Married clergy in Latin rite: Pros and Cons

[thejack]

But there is nothing wrong with that, nor is it a sign of a problem. There is nothing wrong with dropping out of seminary because you determine that you are called to married life and not the priesthood. This is not a failure. That is why it is called 'discernment'. In a healthy Catholic culture (which hasn't existed for decades) most serious Catholic men will probably at some point in their youth consider the priesthood, and at least 99 out of 100 will conclude they aren't called to the priesthood. Indeed, if there was a healthy Catholic culture, there would be a lot more seminary dropouts than there are. A first-year seminary class would be 50 men, and of them, maybe 5 would stay in long enough to get ordained.

Moreover, mainline Protestant churches suffer from an even more severe clergy shortage than Catholics, which is the main reason why there have been so many mergers and church-sharing agreements made in the last 20 years. You might not realize this but all of the biggest mainline Protestant denominations, namely the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal church, the Presbyterian Church in America, and the United Methodist Church, are all in inter-communion and share clergy. if getting rid of celibacy would somehow allow for more priests, why doesn't that work in those mainline churches that never had a rule of celibacy?

And you seem to be forgetting that since Vatican II, married men have been allowed to be ordained to the permanent diaconate, there is in fact an option for married men in the Catholic Church and it has existed for over 50 years. How many permanent deacons are there, surely every parish must have half a dozen, right? Nope, most dioceses have at most 3-4 permanent deacons. And many have none. If married men aren't interested in serving as a deacon, what reason do we have to think there would be a ton who want to be priests? And do we really want a ton of priests who are only half committed to the priesthood, or who want to be priest but only if they don't have to make any sacrifices to get there?

There might be something wrong with it if allowing married clergy would increase the priesthood/limit the shortage. As far as mainline Protestant issues, you'll get no defense from me. Those churches are in rapid decline for good reason, and it's hard to find people interested in giving their professional lives to that kind of work when it's actively dying. I've stated that relationship backward, but I trust you see my point. But let's go a step further and ask if mainline churches were to disallow married clergy. Do you think that would make their clergy shortage better or would it make it worse? The answer is obvious and possibly instructive.

I'll emphasize again, all of the sociological arguments might be moot. If a serious shortage of single priests is preferable to married priests, then it doesn't matter if allowing married priests would be helpful. But if married priests are preferable to a priest shortage, then the sociological question is relevant, and the answers on this point have to be driven by data, not ideology. I don't have data. I just have personal anecdotes, which isn't helpful.

[gherkin]

My diocese has a pretty Catholic bishop who has been in place now for long enough that the effects of his ministry are being reflected in our ordinations. We do not have an abundance of priests or permanent deacons, but we are surely moving in the right direction. We just ordained, I think, 7 transitional deacons, and are looking to ordain 7 more next year, and perhaps 10 the following year. These are homegrown men from the traditional parishes in the diocese. We also have an abundance of permanent deacons.

There is a solution to the priest shortage, and it has nothing to do with allowing married men to be ordained. It has to do, first and foremost, with allowing the Faith to flourish, rather than attempting to kill it. I used to go to a parish in this diocese that had a series of 'liberal' priests, always apologizing for the Faith, or simply condemning it. That parish has not produced a priest in decades. Anyone surprised? But there are parishes with Catholic priests who are reverent and Faithful, and they are pumping out priests like it's 1217. OK, maybe not quite. Of course, those parishes attract families that are faithful, which tends to mean families with more than 2 children, etc. etc. When we live the Faith, the Faith flourishes. (I am not bothering to state the causes and effects in their full rigor, just speaking in colloquial terms.)

[Doom]

There is a solution to the priest shortage, and it has nothing to do with allowing married men to be ordained. It has to do, first and foremost, with allowing the Faith to flourish, rather than attempting to kill it.

Precisely the point I was making when I mentioned the even more severe clerical shortage in the mainline Protestant churches.

The second part of the solution is that we need to stop contracepting ourselves into extinction when parents have only one child because they don't get married until 40 and don't have kids until 45, they aren't likely to encourage their one son to become a priest because they are afraid of not having grandchildren. If they had 5 kids and one became a priest, it seems like a significantly lower risk.

And Jordan Peterson pointed out another big problem with late marriage and having only one child, and that is a massive increase in overprotective helicopter parents. When you have only one child, you view that child as extremely important and are more inclined to be controlling and not allow the child to grow up. When you have 6 kids, becoming a helicopter parent is impossible because the kids outnumber you and you are swamped. Back when I was teaching at university, I was surprised at how many kids would escalate a conflict with me not to the department chair or someone higher up in the university hierarchy but would get their parents involved. I had to deal with a shocking number of angry parents who demanded to know why their child was failing Calculus. I hear the problem is even worse since I stopped teaching.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Though you never know; my home parish has ordained four priests in the last 15 years, which is a good rate in these parts, and it has not always been a shining beacon of orthodoxy and orthopraxis.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

This is a bad thread. I have to agree with Doom and the pickle.

Like many other dioceses, we're going through a painful but (IMHO) necessary restructuring process. We have too many parishes with too few people in the pews covered by too few priests, and the lack of children is a big piece of this.

[Doom]

This is a bad thread. I have to agree with Doom and the pickle.

Like many other dioceses, we're going through a painful but (IMHO) necessary restructuring process. We have too many parishes with too few people in the pews covered by too few priests, and the lack of children is a big piece of this.

Another huge problem is a general devaluing of the priesthood, with laymen now doing most of the real work at most parishes, including not just reading the scripture readings, and distributing communion, but also taking the lead in most parish events. There is often little left for the priest to do.

The lay reading of the scriptures, in particular, is usually quite poor, lay readers often mispronounce words and make weird voice inflections that can make a sentence that is supposed to be a question in the text sound like a declarative statement or vice versa. Or they pause in the wrong place, where there is no comma, or fail to pause where there is a comma, completely changing the meaning of the sentence they are reading.

I once sat through a lay reader reading a passage from Paul about "giving offense to God" but he pronounced "offense" as if it were the opposite of "defense". It seems as though few if any lay leaders are at all familiar with the passage they are reading, most read it as if this is the first time they have ever heard the reading, they certainly don't look at the passage in advance to familiarize themselves with it. Most lay readers walk up and do completely blind reads having no apparent comprehension of what they are reading.

[Peetem]

I think we will see married clergy long before we see female priests, for what it's worth. I think we are slowly heading in that direction now. The acceptance of married Anglican priests is a good example....And as we continue to have a shortage of priests, the pressure will increase to allow married Catholic men to be ordained. Kage_ar's comments are very valid....I would also add, that a married priest, with 3 or 4 kids, also has to be prepared to pull up stakes every few years as he may be assigned to a new parish....and in our diocese, which encompasses the entire state, that can mean moving up to 5 hours away....completely away from families that have become part of your kids lives. It's not an easy thing to answer.

In the diaconate formation class before mine, there was a gentlemen who was a married, former Baptist minister who had converted to Catholicism, studying for the permanent diaconate. He was recognized as being already well developed in pastoral and human formation so he was invited to discern for the priesthood. He is now a very fine Catholic Priest in our diocese, who I greatly enjoy talking about ministry with when I get a chance....the only thing I have an issue with is this....what if there was another man, a married cradle Catholic, who also showed that same potential?? He basically is "penalized" for being Catholic (probably a poor choice of words, I know).

As i said...not a topic with any easy answers.

****opinions above are strictly my own and are not given as an example of church teaching....these opinions do not reflect the opinions of my diocese or The church in general and should not be taken as such...

We will never see female priests. As St. JPII said (paraphrased), the Church doesn't have the ability to make this happen. Its a mute point.

I have no problem with married priests. While I prefer celibate for all the reasons listed in the Bible, when the shortage of priests is such that I have to travel 100 miles for Mass, then send us whatever we need for salvation.

That being said, imagine me as a priest. Six kids, all far from perfect. So there's the scandal of a priest with less than perfect kids. We have also had HUGE medical expenses with one child (probably close to $800,000 now) and several other serious expenses with a couple of the others (i.e., head injury, burst appendix)....not sure the Church could absorb those expenses.

Then there is retirement. The costs wouldn't be just for one person, but two.

Then there's the middle of the night call - the priest has a sick child and gets called out for Extreme Unction. Who takes care of the 4 year old who is throwing their guts up at 3am?

And then what happens if a priest's wife leaves him for someone else; divorce ensues. Much scandal with that.....

So while I'm ok with married priests, I just think that brings a world of problems with it.

[peregrinator]

When Catholic priests were first allowed back in Japan in the 19th century, after more than two centuries of persecution, the hidden Christians knew they were true priests because it had been passed down that they would love Our Lady and that they would be unmarried.

[Doom]

It is a "moot point", I have no idea what a "mute point" is.

To foresee the problems with a married priesthood, one need only refer to Saint Paul "The married man is concerned with the things of this world, how to please his wife, the unmarried man is concerned with the next world, how to please God" (Paraphrased because I don't recall the exact wording of any particular translation and I'm too lazy to look it up on BibleGateway Married priests tend to have a divided loyalty, they can't give 100% to the parish the way a celibate priest can. I can't help but notice that most permanent deacons who are married generally don't seek ordination until they are older and their children are grown and moved out.

[Vern Humphrey]

There is zero evidence of a connection between pedophilia and homosexuality. Homosexuals are attracted to adults of the same sex, not children

I've always wondered about that:

If a 35-year old man has sex with a 35 year old male, is he a homosexual?

If a 35-year old man has sex with a 30 year old male, is he a homosexual?

If a 35-year old man has sex with a 25 year old male, is he a homosexual?

If a 35-year old man has sex with a 20 year old male, is he a homosexual?

If a 35-year old man has sex with a 15 year old male, is he a homosexual?

[Doom]

There is zero evidence of a connection between pedophilia and homosexuality. Homosexuals are attracted to adults of the same sex, not children

I've always wondered about that:

If a 35-year old man has sex with a 35 year old male, is he a homosexual?

If a 35-year old man has sex with a 30 year old male, is he a homosexual?

If a 35-year old man has sex with a 25 year old male, is he a homosexual?

If a 35-year old man has sex with a 20 year old male, is he a homosexual?

If a 35-year old man has sex with a 15 year old male, is he a homosexual?

That raises another issue, the idea that if a person has sex with one person of his own sex then he is simply "gay" and that's it, regardless of what happens before or after. This is a sexual version of the "one drop rule" and the idea should be rejected.

There was a time, not that long ago, CS Lewis talks about it, in which single-sex education was common, adolescent boys could go a year or longer without seeing a girl. What happened in this case? In the words of CS Lewis, who attended an all-boys boarding school for years, "homosexuality was rampant". But were these boys "gay"? No. They were dealing with the raging hormones of puberty in the only way they could. When they graduated, they all got married to women. I assume the same was the case in the all-girls boarding schools. It is definitely that way in prison.

The "one drop rule" is nonsense. Human sexuality is a lot more complicated than that.

Now, in answer to your question, if a 35-year-old man has sex with a 10-year-old girl, is he a heterosexual?

The question is dishonestly worded, and so is the similar question you asked above.

Sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children (by the way, 15 is not pre-pubescent, so while it would be statutory rape, it is not pedophilia) is abnormal and a form of mental illness, it is neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality and has nothing to do with either.

[Vern Humphrey]

That raises another issue, the idea that if a person has sex with one person of his own sex then he is simply "gay" and that's it, regardless of what happens before or after. This is a sexual version of the "one drop rule" and the idea should be rejected.

There was a time, not that long ago, CS Lewis talks about it, in which single-sex education was common, adolescent boys could go a year or longer without seeing a girl. What happened in this case? In the words of CS Lewis, who attended an all-boys boarding school for years, "homosexuality was rampant". But were these boys "gay"? No. They were dealing with the raging hormones of puberty in the only way they could. When they graduated, they all got married to women. I assume the same was the case in the all-girls boarding schools. It is definitely that way in prison.

The "one drop rule" is nonsense. Human sexuality is a lot more complicated than that.

All the evidence is that pedophiles (and hebephiles) are compulsory offenders -- so while there MIGHT be a case now and then of only one offense, most offenders go on and on.

That is, in fact the cause of the Sex Scandal -- Bishops persuaded themselves that sex offenders can be "cured."

Now, in answer to your question, if a 35-year-old man has sex with a 10-year-old girl, is he a heterosexual?

There would be no evidence that he is NOT, although he would definitely be a sexual preditator.

You seem to be saying that sex crimes are not sex crimes.