A Discussion on Married Priests

[Peace]

That's too bad. My experience has been that most priests seem pretty dedicated. Especially the one who brought me through RCIA. Was willing to meet almost any time I wanted to talk or had questions.

[PhuturePriest]

19 hours ago, Peace said:

Well you seem more heavily invested into this question than I am. 

Are you proud of the fact that you are making (in your view) such a huge sacrifice for the sake of the Kingdom? It sounds a bit as though you may be, but have I misunderstood you?

Do you believe that you are more qualified or worthy to be a priest than a priest who is married? It sounds as though you may believe that you are more qualified or worthy, but have I misunderstood you?

As for your analysis, married priests also have to serve the needs of their communities so I am not so sure if the 1500 people should factor much into the analysis. We are comparing married priests versus celibate priests, not celibate priests versus a married layman.

I never said that priestly celibacy was a walk in the park. Nor did I state that marriage does not have value. I just so happened to question your conclusion that a celibate life must necessarily be more difficult than married life. You seem to feel strongly about it, and that is perfectly OK with me. But nevertheless I have doubts about whether your assertion is correct. It's not meant as an attack against you personally or your vocation.

So, God willing one day you will become a priest (and I mean this sincerely). From what I understand there are a number of married Eastern rite priests, and even some married Latin rite priests, such as the converts from the Anglican churches. If you happen to run into any of these married priests at say a conference, for example, would you be willing to tell them that the sacrifice you have made as a priest is greater than the sacrifice they have made as a priest?

Perhaps you might be willing to do that, but I would venture to say that some of them may disagree with your assertion. Would that mean that they have therefore cheapened the value of marriage because they disagree with your assessment?

I don't think you have to read all of that into my disagreement with your conclusion.

I don't think the particular numbers involved change the point of the hypothetical.

I don't get your point, if you care to explain it.

They are analogous at least insofar as they are both a sacrifice that one must make. The sacrifice in one instance is family life, the sacrifice in the other instance is time. You seemed to assert that one can consider a priest to be disqualified (or not having a true desire) for priesthood based upon his unwilingness to make sacrifice A. The question is then why cannot that same logic be applied to some other sacrifice, to deem you unqualified or not having a true desire to be a priest?

But apparently that argument could never apply to you, because you have a perfect desire to be a priest and there is nothing in Heaven or Earth that could even begin to waiver your uncompromising commitment to the Kingdom of God. Shall we make an exception and start your process of canonization immediately, or could I be mistaken in my assessment?

Sure, but that was not the point of the hypothetical.

I have no doubt. 

Have a good night.

Well this is a bit different I think.

As I wrote above, I think that there are plenty of good reasons for a celibate priesthood, and I have no issues with it whatsoever if that is what the pope decides to stick with. The part in Scripture where St. Paul talks about the married man being distracted from the work of God by his wife is particularly persuasive.

I just don't think that the particular rationale you relied upon in your original post is particularly persuasive. That is all.

Your every retort is an irrelevant ad hominem. 

Firstly, I am not "proud" of celibacy. I was explaining some of its purposes, its mystery, and the practical issues of married priesthood in the Roman Rite.  Do not attack my person because you do not like my points. Secondly, even if I were proud it would be besides the point. Pride has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments, and instead of engaging them, you chose  to publicly accuse me of pride and believing I'm perfect.  I'm sorry if I fail to see how this is appropriate on a Catholic message board. 

No one is worthy of the priesthood. Qualification has nothing to do with priesthood, either. 

I have met married priests. They are good priests. However, they themselves will tell you how marriage has limited their abilities to tend to their flock, which was my point. 

You again accuse me of being proud and as if I believe I am worthy of canonization. Please do not judge those you don't know in this way. 

I don't see how continuing this conversation would be fruitful at this point. 

[Peace]

2 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

Your every retort is an irrelevant ad hominem. 

Firstly, I am not "proud" of celibacy. I was explaining some of its purposes, its mystery, and the practical issues of married priesthood in the Roman Rite.  Do not attack my person because you do not like my points. Secondly, even if I were proud it would be besides the point. Pride has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments, and instead of engaging them, you chose  to publicly accuse me of pride and believing I'm perfect.  I'm sorry if I fail to see how this is appropriate on a Catholic message board. 

No one is worthy of the priesthood. Qualification has nothing to do with priesthood, either. 

I have met married priests. They are good priests. However, they themselves will tell you how marriage has limited their abilities to tend to their flock, which was my point. 

You again accuse me of being proud and as if I believe I am worthy of canonization. Please do not judge those you don't know in this way. 

I don't see how continuing this conversation would be fruitful at this point. 

I asked you a question and gave you an opportunity to clarify whether my understanding was true. You indicated that it was not. I am willing to take you on your word on that, although your initial posts did strike me as somewhat prideful. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but you seemed to use celibacy as a litmust test for those who have sufficient desire or quality for priesthood, indicating that "we don't want such people" who might be dissuaded by the celibacy requirement. It struck me as prideful, and it is not as though seminary students are above correction. Whether you fail to see the appropriates of me raising the question is no particular concern of mine, but as you indicated that it is not a soure of pride there is nothing to correct.

Now, as for my other point, as you admit that you do not have perfect desire to become a priest, then there should theoretically be something that would dissuade you from entering priesthood (just as there probably would be with most people). And there would be someone who is willing to do whatever it is you are unwilling to do. Would that then give such a person the right to assert that you are unqualified or otherwise don't have sufficient desire to be a priest? It seems to me that this is essentially what you have done, and I raised the analogy to illustrate the point. Either the analogy applies or you are perfect and there is nothing that could ever dissuade you. You can't have it both ways.

I object to the idea that celibacy is some sort of test that can be used to determine who is qualified and who has sufficient desire to be a priest, and this seems to be implicit in your arguments.

If you feel as though I have done no more than hurl ad hominem personal attacks without responding to the substance of your argument, and that further discussion would be unfruitful, that is perfectly fine by me. We can agree to disagree.

Have a nice weekend.

[Guest]

I think of celibacy as a gift including the desire to live out a celibate life.  All the vocations are gift and gift to The Church.  It is not something one can choose apart from the gift being granted -  and as one continues in the formation process whether one actually has the gift or not will probably become apparent.  If one is having much difficulty with celibacy, it might be that one is not so gifted and further discernment on the point of celibacy is probably required.

I am sure that other qualities besides celibacy are necessary gifts for priesthood.

I don't think that celibacy can be regarded as gifted to a person more virtuous or deserving.  The gift is granted wheresoever God may choose and for His Reasons we cannot know - it is a gift to The Church.  Celibacy is regarded as superior to marriage and that is the objective theological determination.  It does not mean, I don't think, that a priest is destined for a higher degree of holiness than a non celibate person.  All the virtues are trumped by Charity.  St Paul "and the greatest of these is Charity"

Quote

 

1 Corinthians Ch13

¹ If I speak in human and angelic tongues ² but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing............⁵ So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love"

 

 

As things are in The Church at this point, the gift of celibacy is necessary for a vocation to the priesthood.

[HisChildForever]

I would like to point something out, and I hope I articulate it properly. It seems that when we (a general "we Catholic's") discuss this topic, the typical mode of thought is that the main difference between priestly life and married life is sex. In other words, I often see/read comments like "Men would rather marry and be able to have sex than commit to a life of celibacy." This is just one aspect of it though. While sex is an integral part of marriage, marriage is not all about sex. I guess this is a pet peeve I have. One thing I love about married life is that I live with my best friend and share everything with him. It is a full, selfless commitment to your spouse. So, I can completely see how a man would be torn between these two vocations. What I think is that it is super healthy and needed for our priests to have rich, spiritual friendships with each other, a family member, and/or people of the parish. This way they are free to experience Christian love, much how spouses of the faith have that Christian love for each other. I am sure for some priests celibacy is hard, but I think what would be harder is loneliness. (And to be clear, in an unhealthy marriage a spouse can experience loneliness, which I think would be worse than having to deal with a period of abstinence in the marriage for whatever reason.)

[CatherineM]

My favorite priest talked about how different it was as a young priest living in a full rectory. He lived the second half of his life living alone. He said he'd accepted the idea that he would die alone, and unfortunately he did. I think loneliness is another reason they end up in trouble. Families would change that one aspect. 

[Nihil Obstat]

4 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

My favorite priest talked about how different it was as a young priest living in a full rectory. He lived the second half of his life living alone. He said he'd accepted the idea that he would die alone, and unfortunately he did. I think loneliness is another reason they end up in trouble. Families would change that one aspect. 

I certainly think that priests need to live in a community with brother priests whenever possible. For a time my community had two priests assigned, who lived together near the church, and things worked really well. It was a lot more difficult when one of them was sent away, and now we have had only one priest for nearly two years.

[PhuturePriest]

How ironic that this should come about: http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/03/21/married-catholic-priest-thinks-priests-get-married

 

Quote

My wife and I, we have four children, all younger than 7. Ours is not a quiet house. ... But here's what's strange about us: I'm a Catholic priest. And that is, as you probably know, mostly a celibate species. 

...

Now you might be surprised to know most married Catholic priests are staunch advocates of clerical celibacy. I, for one, don't think the Church should change its discipline here. In fact, I think it would be a very bad idea. Which brings me to my particular bête noire on the subject.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Not strictly relevant to what has been discussed... Yet, but we all might be careful to keep in mind that bronzy celibacy and continence are not the same thing. Different concepts with different implications inasmuch as they might arise in this discussion.

[Era Might]

I'd just add that what's at stake here isn't a mere discipline; but the nature of what a priest is and what the institutional church is. A priest isn't the church.

I think the whole institutional structure of Catholicism needs to be rethought, not to destroy Catholicism but save it, much as Jesus told the Apostles, when they pointed out the beautiful temple, that not one stone would be left standing. The Apocalypse isn't a sensational foretelling of Hollywood proportions, it's just a simple necessity: the old must be destroyed before the new can come. It won't be destroyed from without but will break apart from within (nations at war, the earth convulsing, etc.) If judgment is to begin, let it begin with the house of God.

I went to a talk by a LC priest, a young guy. He had that clean cut look, talked about his decision not to pursue marriage, etc. I don't care if he was a priest, I could tell the guy had very little experience of life. He was part of the institutional recruitment. I don't know if he was happy or not, that's his business, but the guy couldn't do anything for me spiritually that a man who has known the world could. Maybe the church needs some clean cut institutional types, but it's missing out on a lot by absolutizing that institionalized model.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Era Might

[Amppax]

4 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Not strictly relevant to what has been discussed... Yet, but we all might be careful to keep in mind that bronzy celibacy and continence are not the same thing. Different concepts with different implications inasmuch as they might arise in this discussion.

 

Yep. That's why I posted Dr. Peter's paper on this in the OP. He holds that canon law requires continence of all Western clerics, married or unmarried. 

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Amppax said:

Yep. That's why I posted Dr. Peter's paper on this in the OP. He holds that canon law requires continence of all Western clerics, married or unmarried. 

Yes, I have been following his arguments for years now, and it has been incredibly edifying. I think he deserves to be taken very seriously.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Era Might said:

I'd just add that what's at stake here isn't a mere discipline; but the nature of what a priest is and what the institutional church is. A priest isn't the church.

I think the whole institutional structure of Catholicism needs to be rethought, not to destroy Catholicism but save it, much as Jesus told the Apostles, when they pointed out the beautiful temple, that not one stone would be left standing. The Apocalypse isn't a sensational foretelling of Hollywood proportions, it's just a simple necessity: the old must be destroyed before the new can come. It won't be destroyed from without but will break apart from within (nations at war, the earth convulsing, etc.) If judgment is to begin, let it begin with the house of God.

I went to a talk by a LC priest, a young guy. He had that clean cut look, talked about his decision not to pursue marriage, etc. I don't care if he was a priest, I could tell the guy had very little experience of life. He was part of the institutional recruitment. I don't know if he was happy or not, that's his business, but the guy couldn't do anything for me spiritually that a man who has known the world could. Maybe the church needs some clean cut institutional types, but it's missing out on a lot by absolutizing that institionalized model.

Yeah well since we are throwing around random opinions, I think you need to abandon your warped views on morality, repent of your sins, and come back to the Church to save yo' own self.

[dominicansoul]

On 3/21/2017 at 8:20 PM, Era Might said:

I went to a talk by a LC priest, a young guy. He had that clean cut look, talked about his decision not to pursue marriage, etc. I don't care if he was a priest, I could tell the guy had very little experience of life. He was part of the institutional recruitment. I don't know if he was happy or not, that's his business, but the guy couldn't do anything for me spiritually that a man who has known the world could. 

You could pretty much say the same about Jesus if you think about it.  Living with his folks up to the age of 30?  Dying at the age of 33?  What could he possibly teach you?  But you see, I'm pretty sure Priests have graces from God to help others even if they themselves have had no "experience of life."  

Priests aren't like you and me, they have like...superpowers if you will...priests are capable of working the wonders God has infused in their Office.  They are not mere mortals, but "Alter Cristus."  Even in the state of mortal sins, these "powers" don't diminish, as attested by St. Teresa of Avila, who saw two demons chained to a sinful priest's neck as he elevated the Host at Mass.  The host was still consecrated and the Lord Jesus was made present in the Holy Eucharist, even at the hands of this priest enslaved by two demons....

Maybe what you don't understand is, the priests do not experience worldly life, but an inner life more supernatural and more hidden...

We need to pray for our priests, especially those who seem to have forgotten how important their priestly duties are...

[vee]

On 2017-03-21 at 8:20 PM, Era Might said:

I'd just add that what's at stake here isn't a mere discipline; but the nature of what a priest is and what the institutional church is. A priest isn't the church.

I think the whole institutional structure of Catholicism needs to be rethought, not to destroy Catholicism but save it, much as Jesus told the Apostles, when they pointed out the beautiful temple, that not one stone would be left standing. The Apocalypse isn't a sensational foretelling of Hollywood proportions, it's just a simple necessity: the old must be destroyed before the new can come. It won't be destroyed from without but will break apart from within (nations at war, the earth convulsing, etc.) If judgment is to begin, let it begin with the house of God.

I went to a talk by a LC priest, a young guy. He had that clean cut look, talked about his decision not to pursue marriage, etc. I don't care if he was a priest, I could tell the guy had very little experience of life. He was part of the institutional recruitment. I don't know if he was happy or not, that's his business, but the guy couldn't do anything for me spiritually that a man who has known the world could. Maybe the church needs some clean cut institutional types, but it's missing out on a lot by absolutizing that institionalized model.

Then why don't you go be a priest if you think you can do a better job?