“Yes, relationships are indeed natural and God made humans to have relationships, but relationships are more than sexual,” he said. “The church allows celibacy to be part of the priest, not only because it frees these men to work full-time ministry, but it is an opportunity to begin to live the life promised in eternal life where there will be no marriage but the marriage between God and humanity.”
[Father Bob] Vaillancourt also responds to those who say that allowing priests to marry better equips them to counsel married couples and having families helps make them more in touch with the real world.
“I have not had the gift of living a married life, and yes, I have not had the privilege of having children; but I have had the honor of listening to many, many couples struggling in their marriage and family life and attempting to bring healing and peace in their lives,” he said.
He has worked with many wounded couples and families, and they have taught him what it takes to be married and helped him understand the important needs of married couples, and of family life, he said.
“They are the ones who have taught me how to counsel couples and their families. I may not be qualified to counsel in some eyes, but I humbly admit that many couples whom I have counseled have grown in healing and holiness. And for that, I am grateful.”
Looks like the Roman Catholic Church is starting to run out of priests, at least here in [url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_613909.html]Pittsburgh.[/url]
Last year the Diocese of Pittsburgh ordained 3 priests, this year alone 44 priests are eligible to retire (of course not that many will). Thus
The bottom line is that in 10 years there could well be 100 priests for the 212 parishes in the diocese. Roman Catholics will have to decide if they want married priests or each priest serving 2 parishes. Is this a good thing? And what if goes to having to serve 3 parishes? 4?
I don’t think married priests will ever happen. A cynical part of me says that forced clerical celebacy is in one sense a means of control, both of the priests themselves who can be moved around on a whim and also money. Most Roman dioceses I know could not afford to pay competitve salaries and insurance on entire family units of priests.
I think I accidentally clicked submit before I was finished. Sorry if my previous post sounds snarky, I was not done yet.
Continuing on to what I was saying…The Catholic church would have to completely redo their priestly formation process as its geared towards the individual celibate priest functioning in community, more like the monastic model. I don’t think they have anything that could form priests in married units. That’s a whole different type of formation.
And also I would note (and make what you will of it) that a lot of the more traditional religious orders that turn out priests are over flowing with potential ordinands. I know that Tridentine rite religious order (Fraternity of St. Peter) that has a seminary in Nebraska can’t build dorms and facilities fast enough.
The answer to the question in the headline: both. Long ago, Rome conflated two distinct vocations, celibacy and priesthood. Some are called to both, but, as the experience of Eastern Christianity in general shows, many are called to priesthood and marriage.
Archer, you’re right about the growth of religious vocations in the more traditional circles of the RC Church. Regarding the formation of couples, this is already happening in the formation of permanent deacons. Another factor here, becoming increasingly important, is the Pastoral Provision allowing former Anglican and Lutheran clergy, even if married, to be ordained RC priests if they convert. Of course, such priests also tend to be more traditional.
#4. Father Greg,
I think there will be an increasing use of the deaconate to perform priestly duties. A priest here was replaced by a deacon.
It also seems like a door has been opened with allowing married Anglican Clergy to become RC priests. What does this say to the RC priests that waiver in their vow of celibacy? I’m surprised more RC Priests don’t become Anglican, get married and come back to the RC church. The first Pope, St. Peter was married. The Roman Church really needs to rethink this. Celibate Priests are an obstacle to reconciliation with the other churches. Would married priests have diminished the sexual abuse of children? Yes. Is being married a guarantee there will be no sexual misconduct? No.
I’m asking this to gain a deeper knowledge of the Catholic theology and not to be argumentative/snarky: how does the Catholic church deal with the passages in 1 Timothy and Titus that say that a bishop is to be the husband of one wife? Also, if the priesthood is based on these few passages and on the priesthood of the Levites, who also married, why is celibacy required of priests? I understand the idea that the priest as representing Christ is married to the church and I understand that a celibate priest would have more time to devote to the church. What I want to understand better is how those particular areas of scripture and doctrine are dealt with.
I’m surprised more RC Priests don’t become Anglican, get married and come back to the RC church.
Reverts cannot be ordained, married or not. One of the Albany TEC bishops became Catholic upon retirement, but cannot be ordained because he left the Catholic Church to become Episcopalian.
Celibate Priests are an obstacle to reconciliation with the other churches.
In what way? And if the discipline of clerical celibacy were abandoned, would there be reconcilation in the face of serious doctrinal differences? If we let our priests marry, will you accept the Immaculate Conception and enter the Catholic Church?
Would married priests have diminished the sexual abuse of children? Yes.
Yet Phillip Jenkins, in Pedophiles and Priests reports that protestant ministers are as likely, or more so, to offend against children than Catholic priests. Data from the public schools is coming out to show the problem of sexual abuse is as great, or greater in that setting as it is in the Catholic Church. Oh! If only teachers could marry! Something between 3% and 4% of Catholic priests offended against children (actually adolescent boys, mostly) over the past 50 years. Do you have any sense of how that rate compares to the male population in general? Hard data isn’t available, but I have been told by a specialist in the area that it is probably about 8%.
Is being married a guarantee there will be no sexual misconduct? No.
Excellent point! What happens when a Catholic priest gets a divorce? Or his adult child has an affair with someone in the congregation? Or when his children get in legal problems? Or any of the myriad of other problems endemic to faimly life occur?
John Bowers –
You ask a serious question. As to the Old Testament priesthood, I can’t think of marriaige being prescribed for them. Of course, they generally were married, as men generally are in any society. Catholic exegetes tend to treat the passages in the pastoral epistles as proscribing polygamy rather than prescribing marraige. Certainly, that would be consistent with St. Paul’s admonitions in First Corinthians.
Celibacy actually works quite well for us. It frees our clergy to serve where and when they are needed (suggesting this is a control mechanism strikes me as cynical to an unChristian degree). One study showed that about 70% of middle-aged priests expressed satisfaction with their lives. I wonder how that compares with middle-aged men in general (being one, I suspect favorably).
Look, marriage is good and sex, in marriage, is good, but ascetical theology understands that sometimes we give up what is good for what is better. As St. Paul tells us: the married man has to consider his wife; the single man can consider the Lord alone. If this is cynical of me, I apologize, but I wonder at times if all this protestant objection to clerical celibacy doesn’t come from the sexually obsessed spirit of western culture more than an authentic Christian spirit. Given the romanticization of marriage, and it’s ultimate collapse in our western culture, is it rational to criticize a practice that, as I note, works relatively well.
Dcn Dale: A Roman Catholic man, whether priest or not, who became Anglican, married, and then returned, desiring to become/function as an RC priest would not be allowed to do so. This is an obstacle in the movement of the Traditional Anglican Communion toward full unity with Rome and also helped to scuttle the movement of the Polish National Catholic Church toward the same end; both jurisdictions have married clergy who were originally Roman priests (reportedly including, in the case of TAC, its Primate, who, I believe, is now divorced).
John: In both East and West, these biblical passages are understood as being prescriptive only in the sense that a man who is ordained to major orders (deacon or above) must have been married, if at all, only once. As far as whether one is married or not, they are understood to be permissive, not requiring that a clergyman be married. St. Paul, for example, was NOT married. Therefore, while there were clearly married bishops in the early Church, the constant discipline in the East has been that while a man married once only may be ordained, he cannot (re-)marry after ordination, even if he is a widower. Further, from about AD 600 on, all bishops were required to be celibate, drawn from the ranks of the monks (including widower priests who, having been elected to the episcopate, then took monastic vows prior to consecration. This practice continues. Archbishop Dimitri, of the Diocese of the South of the OCA, for example, is a widower).
#7. Words Matter,
“Yet Phillip Jenkins, in Pedophiles and Priests reports that protestant ministers are as likely, or more so, to offend against children than Catholic priests. Data from the public schools is coming out to show the problem of sexual abuse is as great, or greater in that setting as it is in the Catholic Church. Oh! If only teachers could marry!”
I have a great affection for the Roman Catholic Church, however I really don’t think the evidence you are using in the non RC setting is as fully documented as it is with the RC setting. The opportunity for serial sexual abuse in the public school setting is reduced because of the public nature of the teaching profession. Teachers are under a great deal of scrutiny. Additionally, Principals go to jail who knowingly move around a pedophile teacher. Teachers, Counselors, School Psychologists, Nurses and other school professionals have a legal responsibility to report abuse. If you are asserting that it is greater in the public school setting I would argue that in total numbers you might be correct but not per capita.
The point is that priestly celebacy is not required biblically, but it is not contrary to it. It is a matter of tradition and discipline. If the RC wants to revisit it and modify it or do away with it they can. And if like 7, they are happy with it, they can retain it. However it is their business.
11. Brother Michael,
“However it is their business.”
I usually agree with you, but on this one I do not. What the Roman Catholic Church does affects all the other churches. It is also the business of the Roman Church and other churches when TEC makes heretical statements. How each denomination conducts itself, good or bad, affects the church universal. This is not just true across denominational boundaries. It is true over time as well. We are still being judged by believers and pagans by the activities of the inquisition and the crusades.
Well Decon Dale, on the matter of priestly celebacy it is the RC’s own buisness. If they want it fine and if they don’t fine. It’s a matter of Church discipline. I think that the RC would be enhanced by married clergy, but I am not RC and I don’t think I have a say in the matter. I respect their decision.
I might add sexual misconduct is another matter, but that cuts across denominational lines.
Dcn Dale –
The problems in the schools are well documented. I recommend this article. It’s a Catholic source, but is thoroughly footnoted from non-Catholic sources. Here’s the part on schools:
There is some relevant information here, with a link to Mr. Nussbaum’s entire essay.
Here’s a posting of an AP article on the subject:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1933666/posts
That the Catholic Church in the United States has actual hard numbers, well-publicized, says something about our culture, doesn’t it. I seriously recommend (again!) Phillip Jenkin’s book, previously cited, for anyone who really cares about child abuse issues. It was written before the Boston scandal of 2002, focusing on the Dallas/Rudy Kos scandal and the one before that. Yet only the names are different: it’s like there’s this script that the media and various interest groups play out.
One interest group, of course, is the protestants who have this obsession about clerical celibacy. Br. Michael is correct, it’s no one’s business but ours, and, as I said, it’s generally a positive practice.
What the Roman Catholic Church does affects all the other churches.
My my, you’d think we actually were the True Church. 🙂
#15. Words Matter,
Your statistics edify and are a sober reminder about the betrayal of trust of the innocent. I can tell you as someone who worked crisis intervention that there is a horrible rage in many adult men that were sexually abused by their mothers.
“What the Roman Catholic Church does affects all the other churches.” You needn’t be defensive about this statement. The RC church has remained a benchmark of orthodoxy for other churches and denominations. It bothers me immensely how much Anglicanism has departed from its Reformed Catholic Roots.
To begin, I believe there is a strong case to be made for the value and theological foundation of celibacy.
The issue is less celibacy than the culture that surrounds it in the RC Church, which, by their own study, tends to foster emotional immaturity in the way it was/is promoted in the seminary system.
I also know for a fact that as recently as the 1990’s they were surveying clergy compensation packages to get some bearing on the matter. Whether this will give or not — having married clergy — is less important than the clear understanding that it is neither necessary nor likely tenable to continue clerical celibacy without a revolution in vocations. Perhaps more to the point, who bears the burden but the increasingly impoverished sacramental and devotional life of RC laity.
“I also know for a fact that as recently as the 1990’s they were surveying clergy compensation packages to get some bearing on the matter.” This should be clarified to read: I also know for a fact that as recently as the 1990’s they were surveying married Episcopal clergy compensation packages to get some bearing on the potential cost of the matter.
When does the priest shortage become a serious problem? That was my original question. Is it ideal for a priest to now serve two parishes? When will they be stretched too thin? When my friends mother lay dying in the hospital he couldn’t find a Roman Catholic priest to visit her. It was an Episcopal priest who was with her when she died, for which he was very grateful. Some of these parishes in Pittsburgh are very large, the one I live in probably has 5-10 funeral masses a week by itself. These priests are very very busy.
#19 These RC clergy are very, very busy and should be given every benefit of the doubt about their attempts to do hospital visitation and one-on-one pastoral care. One of my greatest concerns for the already over-extended and often isolated RC priests is the way Episcopal clergy are undeservedly regarded by some RC laity in pastoral crisis as more “concerned” and “available” when all they are is much less over-extended. I never let those comments pass without saying exactly that.
Priestly celibacy has been an option for *2000* years in the Orthodox Church. Married clergy have always been the norm, celibates rarely in parish assignments. Alas, we have celibate bishops, who usually are not (as prescribed) drawn from monastic ranks. They are celibate career men. It means there are not infrequent low pastoral levels at the Episcopal level, but parish priests are pretty good. The West had married clergy from the Apostles to around 1000 AD or so? It has become unworkable. Among other problems, the thousands of uncared for laity here and abroad. The Romans have simply not responded to the pastoral need for more clergy by ordaining married men. Disaster.
THere is a problem that continues with this, the scandal of the last few years. It would be ** SO SIMPLE ** to ordain married men. They would have all the clergy they needed. A big reason for disunity between east and west. Pastoral ignorance and odd “Theology of the Body”. It makes sense only for laymen; they can’t conceive of a clergyman with a wife. Which means that 1000 years of their history is inconceivable to them. Which is the Orthodox Church. So we have a schism for at least these reasons. Papal power maintains this, and of course having one bishop over the planet is another little point of controversy.
If the Latin Church were to remove the celibacy requirement, I would very likely begin the discernment process for the Priesthood. That being said, I’m not for doing so. It would be a serious cultural and financial shock to Latin Rite Catholics. Whatever negatives can be said for the discipline, it’s part and parcel of Western Catholic tradition, and has been for a very long time. Perhaps allowing married men to be ordained could [b]slowly[/b] be implemented, but celibacy will and should remain the preferred option (in the Latin Rite).
Chris (#22): You and a horde of other married RC men, many good, orthodox men. I know a couple myself. I think you may have a valid concern, but AFAIK, the married former Anglican and Lutheran clergy who are now RC priests have been well-received. Perhaps a place to start would be with older men who have a track record as permanent deacons.
The chancellor of our Catholic diocese is a married former Episcopalian. My own pastor, married, serves on the marriage tribunal and we always have a seminarian serving his intern year with us.
There have been 4 married men come over from the Episcopal clergy and be ordained Catholic priests. Because this diocese had a reputation for being “liberal” (modernist is a better word), there had been some questions about how they would fit in. However, they were generally accepted, and then we got a new bishop of a more traditional turn of mind, and now they are in leadership positions.
#23, Fr., I do think if it were to be implemented, the married Diaconate would be the first place the Church would look. I’m curious, though.. My understanding of the formation process for Deacons was that they took great care to be sure that those called were called to the order of Deacons and not “next best thing to a Priest”. Having had little actual exposure to Catholic Deacons myself, would you say that many or most of them would aspire to the Priesthood if given the opportunity?
Actually, the Oct. 2005 synod of bishops considered the question of priesting viri probati, older, married men of proven virtue. I assume that would include deacons; the proposal was soundly rejected.
For me, the money quote (irony intended):
“Being intimately tied to the Eucharist, ordained priesthood participates in its nature of a gift and cannot be the object of a right. If it is a gift, ordained priesthood asks to be constantly requested for. It has become very difficult to ascertain the ideal number of priests in the Church, from the moment in which this is not a ‘business’ which should be equipped with a determined quota of team managers.”
A pair of articles on the subject, both from a faithful Catholic (“reasserter”, if you will) standpoint:
http://www.deaconsforlife.org/articles/marriedmenandpriesthood.htm
which is a response to
http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/georgesimjohnston/marriedpriests.asp
Words Matter (#24): My understanding is that, in general, the more traditionally-minded clergy (including bishops) are often those who are most open to these married priests.
(#26); the following is a quote from the “response” article to which you link. It pretty much sums up what I think is important in this whole discussion.
[blockquote]I believe that in the unbroken witness of the East we find the best framework for this important consideration. It is not “either or” but “both and.” I believe there is room in the whole Catholic Church for both a celibate and a married clergy, both deacons and priests. As the unbroken tradition of the East has shown, both celibacy and marriage are a response to the invitation to holiness and a gift to the Church. Both marriage and consecrated celibacy are a participation in the one nuptial mystery of following Jesus Christ. In our experience in the west with married deacons and our growing experience of admitting to priestly orders ministers from other Christian communities who came into full communion we now have the witness of a married clergy. We have many places of service where they are an asset and many needs that they could help to meet.[/blockquote]
Chris: Probably some, perhaps a significant minority, would seek the priesthood if given the opportunity. It is hard to predict in advance, given that, for now, this door is closed. I know that a few, having become widowers, have been ordained priests.
Fr. Greg –
That may be true. I know that our former bishop, not traditionally minded, ordained 4 married men, former Episcopalians, and accepted two Anglican Use parishes into the diocese. He also accepted into postulancy 2 single men, former Episcopalians, and sent them to seminary. However, it’s fair to say that Bp. Delaney was a liberal in the classic sense of being open-minded and generous. He took the approach that “if it is of God, it will prosper”, which made him open to Anglican converts, but also led him to neglect his charge to protect the faithful from error. In the end, the diocese became moribund and shot through with off-beat practices and groups. Our ASA is about 20% of membership and there were some abuses of doctrine and practice in the diocese known to Rome. Hence we got a bishop of another stripe altogether.