Is it time to ordain married men to the Catholic priesthood?

Vivificat! - A Catholic Blog of Commentary and Opinion ^ | 7 April 2005 | Teófilo

[Teófilo]

This Observant Catholic says: maybe

Much of the support to the idea of married Catholic priests comes from liberal reformers, who often couch it in their language, that is to say, in concepts foreign to Catholic theology, and also link it to another issue, "women's ordination" so-called. Put the two ideas into the same sentence and you see how both ideas sound so repulsive to Observant Catholics' ears.

This doesn't need to be this way. They idea of ordaining married men to the priesthood can be defended on orthodox, conservative, and traditional grounds. My thesis is that a married priesthood would not be a doctrinal innovation, but simply the restoration of a discipline that was normative for the first 1,000 years of history in the Western, Latin Church—although we need to acknowledge that the discipline of priestly celibacy became ascendant in the 5th century, from the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great, who brought a monastic outlook to the papacy of his time, onwards. Five centuries later, another saintly Pope named Gregory (pp.VII), promulgated that celibacy was to be the mandatory disciplinary norm for all the priests of the Latin Church.

Before we attempt an analysis of the arguments set in favor of a married clergy, we need to set forth the following two principles:

The Holy Spirit guides Salvation History. He's also the soul of the Church, the life-giving, animating principle of the Body of Christ. Nothing happens in the history of the Church without a purpose, nor outside of God's will. If the Spirit guided the Western Church to establish a discipline of celibacy for all priestly tiers in the Western Church, and that discipline has lasted 1,400 years, well, we should hold to that fact as the point of departure for any conversation on this issue, and assign it all the weight it rightly deserves.

The second principle flows from what we mean when we say "ordaining married men to the Catholic priesthood." It means just that. The priesthood under this discipline will continue to be restricted to men,in conformity with 2,000 years of Catholic Tradition and, most recently, the binding authoritative teaching of Pope John Paul the Great, given in his 1994 Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

It also means ordaining married men; it doesn't mean that already ordained men would be allowed to marry and still permitted to minister. Already ordained priests seeking marriage would still have to be dispensed from their vows and laicized.

Many of the so-called reformers would find such strictures intolerable, for they do not fit with the pastoral model they have in mind for the Church and that's the Protestant Parsonage. Most observant Catholics opposed to the idea of ordaining married men to the priesthood also believe that this is the only model available to follow and therefore, they reject it—and rightly so. I also reject the Protestant Parsonage as a model for the Catholic one, and I say that with all due respect to all those successful Protestant ministerial couples out there who have made it work, often under dire circumstances in the mission field or while undergoing persecution for the cause of Christ.

I set aside the Protestant model because is not Catholic and I'm only willing to admit Catholic solutions to Catholic problems—in this case, the scarcity of priests in developed countries for which ordaining worthy married men is but one solution. As a Catholic theologian, I must look to the fullness of revelation as handed down solely to the Catholic Church since her beginning, for trustworthy guidance on this very important issue.

Catholic Tradition has preserved such a model of married priests and families, and it is the one we can observe today in the Eastern Churches, both the ones in communion with Rome and the ones that are not. They offer us a perfect model that is both historical, practical, steeped in Holy Tradition and therefore, thoroughly Catholic. The Eastern model is the one the Western Church should adopt if and when the Magisterium decides to restore the discipline of a married clergy to the Latin Church.

I have observed first hand that a married priest can minister to his flock and remain completely open to its needs, in all the demands that the Lord imposes upon him, be it the needs of the flock or the needs of its own family; I have seen holiness and wholesomeness flowing in these priestly families and it is inspiring to behold.

Now, do these couples "have it easy"? Most certainly not. These couples live under a social microscope and the need to send boundaries between service and love to others and service and love to their family lay unimaginable pressures on these servants of God. The fact that they achieve it and persevere every day, as well as their persistence in liturgical and private prayer, fasting, and mortification, demonstrates beyond all doubt God's blessings upon these unions. That this occurs within a traditional Catholic context is encouraging. The fact that in these marriages man, in his fullness—male and female—becomes a partner with Christ in the redemption of the world should not scandalize anyone among the Catholic faithful, but rather inspire them to pursue their salvation with due diligence.

Ordaining married men is not a messianic panacea that will heal all the ills of the Church in developed countries, for the vocation deficit ailing the Church today has but little to do with the life of chosen celibacy the priesthood now demands, and everything to do with the kind of culture we live in. Permanent Deacons—the ranks of men from which the first batch of married priests is likely to come—should feel any pressure to abandon their initial vocation; being a Permanent Deacon is a perfectly fine vocation and blessed by the Lord.

Enthusiasts of ordaining married men to the priesthood should stand under the cold shower of reality and the reality we live here in the United States is that our materialistic culture is not conducive to Catholic religious vocations of any kind, whether married or celibate. I'm not too optimistic that hordes of married men will rush to become priests if the discipline of married priesthood is ever restored in the Western Church.

If a married priesthood following the Eastern Christian model is to be restored in the Latin Church, pastors (i.e. bishops) should exercise extreme caution as to whom they choose for this restored ministry. For we will no longer be talking about one vocation, but two, the husband's and the wife's and maybe even the children's. I humbly suggest the following guidelines to its restoration and for the testing of the worthiest candidates:

• Candidates should be married Catholic men between the ages of 35 and 60; a dispensation may be granted to men older than 60, who are practicing Catholics in full sacramental communion with the Church, and members of the Catholic Church for at least one year prior to admission as a candidate.
  
• Candidates should not have been previously ordained clergymen in a Protestant Church—for there's another process open for them to request and receive ordination. (Picture right, Father John Fleming, an Australian Catholic priest, with his wife, Alison).
  
• Married candidates should meet all requirements for the Permanent Diaconate and should in fact be active deacons assigned to parish or diocesan ministries for at least 5 years prior to continuing to the priesthood.
  
• As in the Eastern discipline, bishops will be chosen only from the ranks of the celibate clergy (either secular or regular); widowers may also be elected bishops.
  
• The Church must guarantee a living wage to married priests and their families—a tough but necessary rule. Some poorer parishes may not be able to afford a priest and his family, which, ironically, may make necessary that the wife works outside the home or the priest to work part-time. But then again, if the Easterners and the Protestants can do it, why can't us? Where there's God's will, there's a way.

Then, there's the matter of need. Is the need to ordain married men real? It is true that ordaining men will provide limited relief to the wide and variegated spiritual needs of the Catholic faithful, and the problem of vocations lies in the modern materialist culture. Yet, the need for priests is now critical throughout the developed world and we can't wait to fix the problem with the culture. Ordaining worthy married men might one way to go. In fact, they may be a catalyst for even more vocations, both to the married and celibate priesthood.

Is now the time to admit married men into the priesthood? This is a matter of spiritual discernment, of being alert to the promptings of the Spirit and judging that whatever is enacted is the will of the Spirit. That's not my role. My role is to point out a need and a possible solution in accordance to the Deposit of Revelation—Scripture and Tradition.

In the 500 years between Pope St. Gregory I and St. Gregory VII, the Magisterium decided that a celibate priesthood better served the Church; Pope John Paul the Great judged that it wasn't time yet to restore the ancient discipline of the Church. The next Holy Father may decide that it is time to restore the ancient discipline, or he may not, and that's fine too. We should all be happy and at peace and always remember that our agenda, our schedule, is not the Spirit's. The Catholic Church will go where the Spirit blows, when the Spirit blows, and at no other time and often, in spite of ourselves.

- Read "Can a priest be a husband?" from Time Magazine

- Read Split in push for married priests, from Australia's Fairfax Digital

- Read What's the deal about legally married priests? at EWTN.

The following links are from the Married Priest Website. Vivificat! doesn't necessarily support everything they say, and may in fact oppose some of the things they say. In other words, this is not a blanket endorsement of that site's content. I link to it because they have the documents I want my readers to study. Caveat emptor.

- Read the Document Outlining the Pastoral Provision issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on July 22, 1980 Prot. N. 66/77

- Read the English Catholic Bishops' Statutes for the Admission of Married Former Anglican Clergymen into the Catholic Church

- Read the Provisions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches Related to Married Clergy from the Code of Canon Law for Oriental Churches.

[newgeezer]

Would you appreciate it if we Catholics came on to Protestant threads and called you "heretics," or something similar?

I guarantee I'd laugh it off, just as I would if it were said by Mormons or Muslims.

[B Knotts]

Ah...I get it now. Only you and the guy down the street are Christians. And maybe you're not too sure about that guy, after all.

Well, have a nice day.

[newgeezer]

Hey, according to your church, I and all my brethren are anathema.

So, maybe I'm just returning the favor. :-)

[B Knotts]

Hey, according to your church, I and all my brethren are anathema.

Where do you get that idea?

The teaching of the Church is obviously that being a visible member of the Church is best. What church doesn't think that about itself?

But Church teaching has always allowed for the idea of "invincible ignorance": that one will not be held accountable for that which he is unable to know.

With God, all things are possible, after all.

While I have my disagreements with aspects of Protestant theology, I hope that I may nevertheless approach discussion thereof with charity. I certainly try to do so with my dad, who is Methodist, as does he with me.

[biblewonk]

Would you appreciate it if we Catholics came on to Protestant threads and called you "heretics," or something similar?

Ofcourse. Always ready to give reason for the joy in my heart.

[Petronski]

. . . reason for the joy in my heart.

Windmills?

[biblewonk]

LOL! Y==== {windmill emoticon}

[newgeezer]

Where do you get that idea?

I think it was the Council of Trent or Nicea or something like that. Maybe Vatican II. Anyway, the gist of it was that anyone who says salvation comes by faith alone is anathema.

[A.A. Cunningham]

First conciliar legislation regarding lex continentiae: Canons XXVII and XXXIII of the Council of Elvira 295-302 Anno Domini.

[Mershon]

"The FSSP won't allow their priests to concelebrate with the bishop or other priests for fear of being "contaminated" by the Novus Ordo. I can see why a bishop wouldn't want this attitude in his diocese."

This is a baldfaced lie. In fact, while the constitutions of the order prohibited it, the Vatican overruled this several years ago, and there are some FSSP priests every year who "concelebrate" the Chrism Mass with their local Ordinary.

Why not FORCE the Eastern-rite priests and the Orthodox priests to "concelebrate" the Novus Ordo too? Why is this concern only for the Traditional rite of the Latin rite?

[Mershon]

I don't know where the word "threaten" was used. But in any case, the immemorial custom of the Church stood for 1995 years. Customarily, the acolytes who served Mass were a minor order step to the priesthood.

Psychologically, when 10, 11 and 12-year-old girls take over from 10,11 and 12-year-old boys who have to be encouraged to serve anyway, then the boys disappear. There are very few activities of responsibility left anywhere any more where boys can have responsibility and comaraderie to development their manhood without girls being foisted on them.

And then later on, those dioceses which have a vast majority of altar girls have no priets. Voila!!! Then we get into debates about why we should allow married men to be priests and women priestesses. All because we ignore the root cause of the problem.

[sinkspur]

This is a baldfaced lie.

Really?

In fact, while the constitutions of the order prohibited it,

Then it wasn't a lie.

the Vatican overruled this several years ago, and there are some FSSP priests every year who "concelebrate" the Chrism Mass with their local Ordinary.

Where are they? I know one of these guys, and he came to a priest's funeral here last year--one of his classmates--and sat in the front pew in his cassock, lace surplice and biretta and read his office during the entire Mass. He didn't receive the Eucharist, and left before Mass was over so he wouldn't have to sprinkle the body with Holy Water.

I wouldn't let a weirdo like this anywhere near my diocese if I were a bishop.

Why not FORCE the Eastern-rite priests and the Orthodox priests to "concelebrate" the Novus Ordo too? Why is this concern only for the Traditional rite of the Latin rite?

Because the FSSP priests report to the bishop of the Latin Rite diocese. The Eastern Rite priests don't.

[Rytwyng]

Exactly, Our Lord's standard.... "For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." Matthew 19.12

Indeed that is our Lord's standard for who should stay single. But it says nothing whatsoever about our Lord's standard for becoming priests. At least some of the Apostles to whom he made this comment, were married men, yet the Lord himself ordained them.

The later-ordained celibate Apostle Paul, who taught that singless opened unique opportunities to serve, nevertheless instructed believers who couldn't handle celibacy to marry, and also instructed that bishops should be "men of one wife". Even if one interprets this latter passage as prohibiting polygamists, the divorced, etc, rather than forbidding the single, nevertheless certainly he permitted married bishops -- and stricly forbade marital abstinence except as part of temporary periods of fasting and prayer.

[Rytwyng]

All this talk about gays in the Church etc. is an attempt by the media to destroy what good there is left in the world

True. But the argument being advanced here, is that a restoration of the ancient custom of married priests, might make it easier to resist and reverse this homosexual takeover.

Of course I'm an Evangelical, so it doesn't directly affect me, but the cultural ripple effects hit everyone eventually. So I see it's in my own interest that the Catholics resist the homosexual movement. I hope and pray the moral traditionalists win.

[murphE]

The authority that Our Lord established on earth, "which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." , the Church founded on the Rock that is Peter, interprets it to mean just that, so I accept it.

On what authority do you base your interpretation?

[Rytwyng]

On what authority do you base your interpretation?

Tolle lege. In context.

[infidel dog]

Well spoken on the "altar girl" nonsense afflicting the Roman Catholic Church, M. I am Orthodox myself but many of my friends and family are Catholic and I often attend weddings or other services in their churches. I have always sensed a truly nasty "Hey, lookit me!! I'm an altar girl!!" spirit of pride and an idiotic worship of modernism in these imps and their supporters. I hope the next Bishop of Rome will be able to restore order on the "west side" of Christendom. Sure, we have our problems in the Eastern Church but oh brother do I feel sorry for you guys...

[Vicomte13]

Is it time?

No, it isn't.

[Tantumergo]

"What is so wrong with sex within marriage that makes God require priests to forgo it?"

There is absolutely nothing wrong with sex within marriage - it is good and we should have as much of it and as many children as possible.

If it was wrong, the Church would require all of us to forego it. The grace of the celibate calling is that the celibate offers up in sacrifice something that is good to God - his or her fertility. If it was not a good that they were sacrificing for God, then their sacrifice would have no meaning and no value.

They offer something that is very good and precious to God in order that they may achieve a higher good - the total consecration of self to God, above and before all others.

If people approach celibacy with the idea that sex is something bad or grubby they miss the point. Also those who approach it as a negative deprivation of something miss the point, and in both cases they will struggle with it. It should be positively offered to God as a sacrifice of a very great and holy gift.

[Vicomte13]

To tell you the gospel truth, this is the thing that causes me to hold priests most in awe. I mean, I love God, but to give up sex for life?

I could take a vow like that, in a moment of headstrong belief in my own power. But it'd be a vow I would be destined to break.
Soon.

I do not know how they do it. Truly I don't.
And I am pollyannaish to actually believe that the priests I meet really are celibate (even if you installed hidden cameras all over their house), and that they really have that level of committment.

It isn't faith. I have faith. I'm sure God is there, as sure as any priest. Had visions and the like. But even with certitude and genuine love for God, there...is...just...no...way...I...could...do...it.

Given that I am a pollyanna and believe that almost all priests really DO do it, really do keep their vow of chastity, I see each and every one of them as living proof that men truly are sometimes CALLED by God to serve in that capacity. Without that grace, that charism of the holy spirit to protect them against the screaming hormones that sometimes flow in my veins, they could not do it.

The fact that priests take that vow, and are celibate, is the strongest of all proofs to my simple eyes that they really are under a special grace of God extended specifically to be able to do the priestly role.

I DON'T think this necessarily makes them HOLIER (although it ain't hard to be holier than me), but I DO think that it demonstrates that one does not CHOOSE to be a minister of God. Rather, God chooses you, and makes you capable of fulfilling that role, and the greatest sign of that is that He makes you able to fulfill a vow of celibacy.

Precisely because I could never do it, but priests routinely do, I hold celibacy as a sign of divine grace, and the most imposing way I could possibly imagine whereby God could really demonstrate to the world who HE wants as his priests.

That said, I've always found it funny to call them "Father", given Jesus' comments about not calling anybody "father". Now, I assume Jesus didn't mean "Don't call your dad you dad", but I figure he was referring to customs of the time of doing what we Catholics do with our priests, revering them by calling them "father".

Of course, I don't know what else I'd call a priest if we didn't call them father..."your blessedness", perhaps?

Anyway that was all stuff that didn't need to be said, but now I can't take it back, can I?