are mistaken on both sacraments and morality, as well as other aspects of theology, according to Catholic teaching and the natural law. We've talked about that elsewhere.

If the Pope is in direct contradiction to the Apostles, and the Scriptures. Then yes, he is mistaken.

I'm sure we have "talked" about it elsewhere. It's beggars belief that you think that the Pope's opinion comes above the revelation we have from God in the Scriptures.

The Smurf wrote: »

Our Blessed Lord lauded celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. Is He mistaken?

Jesus never said that any member of clergy had to be celibate, but that it was an option that people could take. This is the same position that Paul put across in his writings.

The Smurf wrote: »

Our Catholic priests are meant to be other Christs. They are meant to be shepherds after Christ's own heart. This means they must conform themselves to Christ. The Catholic faith is an incarnational religion. I've come to the conclusion that it is indeed a totally different 'thing' to the Protestant religion.

All Christians are meant to conform themselves to Christ, but this doesn't mean that all have to be celibate. It seems to me that you favour trusting the words of fallible men rather than what is divinely inspired.

The Smurf wrote: »

This is the teaching of the Church on the priesthood. If it is not accepted, then I guess that is anyone's choice. But if I don't like Starbucks coffee, I don't go to the kitchen and complain about it, I go somewhere else, like Costa Coffee. This is what beats me, how people think they can dictate to the Church. If you don't like the product, then that's fine, but don't think you can change it to suit your preferences. That is not how it works.

By the by, I never "changed". As for "complaining about it". I'm not "complaining" I'm merely holding your position to scrutiny. I'm not even arguing that the RCC should change, I'm merely arguing that their current position is in contradiction with the Scriptures.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

If you post something here, people are welcome to question and challenge your point of view. This is a discussion forum.

Quite correct. I am getting rather tired of posters trying to lecture and restrict who can post what in discussion threads. This thread is open for Catholics and non-Catholics alike to express their opinions, and if things get out of line the mods will wield our ban-sticks accordingly.

Vinny-Chase

The Smurf wrote: »

But if I don't like Starbucks coffee, I don't go to the kitchen and complain about it, I go somewhere else, like Costa Coffee. This is what beats me, how people think they can dictate to the Church. If you don't like the product, then that's fine, but don't think you can change it to suit your preferences. That is not how it works.

Yeah but the difference is people aren't told they are eternally damned because Starbucks is the one true coffee, and drinking any other coffee means regardless of your actions you are wrong!

The Smurf

Jakkass wrote: »

If the Pope is in direct contradiction to the Apostles, and the Scriptures. Then yes, he is mistaken.

I'm sure we have "talked" about it elsewhere. It's beggars belief that you think that the Pope's opinion comes above the revelation we have from God in the Scriptures.



Jesus never said that any member of clergy had to be celibate, but that it was an option that people could take. This is the same position that Paul put across in his writings.



All Christians are meant to conform themselves to Christ, but this doesn't mean that all have to be celibate. It seems to me that you favour trusting the words of fallible men rather than what is divinely inspired.



By the by, I never "changed". As for "complaining about it". I'm not "complaining" I'm merely holding your position to scrutiny. I'm not even arguing that the RCC should change, I'm merely arguing that their current position is in contradiction with the Scriptures.

St Paul was a single man, and a great Church leader. He believed that those who are married are concerned with worldly affairs, whereas those who are not may be completely devoted to the Lord. The idea that only a married man with wife and kids is worthy to be a bishop would exclude several of the Apostles, including John and Paul. The Church in the Latin Rite has discerned that the best way for its priests and bishops to live is by voluntary celibacy. I say voluntary, because it is voluntary. If you want to be a priest in the Latin Rite, then ordinarily you must not be married and you must remain celibate. It is in the vows of ordination, it is taken up freely by the candidate for priesthood, thus the priests who talk about compulsory celibacy are talking nonsense. The vow of celibacy is voluntary. If they remember back to their ordination they will see this to be the case. Perhaps they didn't know what they were getting themselves into - that I don't doubt due to the woeful formation given to seminarians at Maynooth, which to this day is very problematic.

Some would argue that the Church forbids marriage, but again this is not the case. Any man or woman is free to marry. But if they make vows to God, then they are no longer free to marry. This is what Paul meant when he mentions an order of widows who had pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge". The early Church did contain orders of religious nuns with mandatory celibacy, just like the Church today has.

philologos

The Smurf wrote: »

St Paul was a single man, and a great Church leader.

OK. So where does that leave him as an authority in comparison to the Pope?

The Smurf wrote: »

He believed that those who are married are concerned with worldly affairs, whereas those who are not may be completely devoted to the Lord.

Paul did say this in 1 Corinthians yes.

The Smurf wrote: »

The idea that only a married man with wife and kids is worthy to be a bishop would exclude several of the Apostles, including John and Paul.

This isn't the reasoning that Paul gives in either Titus, or 1 Timothy in respect to clergy with children. Paul recognises that it can be beneficial to be both married, and be a member of clergy.

The Smurf wrote: »

Some would argue that the Church forbids marriage, but again this is not the case. Any man or woman is free to marry. But if they make vows to God, then they are no longer free to marry. This is what Paul meant when he mentions an order of widows who had pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge". The early Church did contain orders of religious nuns with mandatory celibacy, just like the Church today has.

Nobody once on this thread has said that the RCC forbids marriage. It forbids marriage in certain contexts. This isn't Biblical. Even if one becomes a member of clergy, they should still be free to marry on a Biblical basis, both in the Mosaic covenant and in the New Covenant.

As for the early church, I assume you are referring to the early RCC (post Nicea), rather than the early Christian church (post Jesus).

The Smurf

Jakkass wrote: »

OK. So where does that leave him as an authority in comparison to the Pope? (You tell me!)

Paul did say this in 1 Corinthians yes.

This isn't the reasoning that Paul gives in either Titus, or 1 Timothy in respect to clergy with children. Paul recognises that it can be beneficial to be both married, and be a member of clergy. (Can be beneficial. Can also be not beneficial, as per his other statements.)

Nobody once on this thread has said that the RCC forbids marriage. It forbids marriage in certain contexts. This isn't Biblical. Even if one becomes a member of clergy, they should still be free to marry on a Biblical basis, both in the Mosaic covenant and in the New Covenant. (The tradition is not just like that. In the eastern rite Catholic churches (and I think in the orthodox too) the man can marry then be a priest. He can't be a priest then marry. Plus if the wife dies, she can't be replaced under warranty)

As for the early church, I assume you are referring to the early RCC (post Nicea), rather than the early Christian church (post Jesus).

comments in red.

philologos

The Smurf wrote: »

comments in red.

1. I'm asking you, so I would like to hear your answer.

2. If being a married member of clergy can be beneficial, then there is no good reason for forbidding married clergy to operate, as other denominations do.

3. Another good reason to allow clergy to marry.

The Smurf

Jakkass wrote: »

1. I'm asking you, so I would like to hear your answer.

2. If being a married member of clergy can be beneficial, then there is no good reason for forbidding married clergy to operate, as other denominations do.

3. Another good reason to allow clergy to marry.

1. St Paul is an Apostle. Pope Benedict is the successor of St Peter. You disregard one and accept the other, whereas the Catholic embraces both. Not that the Pope is a continuation of divine revelation which ended with the death of the last Apostle, but the Pope has a unique God ordained purpose (cf. Mt 16:18). This is rejected by Protestants, of course.

2. The Catholic Church is not a 'denomination'. The Catholic Church has married clergy in the Latin Rite, as an exception to the rule. The Church has decided that it is better to have celibate priests as a norm in the Latin Rite, for a variety of reasons.

3. In the east, the bishops are taken from the ranks of the celibate priest monks. The married priests are unable to become bishops. Yet I wonder why there are no major calls to have this changed?

ISAW

Jakkass wrote: »

The Smurf - You brought up the merits or priestly celibacy on this thread. People should be fully free to disagree with you on this thread, if you bring it up. Non-Catholic opinion is welcome on this board, because it is the "Christianity" forum, and not the "Catholicism" forum.

Non Catholics even indeed Buddhists would actually extol the virtues of celibacy so please be prepared to mention that before you might give the impression that it is only a Catholic ideal.

philologos

ISAW wrote: »

Non Catholics even indeed Buddhists would actually extol the virtues of celibacy so please be prepared to mention that before you might give the impression that it is only a Catholic ideal.

I believe most other Christians would also accept that celibacy indeed is virtuous. Most of us wouldn't agree that celibacy should be compulsory before being able to serve God at any stage of ministry though.

The Smurf

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe most other Christians would also accept that celibacy indeed is virtuous. Most of us wouldn't agree that celibacy should be compulsory before being able to serve God at any stage of ministry though.

That's not correct. We have married deacons in the Catholic Church. we even have some married priests in the Latin Rite, and the Eastern Rite Catholics have married priests.

The Church has decided that it is best to have celibate priests as the norm in the Latin Rite. This celibacy is not compulsory, it is mandatory, and they are not the same. [Edit: Hmm... the dictionary says they are. What I mean is... . If you don't want to be a celibate Catholic priest, then nobody will force you to become one. Perhaps young men were strongly coerced/encouraged in Ireland of times past, but certainly not now.]

mdebets

The Smurf wrote: »

1. St Paul is an Apostle. Pope Benedict is the successor of St Peter. You disregard one and accept the other, whereas the Catholic embraces both. Not that the Pope is a continuation of divine revelation which ended with the death of the last Apostle, but the Pope has a unique God ordained purpose (cf. Mt 16:18). This is rejected by Protestants, of course.

If the RCC bases the special position of the Pope on him being the successor to St. Peter, why isn't he allowed to follow St. Peter's lifestyle and can marry, as St. Peter was clearly married?

So if you embrace both, St. Paul and the popes, whom do you follow if they contradict each other (e.g S.t Paul doesn't say celibacy is needed, Pope Benedict says it is)?

dory

The Smurf wrote: »

I don't see why people are so hung up about this. Most of the people talking about this aren't priests and many are unable to be priests.

People are 'so hung up' about it because they believe the child abuse may never have happened if the priests had had their own families and children. They were instead made live a very lonely, and unnatural life which may have been why they went so insane when it came to children.

Also, when it comes to things like pre-marriage courses they might actually know what they're talking about.

How many people scoffed at a woman with a screaming 2 year old in a supermarket, but then later got their own 2 year old and completely understood.

The Smurf wrote: »

Also, our Irish priests say they are overworked as it is. Can you imagine if they had wife and kids? They'd be even more inaccessible to their people than they are at present! It's hard enough stealing a few minutes with any of our local priests. I can imagine that the lay people would go out the window of concern altogether if there was wife and kids. God said you can only serve one master. I think if there's a choice between the wife and a parishioner's needs, the wife will win each time. A priest is a shepherd of souls, and should be available to his flock.

In all fairness, many Christian priests of other denominations can marry and I've never once heard someone complain that they can't get time with their priest because of it. In fact, it may entice more people to the role and cause an increase in the amount of priests. So they can live their happy lives with their families and attend to their flock.

antiskeptic

But lots of people choose to remain batchelors/spinsters - remaining celebate in the process. One needn't draw the conclusion of great sacrifice just because someone enters the priesthood.

True. But a good priest is a man who would also have made a good father. A priest is a father to spiritual children. Therefore a good priest is a man who would experience the sacrifice of giving up marriage for the sake of the Kingdom.

The Roman church (like any church) cannot produce only good priests – it will produce average and poor priests too. Indeed, priests on average will be average – which reduces the sacrificial element to but average (by this thinking of yours).

Which isn't displaying a lot of confidence in the selection process. Can that process (which I gather takes a number of years) not differentiate between a person with a genuine spiritual calling and a .. freeloader?

I don't actually have very much faith in much of anything that is presently going on at our national seminary. I have inside contacts!

Which dissolves your point in that case. There is no need to worry about lack of celibacy attracting freeloaders if the process can’t differentiate anyway between those who have a genuine calling and those who are unsuitable material for the priesthood.

A congregation who'd appreciate someone who's life bore a passing resemblance to their own? Someone who shares the same trials that they undergo but who finds strength in the grace of God and can point others to the very source that helped them in their self-same trials?


I don't need to have firsthand experience of marriage in order to advise others on this vocation. It is a modern error which says only those with direct experience are in any way able to comment. The mindset is illustrated when a person says ''What does a celibate old man in Rome know about marriage?''

The question isn’t whether you can advise – anyone can indeed advise anyone on anything – but whether your advice carries any weight. Sure, someone can see that a marriage problem is rooted in selfishness and use a general knowledge to advise on the specific case. But to suppose one can do as well as someone with direct experience is to dissolve the role of experience in advising.

The Smurf wrote: »

I should issue a reminder that this thread will, by necessity, deal with specifically Catholic ideas which are a given. Many non-Catholics might object to this or that, but this thread is not the place to enter into those kinds of discussions.

I think it is, since this is a Christianity forum. Folk would be entitled to question the wisdom of Catholic teaching. You can respond that the Roman Church says it, you believe it, that settles it in which case no discussion is possible (nor necessary). But if attempting to posit the reasonableness of the position on celebate priests then that standpoint is open to query.

ISAW

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think it is, since this is a Christianity forum. Folk would be entitled to question the wisdom of Catholic teaching. You can respond that the Roman Church says it, you believe it, that settles it in which case no discussion is possible (nor necessary). But if attempting to posit the reasonableness of the position on celebate priests then that standpoint is open to query.

Indeed, it is, but please don't conflate an issue based on reference to reasonable argument with bigotry, even if it is based on belief in authoritative theological source.

antiskeptic

ISAW wrote: »

Indeed, it is, but please don't conflate an issue based on reference to reasonable argument with bigotry, even if it is based on belief in authoritative theological source.

I'm not sure what you mean here ISAW?

The Smurf

dory wrote: »

People are 'so hung up' about it because they believe the child abuse may never have happened if the priests had had their own families and children. They were instead made live a very lonely, and unnatural life which may have been why they went so insane when it came to children.

In all fairness, many Christian priests of other denominations can marry and I've never once heard someone complain that they can't get time with their priest because of it. In fact, it may entice more people to the role and cause an increase in the amount of priests. So they can live their happy lives with their families and attend to their flock.

Happily married men also abuse their own children. Abusers abuse, it's what they do, whether they are married or not. Most sexual abuse takes place in families by fathers, uncles, step-father etc... Marriage is not a hospital for sexual deviants.

It's a popular but erroneous notion: celibacy drives normal, healthy men mad, and then they abuse boys.

The actual case is this: unbalanced men became priests and abused boys.

Let's try similar logic on the married man: healthy, normal men get married, go mad, and abuse their own children. Or try this: a sexual deviant gets married, the marriage cures his problem, and they all live happily ever after.

The popular narrative is peddled by all sorts of people who should know better, including the abbot of Glenstal, on the 'would you believe' programme, who said the same thing as what you've just said.

ISAW

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean here ISAW?

Did you not use the words?:

1. "the Roman Church says it, you believe it, that settles it in which case no discussion is possible (nor necessary)"

that is different to saying

2. there is an established authoritative theological source and the debate has been trashed out before and a person trusts that source.

Case 1 tantamount to bigotry case 2 isn't!

philologos

How is it ISAW?