Here's An Interesting What-if

[TNSeminarian]

I hesitate to answer because this can be a loaded question, but at the same time as an aspirant to the priesthood I think that its appropriate to answer.

I don't think that priests should be married within the Roman tradition. There can be some carryover from different traditions, but I think on the whole it is inappropriate to bring something from say, the Byzantine tradition into our own. Now I know that priests at one time were married within the Roman tradition, but it has been a significant amount of time since that has been common practice. Bearing that in mind I don't think that such a change should be taken lightly (I'm not trying to insinuate that it has been taken lightly in previous comments).

My main disagreement with it though is the significance of the nuptual metaphor within the priesthood and the actual nuptuals for the married man. A priest is an alter Christus and acts in persona Christi. As such within that context a priest is, like Christ, bound to the Church in a manner which is likened to marriage. Without trying to sound critical of traditions wherein priests are allowed to be married, I would like to posit that it is as nearly necessary as it can be that a priest be unmarried. Christ Himself was not married and dedicated Himself completely to His bride, Holy Mother Church. A priest as an alter Christus is called to imitate Christ as perfectly as he is able, by the grace of God and through the aid of Our Lady and all of the saints. By the priest taking on Christ in the unique way he does in ordination, it seems to me that it is necessary for the priest to dedicate himself to Holy Mother Church in the radical and complete way that Christ did, in order to more perfectly imitate Him.

It was already mentioned that a married priest would be split between too many different places, and I agree wholeheartedly. A married man's primary goal to fulfill his vocation is the procreation of children and their education and upbringing in the Faith and the mutual growth with his wife toward sanctity. A priest has his own children in his flock and it does not seem to me that it would be terribly easy for a priest to fulfill both vocations. If he neglects his flock to bring up his children he sins and if he neglects his children for the sake of his flock then he sins in not giving them what they need. Furthermore his relationship with his wife would likely suffer because he could not give her his all as a non-priest could. Now I'm not saying that it isn't possible for it to work, but it would be incredibly impractical for a priest to be married.

I know that this hasn't been terribly precise, or theologically profound, but as a seminarian this is my opinion (N.B. I will not, and do not claim that this is Doctrine).

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1491297' date='Apr 2 2008, 04:36 PM']Well our Byzantine Brethern can get married. Lets looks at the Orthodox Church Priests can get married and have families, however, if they seek Bishop-hood, they are required to remain celibete to devote their entire lives to God and His Church, which I think is a delightful compromise.[/quote]

That's a common error, but ordained men cannot get married in any Catholic or Orthodox Church (unless the bishop laicizes them). Eastern Christians follow basically the same discipline with priests that we have with permanent deacons: married men are permitted to ordination, but they promise not to marry again.

Also, I think celibate priests in the East are pretty rare, so the normal practice is to choose bishops/metropolitans from the monasteries.

Plus, we might do well to consider that the East has their own set of problems resulting from a mostly married priesthood and metropolitans who lived much of their lives in monasteries.

Edited April 6, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='picchick' post='1491550' date='Apr 2 2008, 10:11 PM']Plus, how does a man spend enough time with his family while caring for his parish family, ie hearing confessions, saying Mass, anointing the sick?[/quote]

Unfortunately, the same way a man pastors four parishes with a 40 minute drive between each: not as well as he'd like.

But we work with limited resources, so we have to choose priorities. Is the discipline of a mostly celibate priesthood more important to the Church at the expense of having more priests, or does the Church choose to have more priests available (along with their wives) for the laypeople at the expense of losing a powerful and beautiful sign of the nuptial meaning of priesthood?

We can't have it both ways, but we show what we l0ve by the things we sacrifice for it.

Edited April 6, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Paddington]

Is it all or nothing? Can a pope open x number of spots for married men and then close the door again?

[LouisvilleFan]

Possibly, which is more or less what I described earlier: allowing married men of a minimum age to be ordained in order to widen the available pool without drastically changing the Latin Rite's culture or introducing the difficulties associated with pastors juggling parish and family responsibilities.

But that, again, has its down sides. It's only a temporary solution, as most of these older men wouldn't be able to serve the Church for more than 15 or 20 years, if they're lucky. Plus, after the Baby Boomer generation, that pool of older men will disappear.

The only long term solution is to promote a culture of faithfulness to Christ and the Church, with young Catholics passionately searching for their vocation and following God in whatever direction he leads. Let God take the lead and everything will be just fine.