married clergy
#31
(12-13-2015, 02:00 PM)Optatus Cleary Wrote: My (tongue-in-cheek) solution: allow married priests in the Latin Church, but only for the TLM and only people who have been attending it for years :).

I know you ment this comment as tongue-in-cheek but I really like this idea.
Reply
#32
I think if some in the hierarchy are serious about this they will come up against a difficult political problem mainly that most clergy today are accepting of celibacy. There will be opposition to a blanket solution of ordaining married men everywhere. It's more likely they would have to make it something a local bishop might do in certain cases if he saw clergy he thought were worthy. And the media will be agitating as usual for "optional " celibacy for those already ordained which is not possible.  That wasn't even on the agenda at Vatican II but the media made a huge issue out of it back then.

C.
Reply
#33
(12-13-2015, 10:14 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(12-13-2015, 04:17 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: Why?  Also, why now?  People have been having sex for a very long time.  How come it is now so irresistible that it's OK to make what, at the very least, has the appearance of being a concession to the popular and erroneous belief that it's unreasonable to ask someone to be celibate?  I have known a few lay men who said they would love to be priests, if the Church would only relax the celibacy rule.  What kind of priest would that be?  Men who are willing to lay down everything- except sex.  They would make horrible priests- every single one of them.

Maybe they didn't get the call until after they were married?

My understanding of Eastern rites like the Ukrainian rite is that a married man can become a priest, but a priest cannot get married. So they would have to be married prior to ordination.

(If I'm wrong on that, I'm sure one of you East Siders will correct me. :) )
Reply
#34
(12-14-2015, 12:34 AM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(12-13-2015, 10:14 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(12-13-2015, 04:17 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: Why?  Also, why now?  People have been having sex for a very long time.  How come it is now so irresistible that it's OK to make what, at the very least, has the appearance of being a concession to the popular and erroneous belief that it's unreasonable to ask someone to be celibate?  I have known a few lay men who said they would love to be priests, if the Church would only relax the celibacy rule.  What kind of priest would that be?  Men who are willing to lay down everything- except sex.  They would make horrible priests- every single one of them.

Maybe they didn't get the call until after they were married?

My understanding of Eastern rites like the Ukrainian rite is that a married man can become a priest, but a priest cannot get married. So they would have to be married prior to ordination.

(If I'm wrong on that, I'm sure one of you East Siders will correct me. :) )

I'm almost certain you're correct, though I am still ignorant of how exactly it works. Do seminarians in the East date and get married then get ordained? Or do you enter seminary in the state you're going to be in (i.e. married men can enter and single men can enter, but the single men aren't really supposed to be looking for wives)?

As for my joking suggestion, Renatus, it was just a joke. It would be pointless to hand married TLM-only priests. I was just trying to give the liberals what they want...exactly how they don't want it. I believe there's a "Corrupt a Wish" game on this forum somewhere...that's all I was doing  :LOL:
Reply
#35
(12-14-2015, 12:34 AM)PrairieMom Wrote: My understanding of Eastern rites like the Ukrainian rite is that a married man can become a priest, but a priest cannot get married. So they would have to be married prior to ordination.

(If I'm wrong on that, I'm sure one of you East Siders will correct me. :) )

That's correct.  I was responding to the idea that a man who is willing to lay down everything except sex would not make a good priest.  I was suggesting that maybe some men do not get a call to the priesthood until after they are married.
Reply
#36
(12-14-2015, 04:23 AM)Optatus Cleary Wrote: I'm almost certain you're correct, though I am still ignorant of how exactly it works. Do seminarians in the East date and get married then get ordained? Or do you enter seminary in the state you're going to be in (i.e. married men can enter and single men can enter, but the single men aren't really supposed to be looking for wives)?

If men want to get married, they will either be married when they enter seminary, or sometimes they will complete studies, get married, and then be ordained.  Men must be married before they are ordained to the diaconate.
Reply
#37
I don't like the idea of my donations to the Church going to pay for the sorry priests that we have currently.  I am not especially keen on paying for both sorry priests and their families.  No thanks.
Reply
#38
(12-14-2015, 11:35 AM)ermy_law Wrote: I don't like the idea of my donations to the Church going to pay for the sorry priests that we have currently.  I am not especially keen on paying for both sorry priests and their families.  No thanks.

Well, but that assumes that the new priests, either married or not, are of the "sorry" variety. Even among NO priests, I find the younger ones much, much better than the old guard that arose out of the ashes of VII and through the 80's and early 90's. Somewhere around 2000 something seems to have shifted a bit in terms of formation. I mean, it's still NO and they are still invested in the New, but the ones I've encountered have been a decent bunch of men even if they are at times misguided.

My biggest issue I think is that it's the "liberal" Catholics that are crying out for married priests, yet it seems that it's the "liberal" parishes that are always hurting for money. How are they going to pay for a married priest with a wife and half dozen kids? We can't expect them to live in abject poverty, they need to be able to meet their needs.

Someone mentioned that priests sometimes need to move a the drop of a hat, and while that's a concern for a married priest with family it's also, IMO, not such a big deal. My husband is a civilian on a military base, and those families move every couple of years as the parent (usually Dad, but not always) gets reposted to another base or operation, or gets deployed, etc. There are provisions in the employment to help with that, and as a spouse you just know it's part of the job.
Reply
#39
(12-14-2015, 12:14 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: Someone mentioned that priests sometimes need to move a the drop of a hat, and while that's a concern for a married priest with family it's also, IMO, not such a big deal. My husband is a civilian on a military base, and those families move every couple of years as the parent (usually Dad, but not always) gets reposted to another base or operation, or gets deployed, etc. There are provisions in the employment to help with that, and as a spouse you just know it's part of the job.

That would be relatively easy to get around.  The parish priest at my church has been there since 1971.  The Latin eparchies (hehe) would just have to dispense with moving priests around every few years.
Reply
#40
(12-14-2015, 12:14 PM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(12-14-2015, 11:35 AM)ermy_law Wrote: I don't like the idea of my donations to the Church going to pay for the sorry priests that we have currently.  I am not especially keen on paying for both sorry priests and their families.  No thanks.

Well, but that assumes that the new priests, either married or not, are of the "sorry" variety. Even among NO priests, I find the younger ones much, much better than the old guard that arose out of the ashes of VII and through the 80's and early 90's. Somewhere around 2000 something seems to have shifted a bit in terms of formation. I mean, it's still NO and they are still invested in the New, but the ones I've encountered have been a decent bunch of men even if they are at times misguided.

My biggest issue I think is that it's the "liberal" Catholics that are crying out for married priests, yet it seems that it's the "liberal" parishes that are always hurting for money. How are they going to pay for a married priest with a wife and half dozen kids? We can't expect them to live in abject poverty, they need to be able to meet their needs.

Someone mentioned that priests sometimes need to move a the drop of a hat, and while that's a concern for a married priest with family it's also, IMO, not such a big deal. My husband is a civilian on a military base, and those families move every couple of years as the parent (usually Dad, but not always) gets reposted to another base or operation, or gets deployed, etc. There are provisions in the employment to help with that, and as a spouse you just know it's part of the job.

Well, if we move towards the Eastern model, we have to look at how the Eastern Churches handle it. Especially in the West where parishes are smaller, it is common for priests to have secular jobs; matushka/presbytera (the priest's wife) often works, too, but that is obviously dependent on the number of children and their ages. Eastern priests also are rarely moved from parish to parish; the model that obtains in the Roman parishes in the US is not common among Easterners (or Roman parishes in other countries, for that matter). Many priests spend their whole priestly lives in one parish.

It might make sense in such a move for celibate priests to generally be the pastors, and married priests to primarily preside over liturgical services, assisting with administration only as needed. Personally, I think that is best decided by the bishop of the diocese - a blanket policy would probably not be helpful. I have heard contemptuous comments from some Latin Catholics of such priests being "mere liturgical functionaries," but given that the liturgy is the primary *purpose* of priests, I don't see the problem. I imagine Catholics who only see a priest once or twice a year (or less!) wouldn't mind having a "mere liturgical functionary" around!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)