Posted on 11/19/2004 11:24:44 AM PST by NYer
Would the Church be better served if priests were married? Those who propose lifting the celibacy requirement claim that this change would bring about a great increase in vocations, would provide parishes with priests who better understand the problems of family life, would make the priests themselves happier, and would generally improve the Church all around. It sounds lovely. But the advocates of a married clergy need to give a little more thought to the real consequences of their blithe slogans. Perhaps they will listen to a wife who has been there.
Let us consider a typical, moderately large parish in an affluent American community, in which three priests live in a rectory that also houses the parish office. What changes would have to be made if the priests of this parish were married?
First, there would have to be many more priests at the parish. A celibate man can give all his time to the parish; a married man must give priority to his family. So these three priests must become five or six, leaving the "priest shortage" right where it was, even if the removal of the celibacy rule doubles the number of priests in America.
But that's only the beginning. The stipend of a priest is nowhere near enough to support a family; it's not even half enough. The salary of a married priest would have to be about three times the current stipend in order to keep a priest's family above the federal poverty line. (Would young men flock to the priesthood so they can support their families in near-poverty?) If the parish does not want the priest and his family to be the poorest family in the neighborhood, probably unable to afford even to send their children to the parish school, the salary would have to be higher still. Now figure in health insurance premiums for a wife and several children per priest.
And, of course, those six families can't all live in that rectory, and the parish offices can't be in the home of just one of them. So we now need six houses, and extra space somewhere else, to replace the one rectory. If the priests are expected to furnish their own housing, their salary will have to be increased even more.
Thus, supporting married priests will cost that three-priest parish more than six times what it now spends to support its priests. Does any parish consider itself that affluent? Is the average parishioner willing to multiply his offering by six? In all likelihood, the priests will have to work outside the priesthood to bring in income. Of course, their time for the parish and parishioners will decrease. So the parishioners, even if they could somehow support their six priests, would still find themselves short of priestly attention.
The financial burden is one thing, but there is also a very heavy emotional burden to be borne by priests - and their families. One hears the argument that "Protestant ministers can marry, and it works well for them," but the fact is that it doesn't work well. How many of the advocates of a married priesthood are truly aware of the struggles of a Protestant clergyman's family?
Every married pastor faces, throughout his career, the tension between the needs of the church and the needs of his family. Some find ways to resolve it to their satisfaction; most do not. Both church and family require more than half of a man's time and energy. Both can be demanding; and churches, which generally have no interest in a pastor's emotional health, are particularly demanding. The effects of this tension show up in families in various ways. Some wives - and many children - of pastors blame the church for depriving them of husband or father and leave the church, and even Christianity, altogether. One pastor said he expected his tombstone to read "Daddy's Gone to Another Meeting. " Another came home from a trip to find that his young son didn't even know he had been away - he was home so rarely anyway. Many a pastor's wife considers herself the next thing to a single parent.
On top of this, a pastor's wife and children are themselves without pastoral care. No man, however talented or dedicated, can be pastor and husband or father to the same people. The objectivity required of the pastoral role is missing. But the minister's family cannot seek spiritual direction and sustenance elsewhere; loyalty and the need to avoid the appearance of a split in the family require that they remain at his church. When the father's career and the family's spiritual life are one and the same, the spiritual life suffers badly.
A priest or minister is seldom off duty. Any family activity is likely to be interrupted, often for the most trivial of reasons. A vacation at home is impossible for a clergyman's family; if he's around, he's assumed to be available to his flock. The bum-out rate among Protestant pastors is very high. If relaxing the celibacy rule increases the number of priests, it will have to increase it enough to make up for the large number who will leave the priesthood when they, like so many of their Protestant colleagues, find the toll it takes on the families impossible to accept.
Or if a priest's wife leaves him, and the priest wants to continue functioning as a priest, what is the bishop supposed to do? Pretend everything is fine? What sort of message would that send? Would many parishioners be scandalized? Would others feel they now have permission to dump their spouses? And how well would any of them be pastored by the priest going through this private anguish? Or should the bishop quietly and quickly ship the priest (and his children?) off to a remote outpost in the diocese, hoping no one will be the wiser? This tactic has not won the hearts of Catholics where the problem has been pedophilia or some other violation of the vow of celibacy.
Or should the priest be laicized? Many would see this as the only solution that fully honors the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Could the institution of marriage, already stretched to the breaking point and denigrated to the point of virtual irrelevance, survive the spectacle of separating and divorcing priests who are allowed to continue functioning as priests? But others would feel that automatic laicization would punish the priest for transgressions that were, in most cases, not entirely his own or for a tragedy that was not entirely his fault. And is any of us ready to hear this announcement from the pulpit: The special third collection today will be for our Alimony Fund?
It is a fact that most Christians see their clergy as men set apart, not quite "real people," regardless of the steps the minister or priest takes to counteract that view. This impression, strong in Protestant churches, is even stronger among Catholics, because Catholic priests are set apart by their ordination in a way Protestant ministers are not. This sense of separateness extends to the pastor's family. A minister's wife who is pregnant may find that church members are uncomfortable with her as a living symbol of the pastor's active sexuality; a minister's children often find the expectation that they will be models of good behavior, piety, and academic achievement a crushing burden. Close friendships within the church can prove impossible to establish, depriving the pastor's family of the bonds with other Christians so important to spiritual growth. The difference between the Protestant and Catholic understandings of ordination means that a priest's family would suffer this isolation to an even greater degree than a Protestant minister's family does.
In discussing the need for more vocations, it is easy to offer facile solutions, to say that many more young men would become priests if priests could be married. There is little evidence to support this contention; but even if it were true, the cure would be worse than the disease
The unmarried man cares for the Lord's business; his aim is to please the Lord. But the married man cares for worldly things; his aim is to please his wife; and he has a divided mind. 1 Corinthians 7-32-33, NEB
Mother Church knows best.
I read somewhere that the more Eucharist Adoration happens the more vocations occur in that area.
Biblical evidence for the discipline of celibacy can be found in both the Old and the New Testaments. In the Old, Jeremiah was forbidden by God to take a wife in order to enable him to fulfill his ministry better. "The word of the Lord came to me: 'You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place'" (Jer. 16:1-2).
The celibacy of the priesthood should not be seen as a burden that impedes vocations, but as a living witness to the world that serving Christ is worth sacrificing even the greatest joys of human life-a wife and family. "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).
Source: This Rock 2001
The Church is not set up to profit a family for a priest and it would bring the church lawsuits as they deal with lawsuits from divorces and wives attempting to sue for Church assets.
The wife after divorce would look for church assets always claiming she was an un-paid employee working with her husband.
In addition, these women would expect the church to pay support over numerous situations.
They have enough problems getting rid of the homosexual predators that have lied in their oaths to become priests and are now costing the Church billions.
There is enough problems without married priests.
Excellent thread for all Catholics to read. Article has interesting,factual info and the comments do too.
Ping!
I am confused. Were you alluding that I disagreed with the article?
If so, and I say it respectfully and charitably, I totally agree with the article AND your post.
Peace to you.
If I misunderstood you, I apologize.
Dear NYer,
Although I prefer a celibate priesthood for the Latin Rite, this article is junk, at least in our archdiocese.
Even "moderately large" parishes often don't have three priests nowadays.
1. "First, there would have to be many more priests at the parish."
Baloney.
We have had as many as 1300 families in our parish (an above average number in our diocese), and we have never had more than two priests, and at times have had only one priest. Right now, we have two. Both are older men. Our pastor, though not retired, is nonetheless on in years, and likely does not work any more hours then most professional men I know.
Our second priest is actually semi-retired, and doesn't put in anything near a full workweek.
So, effectively, we have 1 1/2 priests. For over a thousand families.
We also have two hard-working married deacons without whom the parish would come to a standstill. But they're already married!
One receives no pay at all, and the other receives a small stipend because he functions to a large degree as a parish administrator.
If our priests were married, we'd do fine with one full-time man working around 50 hours per week and another part-time priest.
2. "But that's only the beginning. The stipend of a priest is nowhere near enough to support a family; it's not even half enough. The salary of a married priest would have to be about three times the current stipend in order to keep a priest's family above the federal poverty line."
"And, of course, those six families can't all live in that rectory, and the parish offices can't be in the home of just one of them. So we now need six houses, and extra space somewhere else, to replace the one rectory. If the priests are expected to furnish their own housing, their salary will have to be increased even more."
No, my BS detector is going off with this one.
Part of the reason why a priest's salary is so low is that he gets free housing. If a married priest could live in our rectory with his family, it would be unnecessary to increase his salary three-fold. It might not be necessary to increase his salary to even double.
Since we get by on 1 1/2 priests, the pastor and his family could live in our (5000 sq ft with four bedrooms and 3 1/2 bathrooms, plus private offices and a partially-finished basement) rectory, and pay the other priest a part-time salary equivalent to what we pay our current "associate pastor." The second priest would still be able to hold a full-time job otherwise. In fact, the second priest, though he'd be a might busy fellow, would financially do rather well.
Now, if you did have more than one full-time priest, certainly sharing the rectory would be out of the question. But if a parish paid the second priest three times the salary of what a priest in our archdiocese now receives, he would need no housing allowance at all. His income would be about the same as many of the members of our parish.
"Does any parish consider itself that affluent?"
Certainly, our costs would go up if we had a married priesthood.
But frankly, our parish takes in the better part of a million dollars per year. If we were paying out an extra $60K - $80K in priestly salaries, we'd cope.
3. "Every married pastor faces, throughout his career, the tension between the needs of the church and the needs of his family."
Yet, somehow, folks in the Eastern Rites manage. This is a red herring.
4. "One pastor said he expected his tombstone to read 'Daddy's Gone to Another Meeting.' Another came home from a trip to find that his young son didn't even know he had been away - he was home so rarely anyway. Many a pastor's wife considers herself the next thing to a single parent."
This doesn't happen to married men who are not priests?
5. "A priest or minister is seldom off duty. Any family activity is likely to be interrupted, often for the most trivial of reasons. A vacation at home is impossible for a clergyman's family..."
No married men who are not priests have this problem? I go to church with lots of guys, do stuff with them evenings and weekends, and have often seen them interrupted by phone calls from work. Not so uncommon in the real world.
* * *
There are good reasons to retain a celibate priesthood in the Latin Rite.
Too bad this author couldn't mention some of them.
sitetest
I know you agree, but I was pointing out the "main" parts that would bankrupt the Church if they did marry priest.
There would be lawsuits everywhere and a bunch of judicial activist judges and Catholic hating juries that would gladly award all Church assets to former wives IMO.
We best never go there for sure.
Matthew 19:12 "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."
Matthew 6:24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other."
You're right to say this happens all the time. My daughter never tells her children when my son-in-law has to (very rarely) go out of town. It's too upsetting to them. But since he works such long hours anyway, the kids don't notice it if she doesn't mention it. When they want to call Daddy at work, she'll say, "Make sure you call him on his cell phone," which they sometimes have to do even when he's in town and believe it or not, they don't even question it. Her oldest is in third grade.
I will say however, that I think many men (my son-in-law included) who work these backbreaking hours have the benefit of making an excellent living. So the single mother aspect can be alleviated somewhat. My daughter has a cleaning lady who comes once a week, she can afford to have her grocery order delivered to her house, she sends her husbands shirts out to the laundry etc. I'm thinking priests' wives don't have those same luxuries.
Peter, the first pope, and the apostles that Jesus chose were, for the most part, married men. The New Testament implies that women presided at eucharistic meals in the early church.
Popes who were married
St. Peter, Apostle
St. Felix III 483-492 (2 children)
St. Hormidas 514-523 (1 son)
St. Silverus (Antonia) 536-537
Hadrian II 867-872 (1 daughter)
Clement IV 1265-1268 (2 daughters)
Felix V 1439-1449 (1 son)
Popes who were the sons of other popes, other clergy
Name of Pope Papacy Son of
St. Damascus I 366-348 St. Lorenzo, priest
St. Innocent I 401-417 Anastasius I
Boniface 418-422 son of a priest
St. Felix 483-492 son of a priest
Anastasius II 496-498 son of a priest
St. Agapitus I 535-536
Gordiaous, priest
St. Silverus 536-537 St. Homidas, pope
Deusdedit 882-884 son of a priest
Boniface VI 896-896 Hadrian, bishop
John XI 931-935 Pope Sergius III
John XV 989-996 Leo, priest
Popes who had illegitimate children after 1139
Innocent VIII 1484-1492 several children
Alexander VI 1492-1503 several children
Julius 1503-1513 3 daughters
Paul III 1534-1549 3 sons, 1 daughter
Pius IV 1559-1565 3 sons
Gregory XIII 1572-1585 1 son
The only thing you are going to come up with will show you and anyone else that Peter was definitely married,at one time. We know this beause Jesus healed his mother-in-law. Since I was widowed at 27,it is not hard for me to understand that the mother-in-saw probably out lived her daughter,just as my mother-in -law outlived her son,my husband by about 25 years.
When you come back with anything different I will read what you wrote but you will not bcause it is not there.
I don't know whether the apostles were married or not. We know that at one time Peter certainly was. I don't think anyone here is arguing that there isn't precedent for a married priesthood. For me (and I believe most Roman Catholics who favor a celibate priesthood)I think the reasons are practical ones. I for one would much rather have a married priest than a practicing homosexual, but I really don't want a married priest at all. I like that the priest is a special, annointed figure in our community. I would be uncomfortable confessing sins to a married man.
But you were certainly correct in pointing out that very few dioceses these days have the luxury of three ptiests. The only one I know positively that has three priests in sesidence is the Jesuit run parish. All of them are under sixty five but I don't know the size of the parish,it is not the largest around but it's large.
Isn't that why the church imposed the discipline in the first place? Not divorce back then, but inheritance of Church properties was a big deal.
You are correct. My error in a hasty copy and paste job. However, how did all those in the list I posted possibly manage?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.