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
Of course it's a double standard. There are bishops who will not allow priests who have been laicized (relieved of their celibacy promise) and who have married, to have any role whatsoever in a parish, including acting as a lector, a eucharistic minister, or to teach in the RCIA.
Men who have been ministers of the Gospel, and who are in good standing with the Church, cannot be a minister of any kind if they marry.
Thankfully, John Paul II is not so callous, though he laicizes few priests today.
Dear sinkspur,
"There are bishops who will not allow priests who have been laicized (relieved of their celibacy promise) and who have married,..."
These are not married men who sought ordination.
These are ordained men who subsequently married.
Ask kosta what the Orthodox think of such a man.
sitetest
These men have also been laicized.
For a bishop to refuse to allow them to teach or otherwise perform some parish ministry is the height of stupidity.
Thankfully, my bishop is not one of these short-sighted men.
Dear sinkspur,
"These men have also been laicized."
And that was a kindness to them.
"For a bishop to refuse to allow them to teach or otherwise perform some parish ministry is the height of stupidity."
Regrettably, we're subject to far stupider things from bishops.
sitetest
How can Orthodox priests have different vows?
All Orthodox priests go through the same ordination -- none takes a vow of celibacy. Celibacy is taken upon assuming monastic life style.
Marriage after ordination has never been allowed. I am sure an Orthodox priest would be "laicized" if he did that. Basically he would be defrocked. I am not sure what eucharistic minister, RCIA or lector is, so I can't really answer that.
Dear kosta50,
"Thank you for clarifying things up a lot. Good answers."
You're welcome. And thanks.
"All Orthodox priests go through the same ordination -- none takes a vow of celibacy. Celibacy is taken upon assuming monastic life style."
But eventually, some, then, take a vow of celibacy, as they enter the monastic life.
Further, all Orthodox priests, correct me if I'm wrong, promise not to marry once having been ordained. Those who are already married stay married. Those not married may not subsequently married.
Effectively, a single man who is ordained a priest in Orthodoxy undertakes life-long celibacy.
But a married man does not.
The only difference for us Catholics is that we refuse to ordain most married men.
Certainly, each Catholic-Orthodox Church has the right and authority to determine who will and won't be ordained (excepting, of course, that some are not qualified, and may not be validly ordained by any Church), and what rules will be followed for ordination.
For the Eastern Churches, celibacy is the rule only for the monastic life and for the episcopacy.
For the Western Church, celibacy is the general rule for all, but admits of exceptions when deemed appropriate for the salvation of souls.
For both East and West, celibacy is required for those who enter the priesthood unmarried, or who are widowed after ordination.
sitetest
Confessions of a Married Clergyman
©Deacon Keith A. Fournier
I recently returned from two events that gave me great hope for the future of the clergy. First, I had the privilege of visiting a seminarians retreat. There, I met forty wonderful men, in love with Jesus Christ and His Church, clearly called to the celibate life and ready to give themselves to the Lord and His people.
Later, I spoke to over a hundred permanent deacons, their wives, their priest director and their wonderful Bishop. These men are serving sacrificially as an order of clergy in the midst of the world, committed to the “new evangelization” proclaimed by the Pope.
I left both experiences with a deeper conviction than I already had (which was quite deep!) that the “gates of hell will not prevail” against our beloved Church. Like every person who has heard or been in any way affected by the “sexual scandal” and resulting crisis facing the Catholic Church, I am still outraged, deeply hurt, concerned and moved to both prayer and action.
I have prayed my heart out, appeared as a guest on Television programs, attempted to explain this horror to my children, tried in any way I can to support the victims, promote proper prosecution of the offenders and help provide insight to other Christians and people of good will who have been shocked by this grievous scandal.
Because I love the Catholic Church, I have proposed, along with many others, that this is a time of purification that sets a course, a way of response, paved by justice, truth, penance and authentic conversion, if she responds in a manner that is faithful to the gospel she proclaims.
This way has been forged by the Lord who "hears the cry of the poor" - the abused and the faithful who deserve a Church that can be trusted. He is the One who will guide us all through this time of testing, travail and eventual triumph. I believe that we have begun the path down that road and I am deeply grateful once again for the leadership of a giant in the Chair of Peter, John Paul II.
Because I believe that the Church is a gift, a communion that has been given from above, I know that it is intended to be a home for the whole human race. It is not the possession of anyone but it’s Divine Founder. The Church is also, as her servant/leaders said so well at the Second Vatican Council, "an expert in humanity."
I believe in faith that the Church will rise to the occasion and do what is right because the promise of her Leader and Savior that "the gates of hell will not prevail" can be trusted.
However, this is also a time when ideas on how to "fix" the perceived "problem" abound -some sincere and some not. Instant "experts" tell a troubled and angry public how to "remedy" the problem. This has become a "moment" for everyone who has an agenda with the Catholic Church to "jump in" and "pile on" From editorial writers, cartoonists to talking heads, they continue to do so.
Perhaps the ones I find most distressing are the disingenuous, those who have spent entire careers from within the Catholic Church seeking to conform it to their own designs. Ironically, many of these new "experts" have long supported a counterfeit notion of "freedom" that actually promotes some of the very deviant sexual behaviors that lie at the root of some of the criminal acts involved.
For example, months ago I was saddened to see one such priest /"theologian" who has systematically sought to serve as a fifth column from a tenured faculty position in a prestigious catholic School in the Midwest, don a collar (for the first time to my knowledge in many years) and become an "expert" during this scandal.
First, there already are married clergy in the Catholic Church. I am one. I have been happily married for twenty seven years with five children! Even that would surprise many readers. There are many of us however!
I am a Deacon, the first Order of Clergy in the Catholic Church. It is followed by Priest, and Bishop. The sacrament of "Holy Orders" unfolds itself through three stages as deacon, priest and Bishop. Each order of Clergy serves in a different way. Deacons are ordained for the ministry of Word, Service and Sacrament.
In the West, we are mostly married and serve as an order of clergy in the midst of the word. We go from the altar to the world, mostly also have careers and are called to manifest Christ the Servant in the real world.
Though in the early Church this order of Clergy was often a "terminal" order (meaning that men served as deacons for a long time, often for life) and never proceeded to priesthood, in more recent centuries in the West, it fell into "disuse" and became a "transitional order". That was changed by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. The ancient practice was resumed and Deacons once again are flourishing in both the Eastern and Western Church.
Deacons are a growing body of married clergyman, ministering in the areas of social justice, charity, and care for the sick. In addition to our ministries outside the local parishes, we are also baptizing, assisting at the altar, at marriages and at funerals. We are not priests. We are deacons. Because this order of clergy is often not yet within the common experience of many Roman Catholics, we were sometimes referred to as "lay" deacons. That is a misnomer. We are clergy.
The decision for marriage in our lives was made before our ordination to the clerical state. It was a separate calling and invitation. Some deacons embraced the invitation to celibacy out of love for Christ, in sacrificial service and in prophetic witness to His bride the Church. All of us who are married deacons promised to remain celibate should the Lord call our wives home before us!
In the Eastern Catholic Church, we have served as clergy in an uninterrupted line back to the first ordination of the "seven" recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. (See e.g. Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 6) Similarly, our brothers, called to priesthood in the Eastern Catholic Church, are both celibate and married.
That’s right. There have always been married Catholic priests! In the East, following the ancient tradition of the unified Catholic Church, the decision for state in life (married or celibate) was made prior to ordination to the first order, the Deaconate. Even though there were married priests, it became the custom (and is still the practice) to choose Bishops from among the celibate clergy.
Finally, in addition to these married priests, a growing number of ministers from other Christian communions, embracing full communion with the Catholic Church, are being ordained to both the Deaconate and the Priesthood as married men.
One would not know any of this if your only sources of information were the editorials and articles in newspapers, the discussions (good and bad) on talk shows, or the simplistic recounting of the history (as well as the canonical status) of the discipline and witness of consecrated celibacy in the Catholic Church. In fact, misinformation in all of these channels of communication has all too often informed the trough of public opinion.
All of the discredited claims concerning the discipline of celibacy in the Catholic Church are once again being presented as ‘facts". You have heard the most prevalent- that celibacy wasn’t imposed in the Church until the 6th (or 9th, or 10th) century and that the motive for imposing celibacy was to prevent Church property from being inherited by the children of the clergy. Both fall short of the truth.
The truth is that the witness of consecrated celibacy (for the sake of the kingdom) goes back to the invitation of Jesus (Matthew 19:12). It is bolstered by the witness of some of the Apostles and encouraged by the pastoral experience (see, e.g. 1 Corinthians 7) of the early Church for those who would serve as clergy. It forms an unbroken witness and a treasure, both for those who embrace it and for the whole Church that has been enriched by those who have.
The true original motivation for celibacy was the response to Jesus who invited his apostles to forsake marriage to become "eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom". (Matt. 19:12) This was even more "counter cultural" in the Semitic world as it is today in the west. The prophetic witness of celibacy has endured beyond the ranks of celibate clergy.
It is both preserved and flourishing in the inspired vowed life of monastic orders, the sacrificial witness of religious men and women, and the increasing new associations of lay men and woman, who have chosen it not to avoid marriage but to enter more fully into the very nuptial mystery that marriage reveals.
At the heart of both marriage and consecrated celibacy as a response to the invitation of the Gospel is the Christian claim that all of those who are joined to Jesus Christ are, in a real and substantive way, invited into the great "marriage", the nuptial mystery of eternal communion with God.
Secondly, celibacy is not the "culprit" or the problem behind these reprehensible criminal acts that have been committed by a minute minority of priests. Rather than a problem, celibacy is a gift. Yet, this shallow claim is the most frequently offered "solution" or "fix" for the present scandals. It is expressed in the in the oft quoted question of the six O’clock news "Should priests be allowed to marry?"
The very phrase reveals a true lack of understanding of both the theology and history of the celibate life as discussed above. A priest who has vowed celibacy before ordination is, in a sacramental and theological sense, already married to Christ and His Church. He has made a vow. His marriage would be a breaking of that sacred vow and would not only be invalid under canon law; it would be akin to me, as a married clergyman, divorcing my wife!
Even if the mandatory discipline of celibacy were to be relaxed in the western Church, the actual question should be "should married men be admitted to candidacy to the priesthood" There is more than semantics involved in this rephrasing.
To properly and truthfully use an old cliché "some of my best friends" are priests, both celibate and married. They are all wonderful priests, living their vocation with dignity and holiness. Yet, even within that community of celibate and married priests, there are different kinds of ministry within the one priesthood of Jesus Christ. The Eastern Church understands this and assigns married priests to different types of ministry.
Celibacy has absolutely nothing to do with this scandal. The fact that celibate priests (at least in the West) are involved does not make it the cause.
Other communions demonstrate through their history and experience that lifting the mandatory discipline of celibacy in the Western Catholic Church is not some "fix". Unfortunately, one has unfortunately only to look at the Anglican church of Canada, where their ordained ministers may marry. It may soon be bankrupt in western Canada because of sex abuse lawsuits.
Additionally there is still another dark cloud on the horizon, about to burst forth as this sad dark night of our contemporary crisis unfolds. The undeniable facts will reveal that the majority of the incidents of sexual abuse involve homosexual relations with young boys, not technically pedophilia. Some would say that this comment is a "technicality". I do not think so.
There is a biblical principle here. Only the truth, the full truth can set us free. What has been "hidden in secret" will be shouted from the housetop. We must uncover the whole awful truth if we ever expect to make amends and to heal the wounds. These actively homosexual priest perpetrators would not be marrying women if they were "allowed" to marry.
Unfortunately, there are those who are using this tragedy to promote their agenda of married clergy or women "clergy" are any number of other such demanded "changes" in the Church. They are often the same ones who, if they would be truthful, are also calling for the "ordination" of women and actively practicing homosexual men to the ranks of deaconate, priesthood and the episcopacy.
They present "Holy Orders" not as a vocational call but as some kind of job or ecclesial political power position that people have a "right" to!
Behind their efforts are often other agendas. They reveal a bigger motivation for being so involved in this crisis and a flawed ecclesiology (theology of the Church) wherein they view the Church not from above but only from below. In this view, the Church is only a convocation, a human organization and the orders of clergy are some form of power position that everyone has a "right" to occupy!
Sometimes within the world view behind their claims is a belief in a power matrix view of human freedom, the very sickness that lies at the root of the rape and abuse of the predators they now rightly oppose!
Ordered service in the Church that belongs to Jesus Christ and to the community who have been baptized into Him, is an invitation to the Cross, a vocation, not a right or a job. It is also not some position of power but a call to serve---even when it is abused by some who have occupied these positions.
The clerical state is a call to a particular way of serving. I served with great fervor of soul for decades as a layman in both the Church and the world! When I was invited to Holy Orders, I knew that it was just that, a call. I also came to understand the theology that I had studied, that there is an "ontological" change that occurs at ordination. In fact, my life was turned upside down!
Then there is the prevailing assumption behind much of the agendas that have seized the day, something I call "modern-olatry", the worship of the modern. This is the idolatrous notion that because something is "modern" it is better. That is not always the case. One has only to look at some of the bad fruit of enlightened modernists to quickly see that in some instances the opposite may be true.
Philosophers and Theologians often speak of "asymmetry" when trying to explain the great "mysteries" that are integral to the Christian faith. Very often the "answer" is not "either/or" but "both/and". At the foundation of all asymmetrical insights is the Christian claim of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. He is BOTH God and Man.
Proceeding from this central claim are many other important understandings about God, the human person, our relationships with one another, life, death and the meaning of our lives.
There is an asymmetry that must be grasped if this entire discussion concerning whether married men should be admitted to the candidacy leading to priesthood once again in the Western Church is ever to bear good fruit.
I personally believe that in the beautiful unbroken witness of the Church, the "two lungs" of East and West (as Pope John Paul II refers to them) is revealed the answer. It is not "either or" but "both and." There is room in the Church and the priesthood for a celibate and a married clergy, both deacons and priests.
As the unbroken tradition of the East has shown, both celibacy and marriage are a response to the invitation to holiness that is the Christian life. They are both a participation in the one nuptial mystery of following Jesus Christ in the universal call to holiness, the baptismal vocation of sacrificial love.
Both celibate and married men have responded to the invitation to the first order of Clergy in the West, the order of Deacon, since it’s reinstitution by the Second Vatican Council. In that experience the Roman Catholic Church has a history and lived pastoral witness of how mature married men can fruitfully serve as clergy.
I have read many recent articles on this vital issue in which the authors adamantly oppose any consideration of changing the discipline in the West to re-open the order of priests to married candidates. I think this is an overreaction and misses the point.
In the East, the admission of married men to the priesthood has not diminished or done away with the witness of the celibate clergy. The wonderful prophetic sign of celibacy flourishes. I believe that this would also be the case in the West. For that reason I would support the reinstitution of allowing married men to enter the candidacy to the order of priests.
However, such a consideration must be measured with pastoral prudence. I fully support my Church if it is her decision to NOT open this issue for consideration at this time. Why? Partly because some of the shrill voices trying to force some of the issues are not following the Holy Spirit but "another spirit."
What is truly needed most in the midst of our current crisis is a massive movement of penitential prayer. That would be the strongest resource to lead the Church through this dark night of the soul. The Holy Spirit is exposing sin so that it can be repented of and so that its’ roots can be excised.
What is also needed is a proper prosecution. As a former prosecutor, I represented a State Children’s Service Agency. I saw first hand the horror of sexual abuse. Prosecuting the perpetrators protects the children. It is also is not at odds with the extraordinary hope of forgiveness and conversion. Conversion and forgiveness does not give rise to a "right" to ministry.
Then, we need a renewal of good teaching to all the faithful, lay and clergy, concerning the dignity of the human person and the beauty of human sexuality. Perhaps more than any Pope in history, John Paul II has laid the groundwork for this kind of prophetic and profound renewal.
The content of his teachings (compiled among other places in a volume entitled, "The Theology of the Body") on human sexuality should become the framework for this catechesis and the foundation for all catechetical instruction within the Church including in our Seminaries. This would result in healthy marriages, happy families and holy celibate vocations and communities. It would lay the groundwork for a genuine flourishing of holiness throughout the Church that could change the culture.
The call to consecrated celibacy must be presented as the sacrificial giving up of the good for the better! Marriage in Christ must also be presented as a vocational call to gospel life! Chastity must be presented as binding on all the faithful and practiced in accordance with one’s state in life. Additionally, the classical "evangelical counsels" of poverty, chastity and obedience, too long considered only possible for "religious" should be re-presented as the building blocks of the universal call to holiness.
The nature of the Church as both from above and below must be re-presented and work its way into models of governance that recognize that the Church belongs to Jesus Christ; is a communion, and that we have all been invited into its governance through differing kinds of participation.
Both the hierarchy and the lay faithful are called to serve. Without sacrificing the great gift of the hierarchy and the irreplaceable role and gift of the Magisterium, the teaching office with some newly concocted "democratic" model, the lay faithful should be invited into the leadership of those areas where they can most fruitfully serve the one work of the Church.
The role of lay faithful from important fields of expertise serving on the committees that deal with the priests who have sinned, committed criminal acts and are facing prosecution is a good idea. There are other areas where the lay faithful can and already are assisting.
Priests and other clergy will be more available to do what they alone can do by this participation. What we do not need is a new "clericalism" of sorts, wherein a "professional caste" of the laity starts acting in the manner of the old "clericalism" that all too often atrophied the Church in the past.
The principles of dynamic orthodoxy, a vibrant faithfulness to the Tradition and a freshness and openness to the Holy Spirit are not at odds with one another. They also form an asymmetry that should guide us in all these areas.
It may surprise some to know that laymen served as Cardinals at one time in the Church’s history! The office of "Cardinal" has nothing to do with Holy Orders. It is a rank of honor in the Church. Cardinals are personal advisors to the Pope and serve as a sort of "cabinet officer."
Though only priests and Bishops are now appointed to this office today, there was a time when laymen and deacons were also numbered among their ranks. I wonder if this ancient approach were reinstituted in our time. Some traditionalists might see it as a modern aberration while those practicing "modern-olatry" might think they "won" in their struggle to make the Church "contemporary". All it would be is a return to a past approach in a new context.
The renewal of a vision of the concept of "vocations" should be fostered in the entire Church wherein all baptized Christians are encouraged to be missionaries and the universal call to holiness is presented as normative of the Christian life and binding on all men and women in accordance with their state in life.
Without lessening the precious role of the call to perfection that is the priesthood and the great witness and gift of consecrated celibacy, marriage and family life in Christ should also be presented as a vocation. Deaconate in Christ should be fostered, matured and presented as one of the "signs of spring" that John Paul II wrote about.
Deacons can and should play an increasing role in active ministry within the Church and from the Church in the world.
The Church needs to clearly teach - and implement pastoral strategies that support its teaching- about homosexuality. Though she must clearly insist on the dignity of every human person, including the "homosexual" person, she also clearly teaches that homosexuality is "disordered"; and that homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral and grave sin.
There is a vital need for revisiting this entire issue in the Church. The recent cogent, clear and firm decalaration from the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was a great first step. The application of the teaching of the Church on this controversial yet essential truth has led to vastly different approaches from Diocese to Diocese.
In her empathy for all men and women, the Church must be careful not to indirectly allow the continued proliferation of structures and approaches that undermine this teaching. Some may be rooted in the seminary system and even in Chancery offices in Dioceses. She must safeguard the faithful with strict entrance procedures to seminaries and bring into the full light the full truth about this politically volatile situation -no matter what the consequence.
Finally, the Church needs, in imitation of her Pope, to highlight the "Signs of Spring" in the Church. There are new associations of the faithful growing, new religious communities forming and the fact is that there seminaries that are so full they have no more room!
Perhaps it is also time to acknowledge that there really is no "vocations crisis" in the sense of a lack of priests but rather a distribution problem! Perhaps, as in other missionary ages, it may be time to send priests from those dioceses and communities where they are flourishing into the dioceses where the faithful deserve priests to minister their families.
Unfortunately it is sometimes in those places, where the seminaries are empty, that the novelties so often associated with "modernolatry" are allowed to continue with the faithful being injured in their wake!
Now is the time for all Catholics, all other Christians, indeed all good men and women to pray that this dark night will become the backdrop for a new dawn. This current crisis we face may in fact become the birth-pangs for a renewed Church that rises out of the purification, made holy and ready - just in time for the new missionary age.
To clear up one possible misconception. Not all Orthodox monks are priests. In fact, the vast majority of them are not, but all of them are unmarried or living apart from their wives in chastity in a monastery (rather rare).
All married priests were married prior to their ordination and if they lose their wife, they may not marry again. I do remember a case some years back when a priest's wife left him, ran off and divorced him, leaving him with the kids. Contrary to the positive instruction of his bishop, he remarried. I believe he was defrocked. I know he is no longer a priest in the GOA.
Dear Kolokotronis,
"Not all Orthodox monks are priests. In fact, the vast majority of them are not, but all of them are unmarried or living apart from their wives in chastity in a monastery (rather rare)."
That's the same in the Western Church. Monastic orders will have both "fathers" (priests) and "brothers" (not priests).
My high school alma mater is run by the monastic order, the Order of the Most Holy Trinity (known by their Latin initials, OSST). Most of the vowed men in the community were brothers, not ordained priests.
"All married priests were married prior to their ordination and if they lose their wife, they may not marry again."
Identical discipline in the Western Church.
sitetest
Again ... many thank! Made my day.
If one can confess their sins to a perverted priest, he can do anything.
A very "Orthodox" point of view is expressed here. I particularly like the several mentions of the sacred state of matrimony, which might make for a good discussion topic among the RCs and Orthodox on these threads.
Yes ... it expresses what I was unable to do. Both states - Matrimony and Holy Orders, exert a special demand. As a RC, I have NEVER been exposed to a married priest ... yet, I empathize with those who are married and seek the fullness of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Perhaps, what I was trying to express is that to be devoted to Holy Orders, the task is so demanding that a married man would often be placed in a position of choosing where to devote his attention, depending on the situation.
I noted your comment that you are descended from an Orthodox priest. Like you, my (celibate) Maronite pastor is also descended from a priest, who was most instrumental in the establishment of a particular church in Lebanon. He served as an inspiration to my pastor; and yet, Fr. Elie chose the celibate life for his ministry.
For you, coming from an Orthodox background, it must seem odd that a Roman Catholic would scoff at a married priesthood. I don't know if the GOC has a liturgical schedule to match what most RC priests confront each weekend. The average RC parish priest must celebrate at least 4 masses. At my former parish, the pastor, serving alone, was able to enlist the support of a retired priest. When Holy Days arrive, the schedule is exacerbated by the additional masses. To that, add the time scheduled for Confessions (even if no one shows up), attending to certain religious communities, hospital visits, overseeing Religious Education, etc. The list goes on and on. I have no basis for comparison and rely upon you to fill in the blanks.
In my Maronite parish, however, the weekly liturgy is considerably smaller. There is one on Saturday evenings (except for the first week of the month) and another on Sunday. Interspersed, are funerals, weddings, etc. The same priest, being bi-ritual (Maronite and Latin), also assignes a great deal of time assisting the RC Diocese by celebrating masses at their priestless parishes, during the week, in order to consecrate a sufficient number of hosts for their priestless weekend liturgies.
He also assists at a local catholic hospital, saying mass, making communion calls and visiting the sick. He told me recently about a phone call he received at 4am, asking him to give Last Rites to a hospitalized individual where the family had decided to pull the plug.
How can a priest give so much of himself in service to God and the community, while also respecting his marriage vows towards his wife and children. That is the conundrum. The demands are such that, IMHO, it is simply not possible to give 100% to each vow. It would be a terrible injustice to a wife to place the community first, and v.v. ... does this make more sense?
Priests should be married to women or allowed to get married. It would get rid of the gay priests and pink palace seminary in the United States. Gays have infiltrated the church to destroy it.
I have seen Catholics, whom I admire a lot, fawn over their local priests who was obviously a homosexual. Some of them project God or Jesus on their local priest. This also happens at Protestant churches.
The media calls them "pedophile" priests but they a homosexuals in almost all cases.
Of course. I think you have done an excellent job showing that both the Church of the East and the West have flexibility, althought in reverse order, but in the end they both end on the same spot. But I can see why the Latin Catholic approach can lead to some dissatisfaction -- being that there is no choice even before ordination. The rules in the Orthodox East apply to everyone, regardless.
.. all Orthodox priests, correct me if I'm wrong, promise not to marry once having been ordained...
Aboslutely. They take the Holy Orders knowing that there will be no marriage after ordination. That's the way it has been in the East (and the West) for the longest time.
Absolutely on the money -- no more than one liturgy a day was the Church standard in the East and the West. The multiple services is an innovation of a recent date in the West.
My priest used to drive three hours every Saturday to another town so the parish there could have a liturgy. He would have the regular Sunday service in his home town. Sometimes all he could do is Vespers in the other town. He would visit the sick in hospitals and nursing homes, bless the houses of the deceased, marry, bury, always found time to listen to our trivial nagging, visited parishoners in jail, helped organize humanitarian drives to help recently arrived refugees, and so on. His day started at o-dark-thrity and ended at o-dark-thirty. His wife and two children understood that God comes first. She gave others strength. Oh, sure, the priest was married -- to the Church first and foremost. It makes you want to just hug him and say "thank you and your family."
Would you also have a number of years a man should be married before he took his vows? It seems being the wife of a priest has its own special problems and it would be best for the marriage to be rock solid.
Maybe it has to do with my own marriage. If something is troubling me, it will affect my relationship with my wife. I have discovered over the years that keeping my troubles from my wife only invites more trouble into our home.
When I said that I would have trouble confessing my sins, I wasn't necessarily talking about me. Thankfully, I am now in a place where my sins are pedestrian enough to put the most eager confessor to sleep. However, if someone were in an ongoing confessor/confessee relationship, I think it would be difficult for a good confessor to compartmentalize his duties and to keep tough cases from his wife.
I understand a priest has taken a sacred vow, but if he has also taken a vow to his wife, I could picture a scenariao where a marriage could intrude upon the seal of the confessional.
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.