Marriage and the Priesthood: a Match Made in Heaven?

[ 60 ] March 1, 2013 AD |

It was recently my distinct displeasure to be roped into a debate about whether, under Canon Law, married deacons in the Latin Rite have an obligation to observe “perfect and perpetual continence.” Those arguing in favour of the obligation were remarkably passionate. One young lady even went so far as to say that she and her husband avoided liturgies officiated (she might have said “polluted”) by married clergy. They were also tenacious. No curial statement or pontifically sanctioned norms of formation could make them shut up, nor did brotherly love seem to urge them to adopt prudent cease-fire (or even to lighten their tone) in the interest of preserving the emotional health of the deacons and their wives that were involved in the discussion, the most intimate aspect of whose lives was being made the subject of a prolonged and often vicious public scrutiny.

The persistence with which many of these people pressed the issue leads me to think that their interest in the matter is hardly academic. This particular point of Canon Law instead seems to have presented them with an opportunity to attack and, in the right academic circles, attempt to destroy an institution which they view with disdain, a sexually active married clergy in the West.

Why such aversion?

Most people enjoy sex, but most people do not respect it. They view it as a guilty pleasure, even when it is legitimate. The primary end of marriage becomes for them a kind of constant reminder of their own imperfection. That they desire sex for something more than the propagation of the human race, and that they enjoy more about it than the pleasant hopes it conjures of little voices round about the hearth, bothers them. As a cure for concupiscence it is tolerable: as an expression of love it is unthinkable.

When they consider the possibility of a married clergy, then, they have to view it as a kind of concession to human weakness. Clergy should, as leaders of the community, be of exceeding holiness. As such, they reason, they should be able to refrain from such base things as sexual relations.

In the considerations that follow, I will deny neither the objective superiority of celibacy to marriage, nor the benefits of the discipline of mandatory celibacy. Nevertheless, I hope to explode all of those poisonous attitudes that colour the whole discussion of married clergy.

It helps me to retain a balanced outlook on life if I remember that every state in life is subject to abuse. Each state has its own peculiar pleasures and benefits that can be sought inordinately and enjoyed to sinful excess. Carthusians make a particular point of ensuring that the candidate is not embracing a life of austerity in the Charterhouse simply to avoid the cares and responsibilities of the world. St. Gregory the Great’s Life of St. Benedict provides countless illustrations of the extent to which monastic life in common can be perverted into a horrible caricature: at one point the monks attempt to murder the Saint for trying to shape them up.

The legitimate enjoyment of sexual pleasure is peculiar to the married state, and it is subject to abuse of course, but we should not think marriage unique among the states in life for the fact that its pleasures and benefits may be used selfishly, rather than for growth in holiness.

A sacramental marriage is a type of Christian common life, a vocation, and a path to holiness. It is a sacred partnership, and it is directed in all instances, even if it should prove unfruitful and fail to attain its primary end, towards the sanctification of husband and wife. It is a friendship in the truest sense of the word, for if, as Plato says, “The things of friends are held in common,” what deeper friendship can exist than that in which two people hold their entire lives, their possessions, and even their bodies in common?

How, then, does a married priest conceive of his marriage as it relates to his ministry? Is it a concession which he is permitted for his weakness, or does it constitute an integral part of his vocation?

In the Eastern Churches, it is common to call a priest’s wife, “Reverend Mother,” and to hold her as a kind of mother of the parish. She is considered a real partaker in her husband’s ministry, and she is more often than not highly involved in the day to day running of parish affairs, giving of her own time as generously as her husband does.

Isn’t this the ideal Christian marriage? In collaborating in the care of the parish, the priest and his wife come as close as any married couple can to a total sharing of life and unity of purpose. In supporting one another, they support the life of the Church. In raising their family, they provide an example and model for the entire parish, and their children are able to grow up in an environment that is completely dedicated to the service of God, carrying with them throughout their entire lives the indelible mark on their characters of having been the sons and daughters of a priest.

If it is done right, a priest’s marriage is anything but a distraction from his ministry, and, so far from a concession to his weakness, it can be one of his greatest sources of strength. In the Middle Ages, even secular priests were generally expected to observe some kind of common life. St. Benedict notes in his Rule that most men are not cut out for the solitary, eremitical life. Most men need some structure of support, some domestic rule, in which they are continually brought back to themselves in the unending process of conversion. Left to themselves, men often become their own worst enemies. A marriage can therefore be for the ordinary parish priest that community life which so many of his fellows lack, a structure by which he is sanctified, a constant source of grace, and a bulwark against temptation.

This is, at least, the praxis and experience of the Eastern Churches. Their tradition of married clergy is something beautiful, which opponents of married clergy in the West would do well to consider. Real arguments can be made for the retention of mandatory celibacy in the West, but those arguments do not belittle the reality of the gift that a married priest experiences every day in the person of his wife and children.

Tags: , , , ,

Category: Married Life, Relationships, Religion, Vocations

About the Author ()

A teacher of Latin, History, and Choir, as well as a working church musician. Something like a traditionalist with a twist. A strong proponent of sung liturgy, for reasons beyond occupational self-interest.
  • Edward Hara

    I find the attitude of the West towards married priests to be odd indeed inasmuch as marriage is a Sacrament. Since marriage is a Sacrament, then the nuptial act is a sacramental act, just the same as receiving the Eucharist is a sacramental act. Before you get crazy on me, you need to hear me out.

    The Eucharist has been compared to the nuptial chamber. Jesus is the Divine Bridegroom and we are the Bride of Christ. The wording here is telling. We are not called “husband and wife” but Bridegroom and Bride. That language points directly to the consummation of the Divine Wedding Ceremony. So does the language in Scripture regarding our invitation to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. In Jewish marital ceremony, that Feast was consummated — in the bedroom.

    Metropolitan Zizioulas, in his marvelous book BEING AND COMMUNION, has called the Eucharist the “Eschaton Event.” It makes real that which is going to take place forever for the faithful — complete and total union with our beloved Spouse. As Peter Kreeft has said in his work IS THERE SEX IN HEAVEN Sex in Heaven? “Indeed, and no pale, abstract, merely mental shadow of it either. Earthly sex is the shadow, and our lives are a process of thickening so that we can share in the substance, becoming Heavenly fire so that we can endure and rejoice in the Heavenly fire”

    Are you getting the picture? Our sexual lives, in which we express our deepest longings for love and union with a spouse whom we cherish, are a picture of the eternal bliss of union with Christ. Why then do these Janisenist and Manichean heresies persist even unto today in which a person who performs a sacramental act is somehow considered dirty?

    Yes, there can be, even in the bonds of marriage, improper use of that great sacramental act. But we do not let the wrong use of that which is proper define the act itself. I do not allow for non-Catholics to try to define the Church by the few priests who violated their vows of chastity.

    Finally, how does a celibate priest really become a type and shadow of Christ? Since Christ unites Himself to us in eternal intimacy in the Eucharist, the celibate priest is breaking that typology. I know the arguments regarding this, and while I respect a man who can, for the sake of the Kingdom, accept celibacy, I find that to demand it of all who wish to serve as priests is misleading typology.

    In the love of the Trinity, the Father pours Himself into the Son, and the Son empties Himself in to the Father. From this union proceeds the Blessed Holy Spirit. How then should a priest not be married as an example of this life-giving reality?

    Just my .02 on a first day of March.

  • mary

    The issue as i see it is not so much the fact that a permanent Deacon or an Eastern rite priest is married and therefore not celebate so much as the fact that they have other obligations- towards a family as well as their parish. When our son was born he was in serious distress, he was flown to a critical care unit 4 hours away. I was an Episcopalian at the time and it was our pastor’s day off so although I wanted him baptized I was told by the staff that becuase we weren’t Catholic he could not be. I was deeply troubled. I came to know that our pastor’s wife deeply resented the demands that parish life took away from their family life. My brother in law is an evangelical pastor and again he has “office hours” and is careful to avoid intrusion on his family life. Most deacons function within a parish with at least one priest so there is more availablity to their parish in a crisis. Celebate priests can be housed in the rectory for cheaper living expensesand do not have families to support. The greater costs of supporting clergy with family must be borne by the parish and in fact in many protestant churches the pastor holds a full time job outside of the ministry which is considered “part time”. In the case of Eastern rte clergy I don’t know whether the conflicts between family and parish exist the same way possibly be not because bottom line- their parish is Catholic and therefore in a dire situation have available clergy from the latin rite church too.

    • http://www.thelostcoin.org Marc

      In some cases it may be the opposite case. You may call the single priest at home and got an answering machine, but call the married priest at home and his wife will tell him that he should go to you in a pastoral need.

      • LoneThinker

        There is no need for titting and tatting see my original post. Anecdotal evidence solves no problems for any cause, it is a little kids’ way of arguing

      • http://jfroben.blogspot.com Sean Connolly

        LoneThinker,

        I found your original post non-discursive. What was its point?

  • Pingback: Marriage and the Priesthood: a Match Made in Heaven? | CATHOLIC FEAST

  • Anonymous

    Great post! I regularly attend Divine Liturgy (and weekday Lent services) at a Melkite Greek-Catholic Church and have experienced the rich community life that flows out of this tradition that has always embraced married and single clergy. The church also has a number of ordained deacons — both married (with children) and single — and a number of young men and fathers serve as acolytes. When westerners (myself included!) worry about whether a married man can really serve both a parish and his family, I think we tend to picture a western parish that relies on maybe two priests and a deacon. But in the Melkite Church I attend, there’s a whole community of clergy who support each other and the parish. If the west took more cues on this from the east (which is the older tradition, anyway!) maybe there’d be more young men and fathers able and interested in joining the diaconate.

  • http://cheerybeggar.wordpress.com Emi Parker

    Great post! I regularly attend Divine Liturgy (and weekday Lent services) at a Melkite Greek-Catholic Church and have experienced the rich community life that flows out of this tradition that has always embraced married and single clergy. The church also has a number of ordained deacons — both married (with children) and single — and a number of young men and fathers who serve as acolytes.

    When westerners (myself included!) worry about whether a married man can really serve both a parish and his family, I think we tend to picture a western parish that relies on maybe two priests and a deacon. But in the Melkite Church I attend, there’s a whole community of clergy who support each other and the parish. If the west took more cues on this from the east (which is the older tradition, anyway!) maybe there’d be more young men and fathers able and interested in joining the diaconate.

  • Katie Robinson

    Interesting post, Sean. When I read the title I actually thought I was going to read about how marriage and the priesthood, as two distinct ways of life, complement each other in the Body of Christ. Which they do. Celibate priests, by their presence and service, help married people to keep in mind our eschatological reality. No one is married in heaven, but all are for God. Lay people need this reminder. It’s not wrong for us to live as we do, for God calls us to it and calls it good. Very good. But it’s easy to get preoccupied with pleasing one’s spouse over one’s God.

    I agree that those who decry sex/marriage & the priesthood because sex is base are wrong. It’s precisely the goodness of these things that allows so much grace to come from forgoing them. It’s a real sacrifice, and sacrifice builds up the Body of Christ. What better offering than that of spouse and child to unite to the one sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, his perfect offering of love to the Father? Furthermore, a celibate imitates the way Christ himself lived. That’s awesome! It’s not to say the natural roles of husband and priest can’t exist in the same person, but a practical possibility does not prove an ecclesial/ontological rule.

    I think a keener understanding of celibacy is key in recovering our over-sexualized culture. If anyone’s interested, I highly recommend Blessed John Paul II’s VIta Consecrata, as well as his full Theology of the Body for a richer understanding of the celibate life! In particular, reading Vita Consecrata filled me with gratitude for the special way God makes men and women he calls to religious life.

  • Sean Connolly

    I’m going to take the thoughts in a hodgepodge and see what happens.

    I certainly agree that celibacy and marriage can compliment one another, but my experience with the East has made me wonder more precisely whether they must compliment one another in an hermetic way, cleanly broken across the clerical/lay fault-line.

    I suppose I was viewing both the issue of priesthood and that of marriage through a vocational lens. We tell the engaged couple that marriage is a vocation, we tell the seminarian that priesthood is a vocation, but we tell the married priest that his way of life, far from being the happy confluence of two vocations, is a “practical possibility.” That seems to undermine what we like to tell the engaged couple and what we like to tell the seminarian about their respective states.

    Also, from a Sacramental perspective, those states in life in which you are sacramentally confirmed are objectively God’s will for you, which He gives you the grace to live faithfully; in fact, this (basically Thomist) model has become my favourite model of what a vocation is–it avoids the image that haunts me, I shall never forget, of a man cradling his infant expressing regret about his state in life, a perversity of vision that can only come from a strange tangle of the mind. He might as well have been looking down at his infant saying, “I wish you didn’t exist,” trying to relate to God in what could have been rather than what was.

    There’s an old maxim of St. Philip Neri, “What is best in itself is not best for everyone.” God calls us to what is best for us, not necessarily to what is best in itself; we can’t all be Carthusians.

    The East have their gaze fixedly on the desert calling, the monastic ideal, as the highest model of clerical and Christian life, and they impart episcopal dignity to their celibates alone. But just because something is not commensurate to some abstract ideal does not fail to make it a true vocation.

    Now, Mary does raise some real issues! Finances are a huge incentive to restrict the priesthood to celibates; who can forget the lament of the ordained theologian, “I’m paid $4,000, but I’m worth $40,000!” Families cost, and the priest’s family lives off the parish dole. And for that reason alone, I think it key that the priest’s family, who share in the priest’s ministry but also in the parish expenditure, be active in assisting his ministry, and not detract from it. I think the model I have presented, and which in my view represents the very best of Byzantine married clergy, is very far from the model of the Protestant pastor whose ministry is his work, not his life, and who separates it absolutely from the domestic realm. I think just the opposite should, and often is, found in the East, and where it is, amazing things can happen.

    Check out, for example, this flourishing Ukrainian parish that a priest and his wife built basically from nothing: http://www.saintelias.com/ca/home/

    • http://remnantofremnant.blogspot.com priest’s wife (@byzcathwife)

      about $…..(I HATE talking and thinking about it…..) my husband celebrates the 6:30 AM Roman-rite Mass on Sundays as a ‘supply priest’ before we leave at 9:30 to get to our parish an hour a way…anyways…he enjoys a coffee and breakfast cooked by the housekeeper at the Roman-rite parish before he comes home…so yes, there are some expenses that a family incurs (really ‘just’ health insurance…if they offer it)…but then they save some money- free house cleaner, cook, etc, part-time secretary…also about the rectory- this parish has a huge rectory that have 2 priests in it- room for 6 guests…the rectory is 4 times the size of my husband’s townhouse which houses 6 people…so…

  • Edward Hara

    I find it ironic that those in the West are always very quick to bring up the demands of the priesthood by pointing to parishes of 4,000 people being served by two or three very harried priests. It is exactly the demand of celibacy that causes this problem, yet they cannot seem to wrap their minds around the fact that if celibacy was not mandatory, there could well be eight to ten or more priests serving such a large community. In such a community with a goodly number of priests, there would be the time for family and the time for service.

    • Nicole McHugh

      You are incorrect to assume that revoking the demand of celibacy would lead to so many priests being ordained or that celibacy leads to a lack of priests. History speaks to this because there have been times when these large parishes have had many priests leading them. The lack of priests is due to a lack of education among the laity which prevents those who have the vocation to the priesthood from recognizing it. The priesthood is no longer something young men consider. When you fail to understand exactly what the priestly vocation entails, there is no reason to consider it. The idea being that priests are supposed to save souls through administration of the sacraments and teaching. When you lack this worldview which involves the necessity of the priesthood for people, then saving lives by becoming a doctor becomes a much more worthy ambition in the mind of a young man.

      Secondly, having a good number of priests does not necessarily mean that they will be of good quality. When a man becomes a priest simply because he thinks he “could do some good” rather than because he feels called to it as a vocation, he will probably do more harm than good.

      While I don’t object to having married men be ordained, I do see the value in having a celibate clergy at this time in history. We live in an over sexualized society and as such we need the example of men who have willingly made the sacrifice of celibacy as an example of self control and to force us to face the reality of what sex is and what it was created for. Also, I see the problem that if we begin ordaining a good number of married men without first educating the laity, then we will walk into the trap of having them demand that men who have already given their vows of celibacy be allowed to break them. I honestly don’t see any good that could come from changing the rules at this time.

  • http://CamptiCatholicChurch.com Fr. Ryan Humphries

    Thanks for the article. While I don’t want to get into the discussion of a married clergy in the west, I do want to call out the assumption you’re making about why people are passionate about the topic.

    Your assumption – as I understand it – is that the people who are over-zealously opposed to a married clergy have some particular beef with their clergy having sex.

    That’s certainly possible. But, I would argue that it’s much more likely that those people have watched with great anxiety as basically all of the Roman Catholic identity has been washed away and replaced with a basically Protestant world view. A middle of the road Catholic Sunday Mass is indistinguishable from the Anglicans next door or the Methodists down the road. Most of the Catholics in the pews see themselves merely as a denomination – one among many. The essential disciplines of fasting, abstinence (from meat), a devotional life, regular confession and others are limited only to the most pious. The Church buildings are bland, whitewashed and indistinguishable from the Anglicans next door.

    While many Catholics have merely resigned themselves to this reality. Some have done the reading. They’ve done the study. They’ve experienced Catholicism done right (in the Ordinary and\or the Extraordinary form). For those people, a married clergy at any level is an affront to Catholic identity. It’s as offensive as communion in the hand or the presence of a praise band in the sanctuary. For the one who fully understands the integral nature of Roman Catholicism in the Latin Rite, a married clergy is a problem of fundamental identity. Note that this erosion of identity is something Pope Benedict spoke about extensively.

    What’s more, the question is not just unanswered… Unanswered questions are part of life. It’s that so many people – even priests and deacons – do not care. They’ve said as much. It doesn’t matter to them whether the law applies to them. Right now, there are two camps in the discussion. On the one side are the canonists who are pointing at the law and saying “here’s what it says.” The other camp is pointing to non-binding documents and saying “obviously, it’s assumed that this law is to be derogated from.” The only evidence coming from binding law is for continence, not chastity. What’s incredibly painful is the large number of people, though, who just don’t care what the Holy Spirit is saying through the official magisterium of the Church.

    When a clergyman says that he is ambivalent to the teaching of Jesus Christ and to the discipline of the sacraments, I believe the laity have every right to get angry and to raise all kinds of indignation.

    As I say, you could be right on that some are just mad because of puritanical views regarding sex… But don’t forget that passion is merely a kind of love.

    • Sean C.

      Father,

      I certainly can see how that would be true of some. It saddens me particularly how, when this discussion is had, the first comparisons are made not to the abundant married Catholic clergy in the east, but to the Episcopalians or other Protestant denominations. Ritual identity is certainly important, and it is one of the arguments that can be made legitimately, I think, in favour of retaining the discipline, just as the same argument may be made in the East for retaining their disciplines. But it still saddens me that the primary association some make for a perfectly Catholic discipline is with the often directly rebellious practice of non-Catholic bodies.

      • http://CamptiCatholicChurch.com Fr. Ryan Humphries

        Sean, thanks for your comment. I certainly agree.

        In the context of the last 50 years in the west, though, I don’t think any compelling argument for a married clergy can be made, certainly not in the US. The reality is that if you ask 100 Catholics what comes to mind when they say married clergy, 99 of them are going to speak about Protestants. If we were talking about Quebec or Poland, things would be different. If we were talking about this 100 years ago when there was a strong Catholic identity (not merely ritual identity), then it would have been entirely feasible. But in the here and now, this practice is going to be associated with Protestants (and dissident Catholics) by a vast majority of Catholics and it’s going to cause confusion at best, scandal at worst.

        The same could be said for any one change associated with the upheaval of the last years. Communion in the Hand, Mass facing the congregation, Hymnody at Mass, The use of the Vernacular, the allowance for female servers… Any ONE of those things could have found a limited place in the Church. But when everything changes, Catholics basically become methodists with a valid Eucharist. Because of that, the limited possibility of a married clergy becomes merely one more erosion.

        I hope I haven’t led you to believe, though, that there’s an easy answer to the specific question in your article – there isn’t. I just wanted to articulate alternative intentions for those who are very, very angry and\or passionate about any number of seemingly “small” things.

        Thanks again for the article.

  • Edward Hara

    QUOTE: “While many Catholics have merely resigned themselves to this reality. Some have done the reading. They’ve done the study. They’ve experienced Catholicism done right (in the Ordinary and\or the Extraordinary form). For those people, a married clergy at any level is an affront to Catholic identity. It’s as offensive as communion in the hand or the presence of a praise band in the sanctuary. For the one who fully understands the integral nature of Roman Catholicism in the Latin Rite, a married clergy is a problem of fundamental identity. Note that this erosion of identity is something Pope Benedict spoke about extensively.”

    Those people who are offended by married clergy as an affront to Catholic identity are similar to Protestants who don’t know Christian history and therefore refuse to consider that the Catholic faith is the original depositum fidei. Married clergy in the West began in full force in the thirteenth century. Prior to that, it was highly desirable, but not necessarily enforced the way it is today in the West.

    I would say that anyone who sees married clergy as an “erosion” of Catholic identity needs to go back through history and see what exactly it means to be Catholic. Just saying such would mean that the first twelve centuries of Western Catholicism with married priests was distinctly not Catholic. I must take issue with that.

    This mindset has caused havoc in the Eastern Catholic Church in America. Western bishops raised an unholy hell with the pope and managed to get him to mandate that Eastern Catholic priests in the USA could not be married. Bishop Takach, to his everlasting honor, when asked what he would do in response to this unwarranted intrustion (my words), replied “We are good Catholics. We will obey the pope.” Thus began decades of an unmarried priesthood which todays young people in the Byzantine Catholic Church take almost for granted. Ad that to other uncalled for latinizations, done in an attempt to try to prove to Western Catholics that we were good Catholics and not aliens from another planet, and our Church has its own identity crisis in America.

    We are supposed to be “Holy Orthodox in communion with Rome.” We are not supposed to be Roman Catholics with strange liturgical rites. Yet way too many of our Eastern Catholic churches look anything but like Orthodox, both in architecture and praxis. And when we mention the desire we have to have the same married priesthood that our Church enjoys in the East, it is like talking to a brick wall.

    Quite frankly, Western arrogance has been a considerable thorn in our side.

  • elijahmaria

    Was not this canonical issue raised some time ago by canonist Ed Peters? And was it not duly resolved that the canons did indeed support continence within the married members of the permanent diaconate…but then did not Ed also comment that for all practical purposes the canon had been vacated and probably, at some point, should be re-written?

    So why is it back on track as some kind of issue?

    Elijahmaria

    • Sean Connolly

      It was Dr. Peters’ scholarship that sparked the debate amongst my friends. Whether the debate was timely or the issue relevant I don’t know, as I didn’t start it. The “due resolution,” however, seemed clearly to the contrary, since the only Vatican statements I have seen on the matter to date uphold the marital rights of married deacons, enjoining perfect and perpetual continence only upon the death of their wives.

      If you have anything to the contrary, I would be genuinely interested to see it for my own benefit.

      That being said, this article uses my brief and unpleasant encounter with that debate as a springboard for further thoughts on a broader topic.

      • http://CamptiCatholicChurch.com Fr. Ryan Humphries

        What we have is a bit of stalemate. The canonists, led by the excellent Dr. Peters, are doing what theologians are supposed to do: ask questions and humbly submit to the Church. The responses from the Vatican are not yet definitive, they are merely repeating the party line that “continence is not required.” This is not uncommon in the Roman Curia. Questions like this usually take a decade or so to work themselves high enough up the food chain to really be analysed. Dr. Peters has made what I believe to be an airtight case historically, procedurally, even liturgically for the continence requirement. The responses from the Vatican show that the matter is still in the “can’t be bothered with this” stage. Based on past experience with Rome, we can expect movement to the “Hmm, we’ll look into that stage” in the next two to three years and movement into the “You’ve got a point, let me ask my boss” stage five to six years from now and, finally, movement into the “It’s time to make some considered, definitive statement in eight to nine years. We can expect the issuance of an actual canon to clear up the very real legal problem in a decade… Rome isn’t known for efficiency. What we shouldn’t do, though, is take a handful of vague responses from curial secretaries as a real answer. Until then, we ought to obey the law, send in questions and humbly submit to the Church. If the law is corrected (either way) one day, then we’ll obey that too.

        Until then, the question lives!

      • LoneThinker

        Do not understand Sean your puzzlement at my original comment. I simply noted the empirical evidence available that being married or single or committed celibacy in and of itself is no argument for marriage or celibacy in ordained ministry. All groups have failed in marriage and celibacy with all ages and genders as adulterers, fornicators and abusers. I also raised the practical question about economics to support a male/female/single/committed celibate pastor in a rural area including two-income employment and children’s education for male/female pastors and the employability of female pastors in economically and sociologically desirable and viable cases in the denominations that have ordained and licensed such women

  • elijahmaria

    Father Ryan: What a wonderful response!! People are disturbed in many ways, I have observed over time, with that kind of response. There is a clear-cut preference for black and white [redundancy intended] and instant gratification on all points, particularly if the points do not immediately impact upon them but do give them something with which they can demonstrate their…what? I hesitate, in charity, to conjecture.

    I think you are right and that continence is not contingent upon the death of the spouse but upon the death to the world on the part of the ordinand. Are they taught that during preparation? I don’t think so, but I have been wrong before…often.

    I am of several minds on this issue. One is a question about when that canon was codified with relationship to the actual expansion of the permanent diaconate. If it was codified before the expansion, then it is being essentially ignored for all practical purposes. Which is all right as far as it goes juridically because the Spirit of the Law is always in advance/ascendance of the letter. It even says so in the text of the code. That does not mean that one ignores the law but it does mean that one interprets and/or exercises the law in context and with generous economy, when it comes to the salvation of souls. Black & White folks don’t like that kind of talk either. I am keeping this brief but there are several elements in just this juridical aspect that would be interesting to pursue.

    The other thing that comes immediately to mind [bearing in mind that I am an eastern Catholic who has spent now nearly 2 decades immersed in Orthodoxy, liturgically and spiritually] and that is the idea that although virginity is accepted as the highest estate, lay and religious, in the ecclesia, there is nothing to prevent the ordination of married men to the ministerial priesthood. In fact, many good spiritual and liturgical things can come from the judicious use of married priests, monastic priests, and monastic bishops.

    As an aside, I am not entirely happy with the estate of secular priests, and I think that IF the western Catholic particular Church ever does admit of a normative married priesthood, then all those who are called to the celibate life should answer that call through a religious order. I think the scandals would be of a far different sort than the current venality of the secular episcopate and presbyterate that is on full display in my generation.

    It is also my thought, as a woman in her 60s with experience in several different traditions, I would say that the greatest immediate impediment to a normative married priesthood in the Roman rite and ritual, is the fact that the women are in no way prepared to be the wives of priests. It is totally counter-cultural to them, and the Church, by dispensing with the practice strict fast and abstinence, has made the ecclesial culture even less capable of the kind of asceticism that is needful in a married clergy.

    Which leads me then back to the notion of continence with those married men in the permanent diaconate. One of the things that should be happening, I think, is that there should be continence exercised during penitential periods and then most strictly for a 24 hour period in advance of any exercise of his diaconal powers. This should be known to the community and the community should be asked to respond in kind in some way by their own ascetic acts of prayer, fasting and alms giving. This would bring Catholic culture up short as it is busily running off the cliff with the pigs, and it might allow for the exercise of a suitable canon and the existence of a married and religious presbyterate, and a thereby also a monastic episcopate which I think is long overdue to be revived in the west.

    Well…I hadn’t started out to say all that but there ya have it!

    Elijahmaria

  • Bruce

    I think I would love to be a priest, and as my wife is the real earner in our family, it would work on a practical level. I am discerning the deaconate, but continence is not something I seek, nor does my wife. The way we see it, holy orders and holy matrimony are on equal terms as far as the dignity of each Sacrament. Priests are not “better” than married husbands and fathers. They both have their role, and some do both well.

    I used to be opposed, but I now have no problem with the few who may be called to it.

  • Bruce

    In the scope of this debate, anything that denigrates marriage for the sake of defending celibacy is not helpful in the least.

    • http://CamptiCatholicChurch.com Fr. Ryan Humphries

      @Bruce, I agree in premise that to denigrate (“unfairly criticize”) marriage just because it isn’t consecrated life doesn’t help anything and is contrary to justice.

      But… The laic vocations of marriage and the single life are not the same as the consecrated vocations of cloistered religious life, secular religious life and the priesthood. A vocation where the individual seeks greater perfection by more entirely offering of himself\herself to the Lord is, objectively, a “greater”\”higher” vocation. As St. Paul says, that’s not everyone’s call. But it is a higher calling than a laic vocation. As such, the Church has always ranked the “height” of the vocations as 1) consecrated & cloistered, 2) priesthood\episcopacy, 3) consecrated & not cloistered, 4) marriage, 5) single.

      We are each called to live our vocations to the highest perfection we can – but not all vocations are the same, nor should we compare them… We must certainly never equate them. St. Paul is clear that the body of Christ has many parts and that some may, objectively, be more glamorous or even more important… (without the priest, there is no mass and therefore no salvation!) But they are our way to heaven.

      One who lives the married life with greater zeal and perfection will have a higher place in heaven than the one who lives a higher vocation with mediocre zeal! I know a slew of little old ladies who are going to be far higher in heaven than I will be – if I ever get out of purgatory!

      • Bruce

        Single is not a vocation. Second, it smacks of clericalism to her you place the priesthood above marriage. in a time when marriage is under attack from all sides, it is disheartening to her such talk. A secondary Sacrament, then? Sounds like pride to me.

        Enough. I support married priest because, frankly, it is much harder to be a husband and a father. Those that add priestly duties to it re the better than celibate priests.

  • Bruce

    Equal in dignity but not the same. To say otherwise is clericalism.

    • http://CamptiCatholicChurch.com Fr. Ryan Humphries

      Bruce, I apologize if I’ve touched a nerve or spoken too brashly. Every soul is created by God with equal dignity!

      At the same time, it is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (both the Eastern and Latin rites) that there is a hierarchy of vocations in which consecrated life is considered higher than secular life. It’s not an opinion. It has nothing to do with clericalism. As I tried to articulate – my apologies again if I communicated poorly – the holiness of the individual is not defined by the vocation, but by the perfection with which they live out that vocation. Objectively, consecrated life is a higher (more perfect) vocation than marriage, but a married person may be far more pleasing to God than a particular consecrated person. The dignity of the individual soul before God is not defined by the vocation.

      The “height” of the vocation is associated with the degree of perfection to which the way of living aspires. Just as the presidency is a higher job than a senator because of it’s aim and purpose, so the consecrated life is a higher vocation than the secular vocations because of the aim and purpose of the vocation itself. The difficulty of the work and the holiness (or lack of holiness) of the one called to that life is not even a factor.

      I should reiterate, this is the official teaching of the Catholic Church (so is the existence and dignity of the single-life vocation). “Clericalism” is an affront to justice which implies that priests are somehow “better” than others. I’m not arguing that at all. I’m merely articulating the faith of the Church. It can’t simply be dismissed as it’s not a matter of opinion. Obedience is the most essential of the virtues for the one who seeks perfect and so we must all conform ourselves to Christ – whether we are married or consecrated (or both!) – “You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church.”

      Pax et Bonum!

      • Bruce

        I understand and yes, a nerve was touched. Married life and fatherhood is incredibly difficult for me. To say that, even if I did it the best I could, a priest who did his best would still be “better” is upsetting to me, given the world I live in. The priesthood is hard. But nowadays, being a Catholic husband (following Church teaching on sexuality) and a father (trying to be lead educator and protector of my children) and navigating the hostile, secular world is anything but easy. Time to pray? Barely. I look at celibate priests and think, “sure, they say they’re lonely, but what marvelous freedom!” I understand that is an envious, sinful way of thinking and speaking, but I can’t help it right now. I’ve had a miserable day and it was anything but holy. This was a terrible day.

        Your words just rubbed salt in the wounds. All I heard was “you have a lesser vocation and you can’t even do THAT right.” I’m exhausted. I don’t sleep. I don’t pray. I can’t stop sinning. I’m freakin’ miserable.

        So as you can see, its not really you at all.

  • http://CamptiCatholicChurch.com Fr. Ryan Humphries

    Bruce, Brother, be assured my sincere prayers for you and your family! Remember God doesn’t call us to success but to faithfulness!

    I’ll remember you at the Altar tomorrow.
    FrR

    • Bruce

      I appreciate it – really. I can’t do this on my own but I refuse to let God help.

      This is getting off topic, so enough for tonight.

  • http://www.canonlaw.info/ Ed Peters

    Fr. RH. What a thoughtful position, above. Thank you for your clarity. There is more information here, if you’d like: http://www.canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm. Best, edp.

    • http://CamptiCatholicChurch.com Fr. Ryan Humphries

      Thank you so much Dr. Peters! I’ve visited your site many times. I think it’s one of the most essential theological discussions of our day. Thanks for providing so much excellent material!
      FrR

      • Sean Connolly

        Yes, the good Father’s thoughtful commentaries have thankfully robbed me of an immature and insufficiently subtle position on canon law and pastoral aspects of the matter.

        Now is a good opportunity to thank you for reading, Dr. Peters (and Father) and to let you (both) know, as I have already some of my friends with whom I was debating this point, that your thoughtful and restrained remarks were not the polemics that had drawn my ire when I was writing this (your comments particularly I appreciated, Dr. Peters, which distinguished the letter of the law from the subjective imputability of its violation to married deacons who had entered that state without sufficient understanding).

        I could link to some of the comments I found on the blogosphere that failed to make that distinction, but I’d rather not propagate them.

      • http://www.canonlaw.info Ed Peters

        Yes, SC, I’ve probably read them. I knew you did not have my writings in mind.

        Fr. RH, the whole tone of the discussion has shifted in the last year; it is fairly clear that no refutation of my position is possible, there is only left then to change the law (if that is what the Church wants) or to enforce the law (with justice for those who were not advised of this requirement, over time).

        I hear from many directly impacted by this debate, and intemperance and ad hominem attacks have yielded, for the most part, to careful personal reflection while Rome moves as you predicted above.

        Best, edp.

  • Richard E

    I just read through all the replies to the original post, which I thought was good and there is one thing I found missing – why the priest in Latin Rite not allowed to marry? It comes out of the middle ages – it is part of the history of the Church. Monastic priest did not marry but parish priest not associated with a ‘order’ most times were married, many would become Bishops, build churches on land they owned, ordaine their sons as priest – even if not qualifited – they would claim their churches as their own, not part of the whole church, they would keep most if not all the tithing for themselves, building up their own wealth. There was really a lot of corruption among married (and some not married) priest – many pledged their alligance to princes or kings instead of to Rome and the Pope. Also have to remember we at one time in history even had a few popes who were -officially/unofficially married, had children who they placed in high places within the Church. The turn to unmarried priest was to cut the corruption, make priest loyal to Rome and not a government or country.
    Much has changed, even my thoughts on married priest. I would accept one if my Bishop sent one to my parish. If the Latin Rite ever does change it’s position I think it would be along the lines of the perminent deacon – can be married before but not after becoming a deacon and cannot remarry if his spouse should die.
    Just my thoughts

    • http://CamptiCatholicChurch.com Fr. Ryan Humphries

      Hey Richard, thanks for sharing your thoughts! You’re right on in the way that the Church understands the freedom of a cleric to marry.

      just some historical corrections. The tradition of celibate priests goes back to the very beginning – it’s mentioned as early as 305 at the Spanish council of Elvira (greatest Church council name ever!). Remember too, there was no one “Code of Canon Law” like we have now. Councils from various regions each made their own Canons and they gradually became universal when “Ecumenical” or All-Church councils met. Celibacy was gradually codified as law in the 8th and 9th century, but – as in the East – bishops were always chosen exclusively from among those who freely chose celibacy. Surely, there were some politically motivated exceptions and some sinful concubinage, but that was in no way the norm at any moment in history.

      Second, there has always been corruption, but it’s historically anachronistic to say that pledging loyalty to a specific bishop or even a secular king was an example of it. Until very recently, many kings had the Papal privilege of nominating and vetoing bishops within their respective territory. The papal privileges given to Germany weren’t finally dissolved until after WWII. Further, every priest and bishop has, as a matter of justice, a loyalty to the crown\government which is legitimately “Caesar” over him. Additionally, priests have a particular loyalty and obedience to their own bishop that trumps loyalty to Rome. (If there is real conflict, nuances must be made.) This has always been the law, even if it hasn’t been practiced well.

      Third, we have examples of papal concubines, but no substantiated evidence of a papal marriage. Sin was prevalent throughout the history of the Church, but that fact doesn’t contribute in any way to the theology, law or official teaching of the Church as regards clerical marriage. Remember that we’re discussing the actual, official law, theology and teachings of the Church, not those who failed to live up to them.

      Finally, it’s simple inaccurate to claim that there ever was a “turn” to an entirely celibate priesthood in the west or that such a thing could ever be reduced to something so vague as “corruption.” Remember that the codification of that practice was prior to the Great Schism and the great Choir of Patriarchs still reigned. The pope was first among equals. That was before any notion of nationhood or countries even existed. The Eastern Roman empire hadn’t even stopped using the name Roman. Even so, the idea of loyalty to Rome (as opposed to a secular authority) wasn’t something that the 9th century Pope could have ever hoped to achieve. It wasn’t until the Donation of Pepin in the 8th century, that the Pope started to get a little street cred as one who should be given anything other than doctrinal authority. It would take centuries and the rise to prominence of the Papal States and the wealth of Medici Family to create that Regal-Court structure that we associate with loyalty to Rome.

      God Reward You Richard & Have a Great Day.
      FrR

      • Elijahmaria

        Father Ryan: And there I was building up a head of steam. So happy to be able to put a pin in it and let the steam out. Much appreciate your response.

        Pardon if I think the following bears repetition:

        Father Ryan said: “At the same time, it is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (both the Eastern and Latin rites) that there is a hierarchy of vocations in which consecrated life is considered higher than secular life. It’s not an opinion. It has nothing to do with clericalism. As I tried to articulate – my apologies again if I communicated poorly – the holiness of the individual is not defined by the vocation, but by the perfection with which they live out that vocation. Objectively, consecrated life is a higher (more perfect) vocation than marriage, but a married person may be far more pleasing to God than a particular consecrated person. The dignity of the individual soul before God is not defined by the vocation.”

        “The “height” of the vocation is associated with the degree of perfection to which the way of living aspires. Just as the presidency is a higher job than a senator because of it’s aim and purpose, so the consecrated life is a higher vocation than the secular vocations because of the aim and purpose of the vocation itself. The difficulty of the work and the holiness (or lack of holiness) of the one called to that life is not even a factor.”

  • Elijahmaria

    Dear Ed: I had no idea you had systematized your discussion of the issue so thoroughly. Thank you for the reference. Thank you more profoundly for all the work entailed.

    Mary

    • Edward Hara

      Be assured that as a convert to the Catholic faith, the study of all of the Church’s teachings has been all consuming for many years.

      As an Eastern Catholic, this issue has a great deal of interest to me since the Western bishops in the 20th century wreaked havoc on our patrimony by complaining to the Holy Father about our married priests. You may remember the debacle between Bishop Ireland and Fr. Alexis Toth which resulted in a whole community of believers leaving the communion with Rome and going Orthodox. Some people simply do not like to be bullied.

      I find especially interesting the response of many when the celibate priesthood is argued as if it has the same binding reality as dogma (i.e. the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc.0. It does not, and was a late development in the West due to corruptions in the the priesthood, as one other poster noted. I also find that it is odd to hear Westerners run about wringing their hands about the lack of priest, but when they are suggested a married priesthood, they throw their hands in the air and begin running for the nearest exit, screaming “Heresy, heresy.”

      At the same time, let us profoundly respect those who have chosen celibacy as a sign of the total dedication and union with Christ which we shall have in eternity. I think that both are needed – married and unmarried priests — to show the balance whcih is within the Catholic faith. The problem we have today, which I believe our bishops are aware of, is that if the Church opens the doors to married priesthood, there will be all kinds of wretched whining by the Liberals for female priests, which is a theological and typological impossibility. They do not understand the difference between dogma and discipline, and with their Liberal agenda, probably don’t care to be instructed anyway.

      Thank you for your kind comments.

      Brother Ed

      • http://CamptiCatholicChurch.com Fr. Ryan Humphries

        Ed, Kudos on your excellent docility to the Lord!

        One correction, celibacy is NOT a late addition that can be traced to some generic form of corruption. As I carefully argued in a previous comment, celibacy goes back to the very beginning – even in the East. And while it is certainly a discipline rather than a doctrine, it is one of the oldest and most venerated disciplines in the Judeo-Christian tradition with many ties to both the Old and the New Testaments. It would be dangerously naive to argue that it is merely one discipline among many. Clerical celibacy in the West, episcopal celibacy in the East and monastic celibacy in both traditions is basically essential to much of our practical theology for at least the last 12 centuries. It may be a discipline, but it is a discipline on par with fasting during Lent or using Incense at Mass.

        Let’s all stand by the truth of history rather than leaning on convenient but false tropes.

      • Edward Hara

        Father Bless!!

        I certainly agree with you on the importance of the witness of celibacy as a typological shadow of the eternal state in which we will be united to and consumed with Christ. The man or woman who chooses this path indeed chooses an excellent path to show the rest of us that with the aid of the Holy Spirit, the continent life is possible (as opposed to the world which says “You can’t help but act like weasels in heat, so go at it!”). It is no wonder that the world despizes celibacy, simply because it puts the lie to that attitude.

        At the same time, there is a certain feeling I get from talking with my Western brethren that a married priest is somehow less holy, less dedicated, and less to be respected than a many who has chosen celibacy. That is the attitude which I really wish to see changed. I would hope that respect for the challenges of the priesthood and for a man willing to take on such responsibilities would override what appears to me, as I said earlier, to be a kind of latent Janisenism in which sex is seen as something dirty rather than a sacramental act which belongs to the Sacrament of Marriage. Outside of marriage, it is a sin. Let’s stop treating it within marriage as if it is sinful or less than holy.

        As per history, we again see that celibacy was preferred, but not mandated. Certainly St. Paul lays out reasons that the celibate man or woman is much better able to serve the Lord, but I think that if a man has the ability to both please his wife and to serve a community of believers, he should not be turned away. Such a decision, however, should be approached with prayer and much discernment, since we do know (I’m SURE that if you are a parish priest you know this) that dealing with human beings can be most challenging on its best days!

        Finally, if this is a discipline and not dogma, could you explain to me why the Western Church is so reticent to return to the availability of married me to fill the need we see in the Church today.

        Many years, Father!

        Brother Ed

      • http://CamptiCatholicChurch.com Fr. Ryan Humphries

        Sure Edward.

        Clerical Celibacy is a matter of Western Identity. As I said, it’s so deeply ingrained in who we are, that to see it dispensed from is a jarring experience at best. If the only part of the Western Catholic Identity that was being upset was clerical celibacy, then that would be one thing. Just as if communion in the hand, or communion standing or altar girls or the vernacular at Mass or the abandonment of gregorian chant or the abandonment of the soutane or the decreased ritual reverence shown the Blessed Sacrament or the decreased ritual reverence shown the Blessed Virgin or the deflating of the Divine Office or the almost complete loss of real education in seminaries and Catholic Schools or the friday abstinence were the only one thing to have changed in the last fifty years as regards Western Catholic Identity, then any one of those things could have been endured, adapted to and ultimately incorporated.

        But think about it… Nowadays, what makes a Catholic different from the Methodist down the street?

        Surely the real presence of Jesus! But could a completely unbiased observer tell the difference? I’d argue that he couldn’t. The Catholic Church (in practice, not in teaching) has wholesale abandoned basically every practice that creates anything resembling a “Catholic Identity.” Pope Benedict spent so much of his pontificate trying to explain the consequences of that choice. The only thing that remains at your typical suburban parish to separate the Catholics from the Methodists or the Anglicans is the celibacy of the priest (and some choices in regard to decor).

        Clerical Celibacy is a part of what makes Western Catholics non-Protestants. If we’re going to scratch out of this swamp of mediocrity that the Western Church is in, Identity is going to be the way to do it!

        Married clergy – priests or deacons – are undoubtedly holy and fastidious in their work… But they are also a source of confusion and misidentity. Remember too that the Priesthood in the West is among the Consecrated vocations… Those vocations, by their nature, point to eternity by rejecting the good of marriage in this life.

        In the East, there are two priesthoods, so to speak. There’s the consecrated priests who are celibate and the secular priests who are married. In the west, that distinction is unknown and without the 1000 years of background, a married clergy is a source of confusion at a time when we really can’t afford any more confusion.

        In addition to these lofty reasons, many Catholics want to see their priest as a virile example of someone who is living the Faith hard! They want to see the priest as a saint among them… As something “other.” Embracing the married life makes the “other-ness” hard to see and without the “hard” living of celibacy, I THINK many Catholics see their pastor as just a guide, rather than a warrior\saint.

        I hope this provides some insight. I know in my experience in Central Louisiana – identity is everything. And as non-denominational Christians multiply alongside Moslems and those who worship the idols of this world… Identity goes a long way.

  • Elijahmaria

    Dear Brother Ed: Even as an eastern Catholic I can see the wisdom in the comments by both Father Ryan and Ed Peters [on his linked site] where they indicate that one does grave disservice to theology and also to history to say that the only reason mandatory celibacy exists is because of a period of “corruptions in the priesthood.” That does not hold up to scrutiny in fact. I say that because however poorly the Unia was treated at all levels, and it was, in all phases, we still owe a debt to truth by looking at the western reality as it extends back into the time when we were one.

    • http://remnantofremnant.blogspot.com priest’s wife (@byzcathwife)

      not at all! Celibacy is a gift that is found is a monastic kind of spirituality…always an important part of Eastern Christianity

  • Richard E

    Fr. Ryan, you wrote:: “But they are also a source of confusion and misidentity. Remember too that the Priesthood in the West is among the Consecrated vocations… Those vocations, by their nature, point to eternity by rejecting the good of marriage in this life.” what are your thoughts on married Anglican married priest who have converted to Catholicism and gone through the ‘process’ to being married priest within the Catholic Church?

    Going back to ‘possible married Popes, the Catholic Encyclopedia list about 5 but all were married before taking Holy Orders and being elected Pope and several will widowers, one had a son who later also became a pope – St. Hormisdas had one son who later became Pope St. Silverius

    Mandatory celibacy was enforced because there was so much political and economic power attached to the papacy especially during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Church has adopted celibacy as a matter of discipline, not as a matter of doctrine. (from my History of Christianity text book)

    Vatican document, Priestly celibacy in patristics and in the history of the Church,
    http://marriage.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=marriage&cdn=people&tm=115&gps=251_8_937_538&f=10&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=29&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

    You mentioned experience in Central LA , anywhere around the Alexandra area, the people down that way are or were when I lived on the MS coast some years ago very warm and friendly.

    • http://CamptiCatholicChurch.com Fr. Ryan Humphries

      Hey Richard, thanks for your notes.

      There are quite a lot of exceptional moments in history… Exceptions like widowers who became popes or Protestants who converted and were – exceptionally ordained. Exceptions must be understood as things which are not part of the norm. Historically, doctrinally and theologically, though, we mustn’t be sidetracked by the occasional exception. (It’s like talking about Ectopic Pregnancies when discussing abortion – it’s relevant, but highly distracting.)

      I still reject wholeheartedly the unsubstantiated claim that celibacy was legislated because of the corruption of wealth… What’s more, the canons establishing mandatory celibacy in the west spread from the 7th to the 9th centuries… a cool 500 years before the wealth you’re talking about existed. This is made explicit in the text that you linked to… Surely the Donation of Pepin introduced some wealth, but the kind of benefices that created real corruption were still 200 years off when mandatory celibacy in the west became the De Facto requirement. (or more precisely, when “the Church began to exclusively select men for Holy Orders from those who had freely chosen the celibate state.” The distinctions are subtle, but essential.)

      You may want to invest in another Church History textbook. Many very consciously misconstrue these kinds of dates to revise Protestant ideals into the timeline and make Luther\Calvin\Zwingli look more like a prophets than they were. Some lie outright. I recommend texts ranging from the pious and overly devotional like Butler’s and Triumph (by Crocker) to the thoroughly footnoted and complete works of Christopher Dawson, Diane Moczar and Mike Aquilina. Warren Carroll wrote a good one too, but I don’t remember the name of it.

      As to Alexandria, I am a priest of that diocese. I was born in Alexandria and am currently serving in a parish north of Natchitoches. I’m so thankful you had a positive experience here! A former bishop of our diocese used to say “I have the most beautiful diocese in the world!” He was melodramatic, but not wrong!

      • http://suscipesanctepater.blogspot.com Matt R

        Dr. Carroll’s work would be the History of Christendom series, which goes all the way up to the 19th century and Communist revolutions!

      • Richard E

        The text I quoted from was the required text but that was 10 years ago, I keep it around for reference material. this particular book was written by Justo L. Gonzalez, other books for other courses I used were by Richard Foley and Joseph Martos. My degree work was in Theology and put emphasis on ethics and morality with minor studies in sociology when I realized how much they over lapped each other.

        I do know there was celibacy before the middle ages but it was not always enforced. Saint Boniface if I remember right wrote to the pope that he could not find any celibate bishops or priest while going through Germany.

        I really like this discussion and as I tell others, never too old to learn more about our faith.

      • http://jfroben.blogspot.com Sean Connolly

        That’s a terribly interesting distinction, Father.

        A young man says, “I want to be perfect [Gospel sense],” and so the Church beholding says, “You ought to be a priest.”

        But now:

        A young man says, “I want to be a priest,” and so the Church tells him, “Then you must be perfect.”

        What’s your opinion, Father? Are candidates for Orders ideally self-selecting?

      • http://CamptiCatholicChurch.com Fr. Ryan Humphries

        I would adjust the terms slightly. If someone said, “I want to be perfect,” the Church would direct that person to the consecrated life, not necessarily priesthood… (Religious women and consecrated religious men are in fact a higher vocation than priesthood.)

        When someone says I want to be a priest, the Church says you must already be willing to commit yourself to the consecrated life.

        This distinction isn’t well understood which is why most seminarians spend most of their time trying to decide between married life and priesthood. In fact, they should be deciding between a secular vocation or a consecrated vocation. After that work is done, then the real tough choice should be between joining an order (religious life) or a diocese (priesthood). Those who opt for an order then have further discernment between becoming a priest within their order.

        To your question, yes, ideal candidates are self-selecting but we shouldn’t underestimate the charism of the bishop in the moment of election of a candidate for orders. Any seminarian or priest will confirm that the ones you are just 100% sure are going to be priests are the one who leave the seminary. The ones, like me, who start out as loud mouth, liberal, narcissists, and you really don’t want to “inflict” on the Church often end up ordained. But still, no one’s personal discernment means anything until the Bishop puts on his 10 gallon mitre and says “We choose you.” That moment may see banal, especially with the clapping, but it is a profoundly grace-filled moment. I literally underwent a full-on life changing moment at my Diaconate ordination.

        Now, I tend to have a very different perspective on what you want to see in a candidate for priesthood. More than absolutely anything is the virtue of docility. With docility, saints can be made from anyone. Without it, good men will die good but not holy.

        At any rate, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this discussion!

  • Pingback: Married priests: “Why such aversion?”

  • http://remnantofremnant.blogspot.com priest’s wife (@byzcathwife)

    Sean- Thank you for your kinds words about our Eastern Catholic tradition- that is certainly how we try to live our lives (spare a prayer for us today!)

  • http://remnantofremnant.blogspot.com priest’s wife (@byzcathwife)

    and to Bruce who comments that celibacy can give ‘blessed freedom’ to pray more than married- WOULD you pray more? It seems a bit the ‘grass is always greener’

  • AnonCath

    Great discussion–how about we now talk about what benefits a celibate priesthood would bring to those in the East?

    • http://jfroben.blogspot.com Sean Connolly

      Do you perhaps mean mandatory celibacy? There is in fact a robust celibate clergy in the East as well.

      • Anonymous

        Yes, mandatory, not just for those looking to climb the episcopal ladder, so to speak. If the argument is, “Well, they do it in the East,” then let’s try the argument from the reverse perspective and maybe we will discover the beauty of what we have here in the West. Married deacons, celibate priests works so well. A priest is truly dedicated to serving Christ and his spiritual children in his parish and I greatly appreciate and admire that sacrifice. The discernment in that alone raises these men to a life of sacrifice and service–and holiness.

      • http://jfroben.blogspot.com Sean Connolly

        There’s not really an “argument” that I was trying to set forth, just a different perspective, a different tone, perhaps. The discipline in the West is a beautiful one, but in defending it, I find that many tend to denigrate what they unthinkingly forget is a Catholic discipline. The argument is that, if a discussion is to be had and remain Catholic, we can’t go looking to Protestantism for our precedent.

  • Elijahmaria

    Father Ryan: This was worth coming back here for…and bears repetition!

    “Now, I tend to have a very different perspective on what you want to see in a candidate for priesthood. More than absolutely anything is the virtue of docility. With docility, saints can be made from anyone. Without it, good men will die good but not holy.”

  • LoneThinker

    The violations of chastity, and divorce, by married clergy of all denominations of the Christian Church, and by Jewish rabbis, by male and female and by professed celibates, against male and female, child and adolescent are factors to be kept in mind. One can ask how gender is viewed in the election and selection in various denominations. As to the other professions, how much is marriage and family life a factor in promoting or hindering physicians and police and army life. Does a tiny rural parish in the Andes or sparsely Catholic rural Southern USA States or County Kerry have the resources to support a pastor of any denomination, offer adequate schools and a decent income for her/his spouse and does a large city congregation require a fulltime committed celibate. Law and medieval history are fundamentally irrelevant given today’s general culture, travel and communications and education, financial costs, and including a huge gap between professional and faith-formation education are more relevant.

«
»