A Discussion on Married Priests

[Amppax]

*Note - Mediators of Meh, if you think it would be more appropriate, please move this to debate table. I'm holding out hope that this doesn't have to go there, but perhaps that is the more appropriate place to start." 

Pope Francis has, recently, expressed some openness to allowing married men to be ordained priests, in limited circumstances. Nothing concrete has been proposed (yet), but the discussion has come about, in part, because of questions submitted to the Pope by bishops in the Amazon, who've had for years a lack of priests. Here's a piece from Crux which reports Francis's potential openness: https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/03/08/pope-francis-signals-openness-ordaining-married-men/. 

I'm curious what peoples' thoughts are on this potential development? I'll share my own thoughts eventually, but in short, I would favor keeping things as is. 

A couple more articles of interest to this topic: 

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/5492/The_Amazon_Indult.aspx

Dr. Edward Peters' writings on clerical continence (Peters has written extensively arguing that canon law requires continence of all clerics, married and unmarried, priests and deacons. Obviously, such a requirement is of considerable importance for the discussion of this topic). 

Fr. Longenecker (a married priest) has written about this quite a few times, here is a collection on his blog of links to some of these articles: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2017/03/married-priests-magic-bullet.html

[Nihil Obstat]

Alice von Hildebrand has some pertinent writing.

https://www.romancatholicman.com/secular-war-supernatural-alice-von-hildebrand/

Here is a small excerpt, but please read the entire article. 

"

I claim that if you lose sight of the supernatural, you will never understand why there should be a celibate clergy. You’ve already chosen the secularistic norm and then say “Well, after all, Freud has convinced us that to have a sexual life is good and healthy and good for your nerves and if you don’t have that sort of thing then obviously you’re going to be crippled and you’re going to be repressed and you’re going to have all sorts of psychological problems. So why shouldn’t priests get married? And on top of it, there are so very few priests today and if you want to attract more vocations, let us abolish celibacy.”

If you look at it from a supernatural point of view and you understand the extraordinary dignity granted to priests, the overwhelming gift which given to them, supernaturally, to become another Christ, to be able to change bread and wine into His Holy Body and Blood, to be able to say to someone “your sins are forgiven” and they are forgiven, this calls for a total self-donation.

"

[Amppax]

Interesting article, Nihil. I skimmed it, but should probably go back and read later Reminds me of the various debates I read on the topic of natural vs. supernatural in my studies, though I don't know how much she is referring to that. 

I think it's helpful in our western modern context, at least in terms of looking at the motives people have for advocating this. I don't, however, think it covers all the possible motives, and it would be a mistake, I think, to generalize that as the primary motive for most. Most discussion I have had on the topic has been in the context of discussions with various Eastern Catholic or Orthodox friends, and a little bit in discussion with Anglo-Catholic types. 

Perhaps though the more general thought on it does suffer from bad motives. 

[havok579257]

We have a real priest shortage in this world.  I am not necessarily supporting this either way but the question really needs to be answered, how do we increase vocations to the priesthood.  I don't what we as catholics are doing is working.  Something needs to be done, something different than what we are doing now.  I don't know what needs to be done but something does need to be done.

[Amppax]

1 minute ago, havok579257 said:

We have a real priest shortage in this world.  I am not necessarily supporting this either way but the question really needs to be answered, how do we increase vocations to the priesthood.  I don't what we as catholics are doing is working.  Something needs to be done, something different than what we are doing now.  I don't know what needs to be done but something does need to be done.

 

I agree we need more priests. However, given that both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have a similar shortage, and allow married priests, we have to ask if this would actually address our lack? I, personally, am skeptical. 

[havok579257]

1 hour ago, Amppax said:

I agree we need more priests. However, given that both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have a similar shortage, and allow married priests, we have to ask if this would actually address our lack? I, personally, am skeptical. 

i'm not saying your wrong but does anyone have an answer of how to fix the shortage?

[Peace]

Well both marriage and priesthood are vocations. You don't receive any sacrament without God's first action of calling you to it. I don't really see any plausible arguments against married priests (or celibate priests) if that is what God is calling people to at this particular point in time. I see it more as a process of discerning God's will as opposed to it being a "logistical" decision if you will. And as the Church is more adept at discerning God's will than you or me, I would just leave it up to Her and go with whatever She decides without complaining one way or the other.

[CatherineM]

We already have married priests, not just in the Eastern rites. It might not solve the problem, but it could help. 

[Basilisa Marie]

Right now, my archdiocese can't afford to pay priests their pensions (which are fully vested after THIRTY years of service), let alone pay them enough to support a small family. 

Plus Fr. L is on point with his criticism of the idea that "oh a clergy wife would be such an asset!" Oh, you mean you want a free employee who also has the brunt of raising the kids because her husband basically now has surgeon's hours, but worse. And that's IF she's totally gifted in that department. And so must her children be too, because they won't already have enough pressure to be perfect. 

I think opening up the option to having more married priests, as in more special exceptions to the general norm, is a good thing. But it's not going to fix all our problems like so many think. 

[PhuturePriest]

Aside from the practical issues mentioned above, my thoughts are that when we cheapen the sacrifices of the priesthood for the sake of getting more priests, the priesthood will be cheapened and the quality of priests we get will be the quality we deserve. Of all the things the priesthood needs right now, it is not men unwilling to sacrifice for the sake of the Kingdom and who are incapable of appreciating the mystery and value of celibacy.

It's not that marriage is "weaker" and weakens a man, to be clear. It's that if a man is unwilling to sacrifice a family for the sake of the priesthood, then he does not truly desire to be a priest. We don't want that type of man in the priesthood.

Ultimately, the shortage of priests is not the result of celibacy, it is the result of secularism seeping into the Catholic world. Lessening the rules to make it easier for some of these men will not solve our problems, but increase them. When the people of the Church had a clear and firm belief in the supernatural and the mystery of the faith, we had no shortage of priests. However, now that poll after poll shows most Catholics don't believe in something as integral and par for the course as the Eucharist, it should come as no surprise that men are unwilling to engage in something as inherently mysterious and spiritual as celibacy and priesthood.

For the record, this is a subject which I feel strongly on because celibacy is one of the core things which draws me to seminary, so if I'm coming across as too strong or unfair to others, my apologies.

*which draws me to priesthood*

Edited March 16, 2017 by PhuturePriest

[Peace]

29 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

Aside from the practical issues mentioned above, my thoughts are that when we cheapen the sacrifices of the priesthood for the sake of getting more priests, the priesthood will be cheapened and the quality of priests we get will be the quality we deserve. Of all the things the priesthood needs right now, it is not men unwilling to sacrifice for the sake of the Kingdom and who are incapable of appreciating the mystery and value of celibacy.

It's not that marriage is "weaker" and weakens a man, to be clear. It's that if a man is unwilling to sacrifice a family for the sake of the priesthood, then he does not truly desire to be a priest. We don't want that type of man in the priesthood.

Who is the "we" that you are referring to?

With all due respect, it seems that you may be drinking a bit of Kool-Aid here. My thoughts on this are:

1) I am not so sure if celibacy should be considered a greater sacrifice. You ever have your GF nag the living daylights out of you? Kids? Just as far as pure simplicity or ease of life, it would seem to me that living a celibate lifestyle is an easier deal than having to deal with the various pressures and obligations that come along with having a spouse and children. It seems to me that giving up a celibate lifestyle to raise a family is a greater sacrifice. I don't see being celibate as something particularly worthy of brownie points, but that is just me. I could be wrong.

2) Why draw the line at sacrificing a family?  That seems rather arbitrary and self-serving to me, since that is something that you personally were willing to sacrifice. I mean, why not require 50 years of seminary before ordination?  If you said "No, I will pass on 50 years of seminary, but if you reduce it to 5 or 6 years, I will enter" would the person who was willing to spend the full 50 years in seminary be justified in saying "PhuturePriest, a man who is not willing to spend 50 years in seminary for the sake of the priesthood does not desire to be a priest. We do not want that type of man in the priesthood"?  The logic would appear to be exactly the same, the only difference seems to be that the line in this particular instance is acceptable to you.

I hope that your studies are going well.

[Amppax]

@Peace the Church has always considered celibacy a greater sacrifice. I'll echo your own advice from earlier and say you should defer to the Church's wisdom on this one. 

Also, a family is not at all the only sacrifice someone makes in becoming a priest. 

[Peace]

8 minutes ago, Amppax said:

@Peace the Church has always considered celibacy a greater sacrifice. I'll echo your own advice from earlier and say you should defer to the Church's wisdom on this one. 

I had actually wondered whether that may be the case. Do you have a source?

I had understood the religious state to be considered superior to the lay state, but I had not seen anything comparing celibacy to marriage in particular.

8 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Also, a family is not at all the only sacrifice someone makes in becoming a priest. 

I did not mean to indicate that, if that is what you understood me to be saying.

[havok579257]

4 minutes ago, Peace said:

I had actually wondered whether that may be the case. Do you have a source?

I had understood the religious state to be considered superior to the lay state, but I had not seen anything comparing celibacy to marriage in particular.

I did not mean to indicate that, if that is what you understood me to be saying.

doesn't st paul mention this in the bible?  i think he mentions celebicy.

[Peace]

Just now, havok579257 said:

doesn't st paul mention this in the bible?  i think he mentions celebicy.

I think so. I took a quick look online and yes, it does appear that a celibate state is considered superior to a married state. So no disagreement with me there. But I wouldn't necessarily equate that with the celibate state being a greater sacrifice (or more a more difficult undertaking), in the sense that FP used the term.

FWIW I think there are plenty of good reasons for celibate priests (both scripturally and in terms of church tradition). But I don't find the reasons that FP gave to be a particularlly good reason.