Fathers, Husbands and Rebels: Married Priests

LA times ^ | July 8, 2005 | Elizabeth Mehren

[gamarob1]

Fathers, Husbands and Rebels: Acting outside the Catholic Church, many married priests are attracting a following.

BOSTON — The priests came from three states, converging on a suburban park one Sunday to conduct an outdoor Mass. Wearing white vestments with rainbow-hued stoles, they led the worshippers in prayer and song. They stuck closely to traditional Roman Catholic liturgy.

But as they raised their arms in blessing, the five men revealed unmistakable proof of defiance: All wore wedding bands.

These men, who still consider themselves Roman Catholic priests, have wives, children — and unflinching commitments to their 2,000-year-old faith. As married priests, they say, they are not heretical anomalies but, instead, are following a model set by priests and popes in the earliest days of their church. They are part of a growing national network of thousands of deeply religious men who believe marriage does not compromise their ability to serve as spiritual ministers.

[Siobhan]

Brilliantly said.

Siobhan

[MarMema]

I would find it hard to feel close to a priest who was not married and raising children. Or to trust my children with one.

[armydoc]

As for married men, there are numerous ways that married men can and do serve the Church in very important and meaningful ways. They don't consider marriage as an obstacle to serving the Church with whatever talents they have been given by God. They simply understand that they don't offer Mass, preside over the Sacraments or give homilies (sermons).

Ah, but married men DO offer Mass, preside over the Sacraments, and give homilies, don't they? The mere existence of the "converted Protestant" exception casts serious doubt on the legitmacy of the celibacy requirement, doesn't it? Are the parishes that get the married Priests getting a "sub-standard" product? Is it just expediency by the RCC, reacting to the Priest shortage?

[Graves]

Thanks for pinging me on this MarMema but I'm not sure that, as an Orthodox Christian, I have much of a dog in this fight. It's an internal matter for the Roman Catholics, something for them to work out. I have some personal opinions about their situation, of course, and I imagine they are similar to or the same as yours.
It is quite evident, to me at least, that when St. Photius the Great (early 9th century), saw what was going on in the Partriarchate of the West (what we now call the Roman Catholic Church), as to clerical celibacy, he was appalled. And if he were to see what this seems to have led to 1200 years later, he'd probably say something like, "I told you so."

[Conservative til I die]

Peter himself was married. LOL, and wasn't he the first "pope"? ;)

So? This is not disputed by any Catholic. Again, it is a discipline, not a doctrine. There is a difference. The former is a changeable rule of the Church, such as celibacy or eating meat on Fridays. A doctrine is unchangeable, such as the 10 Commandments or the Trinity.

Lastly, the scriptures say that those who FORCE celibacy (not choose, force), are teaching doctrines of DEMONS: 1 Timothy 4:3

No one forces a priest into celibacy any more than they force them into becoming a priest in the first place. All seminarians know that celibacy is a condition of joining the priesthood. They freely and intentionally take a vow before God to remain celibate. There is nothing forcible about it, unless you view ALL policies, guidelines, and bylaws as "forcible".

And Jesus being unmarried is for an entirely different reason that we would be. So that example is stupid. You may as well say, hey, Jesus was sinless, why aren't you?

WHy is this stupid? Shouldn't all Christians try to remain sinless as Jesus was? Was it not Christ Himself who commanded us "IN THE BIBLE" to be perfect, as our Father in Heaven is perfect? Why is it stupid to try and emulate Christ?

[steve8714]

Remember that priests are not ministers.

[armydoc]

You are well aware that these were exceptions that were made for valid reasons and are limited and are an extremely miniscule number by comparison to the rest of the priesthood.

The reasons for the exception and the relative prevalence of the exception in no way mitigate the fact that the existence of the exception indicates that the RCC believes that married men CAN be "acceptable" Priests. Or, they have relagated some parishes to "substandard" Priests. Which is it?

You have left the Church, so you no longer have to be overly concerned about what are the accepted norms and practices of the Church.

Apparently many Catholics feel that these Catholic issues we discuss on FR are relavant to Catholics and non-Catholics alike, since these threads are posted on a PUBLIC FORUM. I have made this offer before, and will make it again- if you or any other Catholic is not willing or able to debate Catholic doctrine with non-Catholics, just put something like FOR CATHOLICS ONLY in the thread title. I can't speak for all non-Catholics, but I will honor that and you won't have to waste your time reading or responding to my posts.

[Conservative til I die]

I would find it hard to feel close to a priest who was not married and raising children. Or to trust my children with one.

That's so silly. You're basically saying that any single person is incapbable of caring about or for other people. Do you have a hard time feeling close to your Orthodox bishops?

Give up the game, this is nothing more than you taking some more shots at the Catholics, as usual.

[Conservative til I die]

Ah, but married men DO offer Mass, preside over the Sacraments, and give homilies, don't they? The mere existence of the "converted Protestant" exception casts serious doubt on the legitmacy of the celibacy requirement, doesn't it? Are the parishes that get the married Priests getting a "sub-standard" product? Is it just expediency by the RCC, reacting to the Priest shortage?

You may want to get clue one about how our celibacy rules work. And btw, for most mainstream Catholics, the "Protestant exception" does not make us doubt the "celibacy requirement". The Latin Rite's discipline of celibate priests reflects our long-held custom and culture. That a few Lutheran and Anglican converts are allowed to be married (but not marry afterwards) does not upset us in the least. Their background justifies such an exception. Just like we aren't bothered by our Eastern Rite brothers allowing a married priesthood, since it reflects their long-held tradition.

The only ones with issues are liberal Catholics already against celibacy and pushy, nosy, annoying, irritating, ignorant, obnoxious Protestants.

[Conservative til I die]

Is it just expediency by the RCC, reacting to the Priest shortage?

If it were, there might be more than a couple hundred priests of this type.

[Conservative til I die]

Remember that priests are not ministers.

And the ministers that you speak of are just laymen playing "pretend".

[NYer]

When was it made mandatory not to marry? Honest question.

The law of celibacy has no doctrinal bearing in the Catholic Church--it is a mere disciplinary law. Even today, there are married Catholic priests in the United States. Each is a former Episcopalian priest who joined the Catholic Church. There are Uniate Churches, churches in union with Rome, e.g., the Greek Byzantine Church, who have a married clergy.

Priestly celibacy became law in the Roman Church in the 6th century.

[spunkets]

John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?

Yes.

[NYer]

I would find it hard to feel close to a priest who was not married and raising children. Or to trust my children with one.

Would you trust your children with an Orthodox Patriarch? What's your point? The primary basis for the requirement of celibacy is clearly the lifestyle example of Jesus himself.

[armydoc]

You may want to get clue one about how our celibacy rules work.

What aspect of your celibacy rules do you believe I misunderstand?

And btw, for most mainstream Catholics, the "Protestant exception" does not make us doubt the "celibacy requirement".

Yes, I am aware that most Catholics are very comfortable with contradiction.

That a few Lutheran and Anglican converts are allowed to be married (but not marry afterwards) does not upset us in the least. Their background justifies such an exception.

Their background as what, apostates? An apostate earns an exception that a lifelong Catholic doesn't? Yes, you are right. Ignore my initial question. I don't "get a clue" about how this aspect of your celibacy rules work.

Just like we aren't bothered by our Eastern Rite brothers allowing a married priesthood, since it reflects their long-held tradition.

They also have a long-held tradition of denying Papal authority. Apparently that "bothers" the RCC enough to maintain the schism!

...pushy, nosy, annoying, irritating, ignorant, obnoxious Protestants.

Nice. A very Christian witness to all observing. That may represent the Catholic attitude towards the discussion/debate of doctrinal differences, but not this Protestant's. I enjoy debate and find it can be fruitful for all involved if conducted in a respectful way. I draw the line at mild sarcasm, which I often use to drive home a point. If it was hurtful toward you, I apoligize in advance. I pray for God's blessings on you and your family.

[armydoc]

Is it just expediency by the RCC, reacting to the Priest shortage?

If it were, there might be more than a couple hundred priests of this type.

Your answer supposes that the Church is turning away many, i.e. there could be many more. Do you have any evidence for this? I suspect they are taking all comers. I could be wrong.

[Graves]

As I said earlier, NYer, I don't have a dog in this fight.

[John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?]

Can a priest who is part of the Catholic church marry today if he wants too?

[Graves]

Ah. Now I have a dog in the fight, or at least a cousin of the dog. The answer is "No". Ancient canons of the Church do not allow priests to marry. In the Orthodox Church, deacons may marry, but not priests.