I can see your argument for a richer ecclesiastical life with a mix of married and unmarried priests. One example to look at is the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter which has just that. I do think that some care would have to be given to providing training and support for clergy wives. That would be a particularly sacrificial form of marriage to always be sharing one's husband with Christ in very particular and often inconvenient ways. The Orthodox clergy wives I know received some specific formation during their husband's seminary training so perhaps that would be a model to look at.
While I'm not opposed in principle, the introduction of married clergy in the Latin Rite would have to be done extremely carefully. Clerical celibacy has been coterminous with the priesthood in most western Catholics' minds for, like, 1,000 years... you can't just fiddle around with that.
I've sometimes wondered whether the Anglican Ordinariates would be a good self-contained subset of the Latin Rite in which to ordain married clergy. Curious about others' thoughts.
I'm not theologically opposed to married priests (like you, I've known some). My primary concern is for wives and current or future children. Especially in this overly busy modern world that is a ton for a wife of a priest to shoulder. There's been some interesting surveys of deacons' wives which probably would be helpful if this were ever to really be considered.
In addition to the burdens placed on wives, the current financial model for paying priests would need to be re-evaluated. A much larger salary would need to be paid to pastors and parochial vicars in order to pay for the ongoing costs of supporting a family. I doubt many parishes in the US would be able to fund such additional costs without making cuts to other parish ministry activities.
all the protestants are able to afford married pastors. So to me, the argument just doesn’t wash about finances. Seems like a bad reason to keep the celibacy discipline.
Separate from the "is it a good idea" question, I could imagine side-stepping the finances issue if you are primarily ordaining older married men, with grown children, who are perhaps retiring early from a profitable career, going through an accelerated formation, and then perhaps serving actively for ~15 years max. I've known priests who pursued a vocation like this after their wives' died. Although given the way things are going, I'd highly recommend a bishop not assume the financial situation he sees 60 year olds in now is going to be true for the next generation at that age...
An alternative path, if awkward to discuss is: priests are generally more financially stable and well off than "people who work for the church" in general. And yet, lay people do choose to work for the church, often under conditions that... don't live up to Rerum Novarum's ideals. If the church basically decided "we're ok with priests being as financially vulnerable as Catholic school teachers or CRS staffers", the financial burden would be much smaller. [to be very clear: I am not *advocating* for this - just noting that it's among the possible outcomes].
or, have "part time priest" option? Someone who would help out mainly with sacraments, but not lead the parish organization at all. An assistant-pastor, as opposed to an associate pastor (similar to professors at a university, though obviously quite different).
To this point: I imagine a priest's wife would feel like a policeman's wife. The question "how was your day?" is extremely loaded.
But on top of the heavy, terrible stuff a cop might have to deal with, a priest is also (in my limited experience as a layman and former seminarian) a professional keeper of secrets both pastoral and ecclesial. I find it tough to imagine a priest who bears the knowledge of a compromise his brother priest (or his bishop) has made which, though not newsworthy, is no less scandalous, navigating whether or not to share or hide that from his wife.
To be purposefully glib: the priesthood is a "job" I wouldn't wish on anyone's husband.
i think it should be an option. it already exists in the particular eastern churches . How to introduce it in the presence of mainly celibate presbyterate is the hard question. What what to do with a celibate priest in his 50s who desired marriage, but gave it up to be a priest?? Its a church discipline NOT a doctrine! An important distinction. Face it we live in a highly sexualized culture. Its in your face even in social media ads. This has really never been present in civilization to this extent. As a physician i can say a man’s testosterone can be 10-20 times higher than a woman’s. These are young men we are talking about. Yes, we can do all things through Christ, but why throw up an unnecessary roadblock to young men entering the priesthood. It is estimated that 30 to 50% of eastern rite catholic priests are married and up to 50% in the Maronite and Chaldeon rite
churches, but only the celibate can become bishops
I disagree with your argument that we live in a sexualized culture so it’s just too hard to expect young men to avoid having sex. Is it too hard for anyone who is unmarried? Should we just endorse fornication across the board then? I’m being a bit snarky but this argument isn’t a primary reason to advocate for married clergy.
If you'd like an easy entrance into the life of St. Oscar, I recommend the film "Romero" starring Raul Julia. It's a little rough around the edges and very much of the 80s, but Julia is mesmerizing as the titular saint.
It seems to me that the dioceses of the United States, which are often financially struggling, would have a hard time supporting priests' families, especially in terms of healthcare and the education of children. It would be unfortunate if no priests' wives could afford to stay home with their children, or if they could not afford to send their children to Catholic school. I think the only way a lot of dioceses could pull it off is to ordain older married men with no dependent children and expect that they will either work another job or collect retirement benefits. This seems to work for the diaconate.
all the protestants able to have married pastors why can’t we as Catholics have our pastor’s priest married? Not being able to afford it as a terrible reason to me.
JD, I appreciate your rightly-ordered appreciation for celibacy as a consecration of the man to be about the things of the Lord - and I'm glad you see past the errors of "it's just a discipline" or "it's about availability".
I too would actually be open to the discussion about ordaining married men IF AND ONLY IF the charism of celibacy were taken more seriously as the monastic charism that it is, and celibate Priests (a.k.a. monastics) were expected (and enabled by their Bishops) to live a far more serious life of prayer and asceticism, rather than the current utilitarian model of "Hey, you're a young, strong lad--here's five parishes!" that we're stuck in right now. I think you're right in that having married clergy **could** help the Church to actually appreciate the charism of celibacy better, or at least I think it's worth observing how that's played out in praxis in the Eastern Churches. Of course, my Eastern sympathies are showing now, so I'll just tuck that back into hiding with my biretta and maniples.
Either you're able to remain chaste regardless of marriage or you're not. Those who argue that celibacy is too would not be faithful to their wives either. What is the greater scandal?
I'm glad you're happily celibate. I'll offer a Hail Mary for you that you remain so.
Thank you for sharing that beautiful insight that Gina received from the Lord- that will be wisdom I hope to remember to share with others (and myself) when facing death, Lord willing.
I fully support the admission of married priests. The imposition of the regular vow of chastity upon the secular clergy did not really spread widely until the Twelfth Century (Rome might have wanted it but its authority on this matter was centuries in the coming), normally through imposed discipline. It’s been a tradition for less than half the life of the Church (not even vaguely “almost Apostolic”). Being a married man with children does not invalidate a Sacrament. I know some priests who embrace celibacy, their choice. I know some priests who are happily married to delightful ladies, their choice. Do I receive the Eucharist willingly from both of them? Yes.
As for Bonny? Hmm, Heaven forbid that a mortal become frustrated with the glacial pace of the Church’s considerations. Is he right or wrong? Well, he has got us talking about it again. He has set a deadline nearer than the departure of all current clergy to the Pearly Gates. The response “buh buh buh, canon law says”… nah. Canon law can be and has been changed over the years so it is no shield. The matter is on the Agenda and needs a little more airtime.
Well, since many of the Church Fathers were indeed praising clerical virginity, I think the tradition is definitely and doubtless "almost apostolic," even though it wasn't broadly normativized for quite a while.
And disobeying canon law is a big deal. Without it, as the practical instantiation of the Church's hierarchical authority, we are hardly a society at all.
deliberately defying the authority of the church, as expressed in the law of the church, seems to be a probably grave matter in many cases, and a moral issue most or all of the time.
It would seem that if a person deliberately disobeys the law of the Church it would ALWAYS be a moral issue, in that the Church is the proper authority to issue such a law, and to deliberately disobey or disregard a law would be sinful all the time.
Is it? What if the Church has got it wrong? No, no, Athanasius, hush now. Christ’s nature is quite clear, listen to Arius. No, no, Friar Bartholomew, “all the races of Man are NOT equal! It says so in Aquinas” (it doesn’t actually but that was the line by the fifteenth Century). There is no sin in using the Gifts of the Holy Spirit to question anything.
To question and deliberately disobey are different things. Also, with the modern convinces, it would be easy enough to get said issue dispensed. The law has provided appropriate methods for disagreement.
And it derived from clerical sexual continence even for married clergy around offering the liturgy or even performing baptism in some areas. Which was a difficult practice for such married clergy and especially so once daily mass became a more widespread western norm (although there is evidence of daily mass in certain places very early). I assume any Latin married priest practice in this regard should be first informed by Eastern Catholic disciplines and modified as necessary for daily mass realities .
Many did. Many did not. I think “over a millennium” since the Incarnation is a bit of a stretch for “quite a while”. As for Canon Law, yes, that Pope Paul III, what a naughty little scamp with that whole Counter Reformation Council ofTrent mullarkey! You know, I bet he just woke up one morning and decided that it was time to stop selling indulgences? I mean, his predecessors had been so ok with it, No? No. Canon law can, has and will be reviewed and reformed. It is, or is meant to be, the reflection of the Church’s authority for the guidance of the Faithful. It is not nor ever was a valid excuse to dodge discussions, opinions or debate …or defer them. Bonny has put the matter on the list. No fudges. What’s the Church to do? Admit the invalidity of married clergy or hide behind the Clubhouse Rules?. There’s two years to come to a conclusion. It is hardly as if there hasn’t been a presentation of both sides of the argument. Not an unreasonable timeline.
I think you are confounding two different concepts: Bishop Bonny is perfectly free to advocate for married priests, to expound the advantages he thinks they would have for his diocese, to request permission to implement whatever program he thinks would be best for his diocese, to argue for a change in the law, to make known his ideas/opinions/needs to the vicar of Christ. What he is not free to do is simply violate the law because he doesn't like the response.
The selling of indulgences was condemned by the Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris in the 1470s. So Trent (and Luther) did not start that trend.
In the early 16th century some bishops were still fining priests with concubines rather than requiring priests to live chastely. And one notes that Erasmus of Rotterdam was a priest's son.
I honestly don't know, is the "pastoral provision" that John Paul II put in place only a US thing? Granted, I doubt there are very many (any?) Belgian Anglican priests looking to swim the Tiber with their families.
In theory, admitting married men into the priesthood should at least be able to be debated, but as you noted, there is too much doctrinally tied up in the discussion for it to ever have a chance of being discussed reasonably and level-headedly. It will always be viewed as a stepping stone towards women's ordination and other heterodox beliefs by those on both sides of the debate. For that reason, I oppose even considering it. If those kinds of debates were not raging in the Church today, I would possibly change my mind. Maybe when the current generation leading the Church is long gone, and serious advocates in the Church for things like women's ordination are largely extinct, maybe 30-40 years from now at least, then there could possibly be a serious debate. But today's Church seems like the worst possible environment to discuss this issue.
I wonder if Benedict could have known what kind of doctrinal turmoil (compared to when he was Pope) would arise in the Church after he resigned, if he might reconsider his decision on the Personal Ordinariate. At the time it seemed like a perfectly safe decision. But at the time we had a Pope at the helm, and others serving under him, who could be counted on to keep what was supposed to be an exception as an exception. And we could be assured that it would not be viewed as an opening to women's ordination, gay marriage, and any other doctrinal change that a special interest group might want. Now we see, as is in Belgium, Germany, Austria, and other places (even Rome itself), that is not the case any longer. Any concession, no matter how minor, is turned into a rallying point for more change in the future. And history in the Church has shown how what is meant to be an exception to a rule can become the norm in a very short period of time.
"who exhibited heroic virtue just in the effort it took to face going to Mass"... This is truly underscored by so many who have no idea and do not see the struggle of those who have been deeply hurt through various abuses. So many do not ask for that heroic virtue, and I ask all of you here to offer a prayer for those who haven't requested it, that God would grant it for them anyways! 🙏
His exact words were“I will make every effort to ordain married men as priests for our diocese by 2028, I will approach them personally and ensure that by then they have the necessary theological training and pastoral experience, comparable to that of other priest candidates.”
In “a secular age,” characterized and confined by what Charles Taylor calls “ the immanent frame,” I hope the Roman Church will continue the embodied witness to the Transcendent represented by a celibate priesthood as its “ordinary form”
I’ve heard the statement my entire adult life: The Catholic Church should allow married priests. My response has been the same each time: It already does. Since 1967, when Pope Paul VI published Sacerdotalis caelibatus, the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has allowed former Anglican priests, on a case-by-case basis, to enter the Catholic Church and serve as priests, even if they were married.
Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta opined some time ago that the celibacy requirement for men discerning a call to the priesthood (excluding former Anglican priests) needs to be reconsidered. He said, we need to “discuss the issue seriously.”
A serious consideration will move beyond the unserious reasons given for or against married priests, regardless of whether marriage is an option for all candidates or an exception for a few. Proponents see married priests as a panacea for all that ails the priesthood. Opponents argue that celibate priests have the freedom to dedicate all their time to God and their flock. Both positions fall flat. Married men, priests or not, are susceptible to the same temptations and vices as any man, and celibate priests who misuse their “unhindered” time (sometimes for temptations and vices) are all too common (Read the papers).
A serious consideration might make use of the synodal process, by which the entire church seeks to discern the movement of the Holy Spirit. Lay people, priests and religious, bishops, other Christian communities, currently married priests, all of them could present the fruit of their experience and prayer to the pope. Indeed, such a process might have avoided the explosion of confusion and concern upon the release of Fiducia supplicans (among not only the laity but also bishops’ conferences). Serious matters deserve serious deliberation.
Designating topic areas would not be difficult. As a start, and with no claim to being exhaustive, the topics could include a history of married priests in the Catholic Church, difficulties and challenges that would come with a married clergy, and possible solutions.
Historically speaking, married priests in the Catholic Church, as a general rule, have been allowed and prohibited for roughly the same amount of time, about a thousand years each. But it’s important to keep in mind that married priests have always been allowed in principle, if not in practice. Still, the most ancient precedent is for married priests.
Other churches, in or out of communion with Rome, have maintained the rule of married priests (or clergy), although in several traditions bishops must be celibate. It would also be worth considering the experience of Christian communities outside of Catholicism that have married clergy.
The precedent of married priests helps to avoid the knee-jerk reaction of dismissing them out of hand, just as any easy dismissal of celibate priests should be rejected. More helpful questions are why have married priests been allowed at all, why are they allowed still? Is there a benefit to having married priests that the ancient church and modern churches demonstrate? Finally, one can presume that the Holy Spirit has led the church to these practices, past and present. Could it be that the Spirit is leading the church to accept married priests again?
Challenges and difficulties that would come with a married clergy are inevitable, just as a celibate priesthood has its own set of trials and problems (loneliness, poor health habits, addictions, workaholism, and the aforementioned misuse of free time).
Obviously, a married priest would need to balance his responsibilities to his parish family and his own household, just as other professional men must do with their families and vocations. Having a wife and children does not mean that one cannot serve other people well and dutifully; it requires setting priorities and using purposefully the time one has. For example, many people – including celibate priests – find it difficult to make time for prayer. They say they are too busy. The answer, of course, is that they are indeed too busy. They need to prioritize their tasks and make time for prayer.
Other more practical challenges concern compensation and living arrangements for married priests. On these matters, as it is with juggling multiple responsibilities, the difficulties involved do not mean giving up on the possibility. A priest is never going to make as much as a hedge fund manager. The question is how much should he be paid, with a spouse and children to take care of? Would parishioners value a married priest enough to provide him and his family with a living wage? The church should be as concerned with just compensation for its priests as it is for its other workers, who by and large get paid less than their secular counterparts. In fact, celibate priests have lived far more comfortably than the nuns and lay teachers who have staffed parish schools.
There are no challenges or difficulties that could not be overcome. A greater danger would be holding that the celibate priesthood needs to be discontinued because of the ephebophilia scandal or that married priests will solve the vocations crisis. The truth is that a celibate priest or a married priest who lives his vocation well is a blessing to the church. How can the church help priests, married or celibate, respond to God’s call with love and fidelity?
A list of solutions could be drawn up to be considered in any serious conversation. Practices from other churches might be embraced, such as the rule that a man can be married only before ordination. There might be innovations borrowed from secular professions, such as setting a minimum age for ordination. A man could be ordained only after 35 (or older, as one comment suggested already). A set age could help a man mature, gain experience in life, and perhaps even accrue a savings account. Surplus church property, such as rectories built for six priests and housing one, might hold comfortably a married priest and his family.
Let’s say for argument’s sake that the church does accept married men for service in the priesthood, and all difficulties have been met and solutions provided. An individual man sensing a call to the priesthood still must do his own personal discernment and test it with the local church (and his wife, if he is married) in order to seek God’s will. No one has a right to be a priest. On the other hand, as Archbishop Scicluna suggested, the time is ripe to make a definitive decision on the matter. Otherwise, many good men who do sense a call to be a priest will remain wondering why exceptions are made for others but not for them.
I can see your argument for a richer ecclesiastical life with a mix of married and unmarried priests. One example to look at is the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter which has just that. I do think that some care would have to be given to providing training and support for clergy wives. That would be a particularly sacrificial form of marriage to always be sharing one's husband with Christ in very particular and often inconvenient ways. The Orthodox clergy wives I know received some specific formation during their husband's seminary training so perhaps that would be a model to look at.
While I'm not opposed in principle, the introduction of married clergy in the Latin Rite would have to be done extremely carefully. Clerical celibacy has been coterminous with the priesthood in most western Catholics' minds for, like, 1,000 years... you can't just fiddle around with that.
I've sometimes wondered whether the Anglican Ordinariates would be a good self-contained subset of the Latin Rite in which to ordain married clergy. Curious about others' thoughts.
I'm not theologically opposed to married priests (like you, I've known some). My primary concern is for wives and current or future children. Especially in this overly busy modern world that is a ton for a wife of a priest to shoulder. There's been some interesting surveys of deacons' wives which probably would be helpful if this were ever to really be considered.
good point.
In addition to the burdens placed on wives, the current financial model for paying priests would need to be re-evaluated. A much larger salary would need to be paid to pastors and parochial vicars in order to pay for the ongoing costs of supporting a family. I doubt many parishes in the US would be able to fund such additional costs without making cuts to other parish ministry activities.
I agree that the practical questions about finances would require a lot of reevaluation about parish structures and finances!
all the protestants are able to afford married pastors. So to me, the argument just doesn’t wash about finances. Seems like a bad reason to keep the celibacy discipline.
I think on a practical level, this will do as much to curtail it as any theological argument one way or the other.
Separate from the "is it a good idea" question, I could imagine side-stepping the finances issue if you are primarily ordaining older married men, with grown children, who are perhaps retiring early from a profitable career, going through an accelerated formation, and then perhaps serving actively for ~15 years max. I've known priests who pursued a vocation like this after their wives' died. Although given the way things are going, I'd highly recommend a bishop not assume the financial situation he sees 60 year olds in now is going to be true for the next generation at that age...
An alternative path, if awkward to discuss is: priests are generally more financially stable and well off than "people who work for the church" in general. And yet, lay people do choose to work for the church, often under conditions that... don't live up to Rerum Novarum's ideals. If the church basically decided "we're ok with priests being as financially vulnerable as Catholic school teachers or CRS staffers", the financial burden would be much smaller. [to be very clear: I am not *advocating* for this - just noting that it's among the possible outcomes].
or, have "part time priest" option? Someone who would help out mainly with sacraments, but not lead the parish organization at all. An assistant-pastor, as opposed to an associate pastor (similar to professors at a university, though obviously quite different).
I agree that this is the only way it can work.
To this point: I imagine a priest's wife would feel like a policeman's wife. The question "how was your day?" is extremely loaded.
But on top of the heavy, terrible stuff a cop might have to deal with, a priest is also (in my limited experience as a layman and former seminarian) a professional keeper of secrets both pastoral and ecclesial. I find it tough to imagine a priest who bears the knowledge of a compromise his brother priest (or his bishop) has made which, though not newsworthy, is no less scandalous, navigating whether or not to share or hide that from his wife.
To be purposefully glib: the priesthood is a "job" I wouldn't wish on anyone's husband.
As the husband of a Pillar editor's wife, I totally get what you're saying here.
i think it should be an option. it already exists in the particular eastern churches . How to introduce it in the presence of mainly celibate presbyterate is the hard question. What what to do with a celibate priest in his 50s who desired marriage, but gave it up to be a priest?? Its a church discipline NOT a doctrine! An important distinction. Face it we live in a highly sexualized culture. Its in your face even in social media ads. This has really never been present in civilization to this extent. As a physician i can say a man’s testosterone can be 10-20 times higher than a woman’s. These are young men we are talking about. Yes, we can do all things through Christ, but why throw up an unnecessary roadblock to young men entering the priesthood. It is estimated that 30 to 50% of eastern rite catholic priests are married and up to 50% in the Maronite and Chaldeon rite
churches, but only the celibate can become bishops
I disagree with your argument that we live in a sexualized culture so it’s just too hard to expect young men to avoid having sex. Is it too hard for anyone who is unmarried? Should we just endorse fornication across the board then? I’m being a bit snarky but this argument isn’t a primary reason to advocate for married clergy.
If you'd like an easy entrance into the life of St. Oscar, I recommend the film "Romero" starring Raul Julia. It's a little rough around the edges and very much of the 80s, but Julia is mesmerizing as the titular saint.
agreed.
It seems to me that the dioceses of the United States, which are often financially struggling, would have a hard time supporting priests' families, especially in terms of healthcare and the education of children. It would be unfortunate if no priests' wives could afford to stay home with their children, or if they could not afford to send their children to Catholic school. I think the only way a lot of dioceses could pull it off is to ordain older married men with no dependent children and expect that they will either work another job or collect retirement benefits. This seems to work for the diaconate.
I know that some of the Ordianriate priests' wives do work due to financial strain.
all the protestants able to have married pastors why can’t we as Catholics have our pastor’s priest married? Not being able to afford it as a terrible reason to me.
JD, I appreciate your rightly-ordered appreciation for celibacy as a consecration of the man to be about the things of the Lord - and I'm glad you see past the errors of "it's just a discipline" or "it's about availability".
I too would actually be open to the discussion about ordaining married men IF AND ONLY IF the charism of celibacy were taken more seriously as the monastic charism that it is, and celibate Priests (a.k.a. monastics) were expected (and enabled by their Bishops) to live a far more serious life of prayer and asceticism, rather than the current utilitarian model of "Hey, you're a young, strong lad--here's five parishes!" that we're stuck in right now. I think you're right in that having married clergy **could** help the Church to actually appreciate the charism of celibacy better, or at least I think it's worth observing how that's played out in praxis in the Eastern Churches. Of course, my Eastern sympathies are showing now, so I'll just tuck that back into hiding with my biretta and maniples.
And, for the record, I think the argument some are making that "celibacy is too hard" is stupid and worldly.
Sincerely,
A happy consecrated celibate man
Either you're able to remain chaste regardless of marriage or you're not. Those who argue that celibacy is too would not be faithful to their wives either. What is the greater scandal?
I'm glad you're happily celibate. I'll offer a Hail Mary for you that you remain so.
Hear, hear! I couldn’t agree more!
Thank you for sharing that beautiful insight that Gina received from the Lord- that will be wisdom I hope to remember to share with others (and myself) when facing death, Lord willing.
I fully support the admission of married priests. The imposition of the regular vow of chastity upon the secular clergy did not really spread widely until the Twelfth Century (Rome might have wanted it but its authority on this matter was centuries in the coming), normally through imposed discipline. It’s been a tradition for less than half the life of the Church (not even vaguely “almost Apostolic”). Being a married man with children does not invalidate a Sacrament. I know some priests who embrace celibacy, their choice. I know some priests who are happily married to delightful ladies, their choice. Do I receive the Eucharist willingly from both of them? Yes.
As for Bonny? Hmm, Heaven forbid that a mortal become frustrated with the glacial pace of the Church’s considerations. Is he right or wrong? Well, he has got us talking about it again. He has set a deadline nearer than the departure of all current clergy to the Pearly Gates. The response “buh buh buh, canon law says”… nah. Canon law can be and has been changed over the years so it is no shield. The matter is on the Agenda and needs a little more airtime.
Well, since many of the Church Fathers were indeed praising clerical virginity, I think the tradition is definitely and doubtless "almost apostolic," even though it wasn't broadly normativized for quite a while.
And disobeying canon law is a big deal. Without it, as the practical instantiation of the Church's hierarchical authority, we are hardly a society at all.
Possibly a dumb question: is disobeying canon law a sin? Mortal or venial?
Asking for a friend.
deliberately defying the authority of the church, as expressed in the law of the church, seems to be a probably grave matter in many cases, and a moral issue most or all of the time.
It would seem that if a person deliberately disobeys the law of the Church it would ALWAYS be a moral issue, in that the Church is the proper authority to issue such a law, and to deliberately disobey or disregard a law would be sinful all the time.
I think you're right, I just like giving qualified answers if I haven't really thought about the question before.
;-)
Is it? What if the Church has got it wrong? No, no, Athanasius, hush now. Christ’s nature is quite clear, listen to Arius. No, no, Friar Bartholomew, “all the races of Man are NOT equal! It says so in Aquinas” (it doesn’t actually but that was the line by the fifteenth Century). There is no sin in using the Gifts of the Holy Spirit to question anything.
To question and deliberately disobey are different things. Also, with the modern convinces, it would be easy enough to get said issue dispensed. The law has provided appropriate methods for disagreement.
The Council of Nicea agreed with Athanasius.
And it derived from clerical sexual continence even for married clergy around offering the liturgy or even performing baptism in some areas. Which was a difficult practice for such married clergy and especially so once daily mass became a more widespread western norm (although there is evidence of daily mass in certain places very early). I assume any Latin married priest practice in this regard should be first informed by Eastern Catholic disciplines and modified as necessary for daily mass realities .
According to the Council of Nicea, if a priest's wife insisted on marital relations he was obliged to have them.
Many did. Many did not. I think “over a millennium” since the Incarnation is a bit of a stretch for “quite a while”. As for Canon Law, yes, that Pope Paul III, what a naughty little scamp with that whole Counter Reformation Council ofTrent mullarkey! You know, I bet he just woke up one morning and decided that it was time to stop selling indulgences? I mean, his predecessors had been so ok with it, No? No. Canon law can, has and will be reviewed and reformed. It is, or is meant to be, the reflection of the Church’s authority for the guidance of the Faithful. It is not nor ever was a valid excuse to dodge discussions, opinions or debate …or defer them. Bonny has put the matter on the list. No fudges. What’s the Church to do? Admit the invalidity of married clergy or hide behind the Clubhouse Rules?. There’s two years to come to a conclusion. It is hardly as if there hasn’t been a presentation of both sides of the argument. Not an unreasonable timeline.
I think you are confounding two different concepts: Bishop Bonny is perfectly free to advocate for married priests, to expound the advantages he thinks they would have for his diocese, to request permission to implement whatever program he thinks would be best for his diocese, to argue for a change in the law, to make known his ideas/opinions/needs to the vicar of Christ. What he is not free to do is simply violate the law because he doesn't like the response.
correct.
The selling of indulgences was condemned by the Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris in the 1470s. So Trent (and Luther) did not start that trend.
All persons are required to live chastely regardless of station. Did you mean celibacy?
In the early 16th century some bishops were still fining priests with concubines rather than requiring priests to live chastely. And one notes that Erasmus of Rotterdam was a priest's son.
I honestly don't know, is the "pastoral provision" that John Paul II put in place only a US thing? Granted, I doubt there are very many (any?) Belgian Anglican priests looking to swim the Tiber with their families.
exists universally, in principle. (however many belgian anglicans there are)
Thanks. Now I know. Still, doesn't seem to be the Bishop's angle.
In theory, admitting married men into the priesthood should at least be able to be debated, but as you noted, there is too much doctrinally tied up in the discussion for it to ever have a chance of being discussed reasonably and level-headedly. It will always be viewed as a stepping stone towards women's ordination and other heterodox beliefs by those on both sides of the debate. For that reason, I oppose even considering it. If those kinds of debates were not raging in the Church today, I would possibly change my mind. Maybe when the current generation leading the Church is long gone, and serious advocates in the Church for things like women's ordination are largely extinct, maybe 30-40 years from now at least, then there could possibly be a serious debate. But today's Church seems like the worst possible environment to discuss this issue.
I wonder if Benedict could have known what kind of doctrinal turmoil (compared to when he was Pope) would arise in the Church after he resigned, if he might reconsider his decision on the Personal Ordinariate. At the time it seemed like a perfectly safe decision. But at the time we had a Pope at the helm, and others serving under him, who could be counted on to keep what was supposed to be an exception as an exception. And we could be assured that it would not be viewed as an opening to women's ordination, gay marriage, and any other doctrinal change that a special interest group might want. Now we see, as is in Belgium, Germany, Austria, and other places (even Rome itself), that is not the case any longer. Any concession, no matter how minor, is turned into a rallying point for more change in the future. And history in the Church has shown how what is meant to be an exception to a rule can become the norm in a very short period of time.
"who exhibited heroic virtue just in the effort it took to face going to Mass"... This is truly underscored by so many who have no idea and do not see the struggle of those who have been deeply hurt through various abuses. So many do not ask for that heroic virtue, and I ask all of you here to offer a prayer for those who haven't requested it, that God would grant it for them anyways! 🙏
"I lived in Nebraska for five great years (we miss you, Shire!), and the devotion there to Fr. Flanagan is real, and palpable."
-Go Big Red! Go Big Red! Go Big Red!
His exact words were“I will make every effort to ordain married men as priests for our diocese by 2028, I will approach them personally and ensure that by then they have the necessary theological training and pastoral experience, comparable to that of other priest candidates.”
In “a secular age,” characterized and confined by what Charles Taylor calls “ the immanent frame,” I hope the Roman Church will continue the embodied witness to the Transcendent represented by a celibate priesthood as its “ordinary form”
I’ve heard the statement my entire adult life: The Catholic Church should allow married priests. My response has been the same each time: It already does. Since 1967, when Pope Paul VI published Sacerdotalis caelibatus, the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has allowed former Anglican priests, on a case-by-case basis, to enter the Catholic Church and serve as priests, even if they were married.
Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta opined some time ago that the celibacy requirement for men discerning a call to the priesthood (excluding former Anglican priests) needs to be reconsidered. He said, we need to “discuss the issue seriously.”
A serious consideration will move beyond the unserious reasons given for or against married priests, regardless of whether marriage is an option for all candidates or an exception for a few. Proponents see married priests as a panacea for all that ails the priesthood. Opponents argue that celibate priests have the freedom to dedicate all their time to God and their flock. Both positions fall flat. Married men, priests or not, are susceptible to the same temptations and vices as any man, and celibate priests who misuse their “unhindered” time (sometimes for temptations and vices) are all too common (Read the papers).
A serious consideration might make use of the synodal process, by which the entire church seeks to discern the movement of the Holy Spirit. Lay people, priests and religious, bishops, other Christian communities, currently married priests, all of them could present the fruit of their experience and prayer to the pope. Indeed, such a process might have avoided the explosion of confusion and concern upon the release of Fiducia supplicans (among not only the laity but also bishops’ conferences). Serious matters deserve serious deliberation.
Designating topic areas would not be difficult. As a start, and with no claim to being exhaustive, the topics could include a history of married priests in the Catholic Church, difficulties and challenges that would come with a married clergy, and possible solutions.
Historically speaking, married priests in the Catholic Church, as a general rule, have been allowed and prohibited for roughly the same amount of time, about a thousand years each. But it’s important to keep in mind that married priests have always been allowed in principle, if not in practice. Still, the most ancient precedent is for married priests.
Other churches, in or out of communion with Rome, have maintained the rule of married priests (or clergy), although in several traditions bishops must be celibate. It would also be worth considering the experience of Christian communities outside of Catholicism that have married clergy.
The precedent of married priests helps to avoid the knee-jerk reaction of dismissing them out of hand, just as any easy dismissal of celibate priests should be rejected. More helpful questions are why have married priests been allowed at all, why are they allowed still? Is there a benefit to having married priests that the ancient church and modern churches demonstrate? Finally, one can presume that the Holy Spirit has led the church to these practices, past and present. Could it be that the Spirit is leading the church to accept married priests again?
Challenges and difficulties that would come with a married clergy are inevitable, just as a celibate priesthood has its own set of trials and problems (loneliness, poor health habits, addictions, workaholism, and the aforementioned misuse of free time).
Obviously, a married priest would need to balance his responsibilities to his parish family and his own household, just as other professional men must do with their families and vocations. Having a wife and children does not mean that one cannot serve other people well and dutifully; it requires setting priorities and using purposefully the time one has. For example, many people – including celibate priests – find it difficult to make time for prayer. They say they are too busy. The answer, of course, is that they are indeed too busy. They need to prioritize their tasks and make time for prayer.
Other more practical challenges concern compensation and living arrangements for married priests. On these matters, as it is with juggling multiple responsibilities, the difficulties involved do not mean giving up on the possibility. A priest is never going to make as much as a hedge fund manager. The question is how much should he be paid, with a spouse and children to take care of? Would parishioners value a married priest enough to provide him and his family with a living wage? The church should be as concerned with just compensation for its priests as it is for its other workers, who by and large get paid less than their secular counterparts. In fact, celibate priests have lived far more comfortably than the nuns and lay teachers who have staffed parish schools.
There are no challenges or difficulties that could not be overcome. A greater danger would be holding that the celibate priesthood needs to be discontinued because of the ephebophilia scandal or that married priests will solve the vocations crisis. The truth is that a celibate priest or a married priest who lives his vocation well is a blessing to the church. How can the church help priests, married or celibate, respond to God’s call with love and fidelity?
A list of solutions could be drawn up to be considered in any serious conversation. Practices from other churches might be embraced, such as the rule that a man can be married only before ordination. There might be innovations borrowed from secular professions, such as setting a minimum age for ordination. A man could be ordained only after 35 (or older, as one comment suggested already). A set age could help a man mature, gain experience in life, and perhaps even accrue a savings account. Surplus church property, such as rectories built for six priests and housing one, might hold comfortably a married priest and his family.
Let’s say for argument’s sake that the church does accept married men for service in the priesthood, and all difficulties have been met and solutions provided. An individual man sensing a call to the priesthood still must do his own personal discernment and test it with the local church (and his wife, if he is married) in order to seek God’s will. No one has a right to be a priest. On the other hand, as Archbishop Scicluna suggested, the time is ripe to make a definitive decision on the matter. Otherwise, many good men who do sense a call to be a priest will remain wondering why exceptions are made for others but not for them.