Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is it time to ordain married men to the Catholic priesthood?
Vivificat! - A Catholic Blog of Commentary and Opinion ^ | 7 April 2005 | Teófilo

Posted on 04/07/2005 5:00:46 AM PDT by 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.

Pope John Paul II as a young priest-who says that celibate priests can't related to the rest of us?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:

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.


TOPICS: Catholic; Ministry/Outreach; Orthodox Christian; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: celibacy; marriage; priesthood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last
To: B Knotts
continence was required for married priests, which is certainly not envisioned by today's "reformers."

Is there a reference for this?
41 posted on 04/07/2005 6:57:49 AM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Teófilo

I would be in favour of it with a proviso - this allowance of married men into the Church, should be accompanied by crushing the "gay mafia" in many seminaries.

Regards, Ivan


42 posted on 04/07/2005 7:01:02 AM PDT by MadIvan (One blog to bring them all...and in the Darkness bind them: http://www.theringwraith.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teófilo

Another proviso - I do believe that the upper echelons of the Church should be comprised of celibate men: it would be very peculiar to have a "First Lady" for the Pope.

Regards, Ivan


43 posted on 04/07/2005 7:02:10 AM PDT by MadIvan (One blog to bring them all...and in the Darkness bind them: http://www.theringwraith.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominick
The biblical foundation of priestly celibacy

In other words, it could be said that the obligation of continence (or of celibacy) became canon law only in the fourth century but that, before that, from apostolic times, the ideal of living in continence (or in celibacy) was already held up to the ministers of the Church, and that this ideal was indeed deeply felt and lived as a requirement by quite a number (Tertullian and Origen, for instance) but was not yet imposed on all clerics in major orders. It was a vital principle, a seed, clearly present from apostolic times but which gradually then developed until the ecclesiastical legislation of the fourth century.

There is much more in the article about continence. I just picked out one of the references.

44 posted on 04/07/2005 7:02:46 AM PDT by B Knotts (Ioannes Paulus II, Requiescat in Pacem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
In your opinion; not in mine.

You may as well grow to tolerate it, at least, because lay-run parishes is what we're going to have over the next ten years. The number of men being ordained is simply insufficient to replace those who die, leave, or retire.

The hierarchy has dithered over this issue for 20 years, with Rome shutting off all discussion of any solution.

It's wonderful to pray for vocations, and we should be doing more of it. But God can't force men into the priesthood, and celibate men are not responding, for whatever reasons.

So we are left with an older and older priesthood, with priests having to do more and more.

My pastor has one lung due to lung cancer, and he may not make the five year maximum for lung cancer survivors. He celebrates three Masses every Sunday, and does at least one wedding every single weekend, somewhere. The poor guy has to go to bed at 8:00 every night because he's exhausted.

The men who are priests TODAY have to be given some kind of relief, if only so that they can live a little longer.

45 posted on 04/07/2005 7:02:56 AM PDT by sinkspur (If you want unconditional love with skin, and hair and a warm nose, get a shelter dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Also, continence was required for married priests, which is certainly not envisioned by today's "reformers."

The reason marriage was eventually ruled out for priests is because continence between married people was a pipe dream. It didn't work then, and it certainly wouldn't work now.

46 posted on 04/07/2005 7:04:47 AM PDT by sinkspur (If you want unconditional love with skin, and hair and a warm nose, get a shelter dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Well, that it's a bit disingenous for "reformers" to cite the early practice of the Church as an argument in favor of their wishes, isn't it?


47 posted on 04/07/2005 7:06:40 AM PDT by B Knotts (Ioannes Paulus II, Requiescat in Pacem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Teófilo

This Catholic not only says "No," but "Heck No."

A Priest is married to the Church. It would not be fair to the wife or to the Church if he is forced to serve both.


48 posted on 04/07/2005 7:06:43 AM PDT by dfwgator (It's sad that the news media treats Michael Jackson better than our military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominick
Another issue is how are you going to weed them out? Do we disqualify men for being snappy dressers, watching the Oscars, liking show-tunes, or even being able to cook? There is no good "gay test".

Of course there's not. And there are not an insignificant number of celibate homosexuals in the priesthood today; there always has been.

49 posted on 04/07/2005 7:10:16 AM PDT by sinkspur (If you want unconditional love with skin, and hair and a warm nose, get a shelter dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Rockford, IL, Atlanta, GA, Lincoln, NE, Denver, CO, Omaha, NE, Arlington, VA...

I could name many others. I wonder what they are doing differently there?

Oops! Even you know, don't you? Just don't want to go there, huh?


50 posted on 04/07/2005 7:15:10 AM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

"You may as well grow to tolerate it, at least, because lay-run parishes is what we're going to have over the next ten years."

Check out NY and Boston. You will not have more "lay-run" parishes. You will have more consolidated and CLOSED parishes. You still don't get it, do you? The days of the "parish administrator" are running out. This is no longer a viable model. It is ending. It is no longer the 1970s or '80s, thanks be to God.

Get with the times.


51 posted on 04/07/2005 7:17:24 AM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; All

"Like you, I don't think admitting married men to the priesthood is THE solution, but it is part of A solution."

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Church does indeed revisit this issue if the next Pope is so disposed.

What are the odds of getting a Pope who would consider this? Have you kept any sort of tally of which Cardinal-electors would be in favour of ordaining married men to the priesthood?

I know of only two - Cormac Murphy O'Connor and Keith O'Brien - neither of whom stand a cat in hell's chance of being elected. Do you know of any others, especially from among the papabile?


52 posted on 04/07/2005 7:17:59 AM PDT by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Well, that it's a bit disingenous for "reformers" to cite the early practice of the Church as an argument in favor of their wishes, isn't it?

In fact, the lack of observance of "continence" by married priests demonstrates that the early Church was either naive or just duplicitous about this practice. It appears that the Church had a policy, knew it was being ignored, and just looked the other way for 1100 years, occasionally reminding clerics that continence was still a requirement.

It was not until Gregory VII actually took the woman away that celibacy began to be observed.

53 posted on 04/07/2005 7:20:09 AM PDT by sinkspur (If you want unconditional love with skin, and hair and a warm nose, get a shelter dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The US Catholic bishops singlehandedly pushed through the Anglican dispensation in 1980...

Cardinal Law was the point man on this.

54 posted on 04/07/2005 7:20:52 AM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
The former organist of my old church was raped in a seminary.

Was he an adult at the time? I am always amazed when I read stories of older teenagers or even seminarians being raped. When I was 15 (very immature and very small physically) I jumped out of a car when the driver, a man I babysat for and a high powered lawyer, made advances towards me - he had been suggestive the whole trip (taking me to his summer cottage to babysit his kids) and he finally pulled over and got explicit. I got over it and really hadn't thought about it much over the years until the 'scandal' broke and I read about all the young teenaged boys and some young adults being raped... I just don't see how that can happen?

55 posted on 04/07/2005 7:27:12 AM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
I don't think it matters whether the Pope is in favor of it or not. I'd bet that JPII was not in favor of the Anglican dispensation initially, but he was brought around to it as a way to 1)accommodate the Anglicans who wanted to jump the fence and 2) add some small number of priests.

Only McCormac and O'Brien have said what they think about admitting married men to the priesthood. You can certainly guess that a majority of the American cardinals favor it (though they would never say so), and "pragmatists" like Tettamanzi and Scola might also be open to the idea.

The stark reality is staring them in the face.

56 posted on 04/07/2005 7:27:33 AM PDT by sinkspur (If you want unconditional love with skin, and hair and a warm nose, get a shelter dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

Question- a fellow Catholic told me that JPII approved altar girls but never sanctioned women being Eucharistic Ministers. Do you know if this is true? Every Catholic mass I've been to for years has women serving.


57 posted on 04/07/2005 7:29:22 AM PDT by chgomac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The men who are priests TODAY have to be given some kind of relief, if only so that they can live a little longer.

So say we get two married priests in a parish to replace the busy celibate one priest. Will they have more time to minister to their parishioners considering they also have family obligations and presumably they will have many children.

What I don't get is how on the one hand Catholics are supposed to be dirt cheap but on the other hand it is a given that the laity will contribute enough $$$ to pay a salary which will support a couple of families.

And the dwindling number of priests... I thought we had a dwindling amount of parishioners as well?

We supposedly have a priest shortage in Boston but the bishop won't allow the FSSP to come in and take over even one closing parish (which happens to be the Indult one).

58 posted on 04/07/2005 7:33:53 AM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
We supposedly have a priest shortage in Boston but the bishop won't allow the FSSP to come in and take over even one closing parish (which happens to be the Indult one).

Follow the money...
59 posted on 04/07/2005 7:37:59 AM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
I just don't see how that can happen?

Seduced is probably a better term, than what we think of as rape, physically forcing someone. Given that a priest, (an many other adults like a teacher) has many psychological advantages over a teen such as his authority, respectability, and is in a position of trust I think it can still be considered a rape just due to the the victim's age. There are other methods of "force" besides physical force.

I am glad that you escaped. I imagine stories like yours happen far more frequently than we will ever know.

60 posted on 04/07/2005 7:38:02 AM PDT by murphE (Never miss an opportunity to kiss the hand of a holy priest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson