Celibacy in the Priesthood, and Related Issues

[Crucifer]

[Note: I split this discussion off from the "What faith have you chosen" thread - VtF]

But we do respect him as a great spiritual leader and don't protest against his captaincy of the Roman Catholic church. Just of the Christian church as a whole, which he (or she, hopefully one day) isn't the leadr of, so it's all OK. (The 'priests cannot marry or be female' thing bugs me though. That was a big reason for my conversion.)

[solicitr]

Um- the Orthodox, Armenians, Copts, Chaldeans, etc etc etc etc don't accept the Pope's leadership, and they're hardly Protestant.......

There are definite theological differences between C and P, a dispute started by Luther and continued by Calvin and Zwingli. Personally I think it's mostly arcane logic-chopping, but theologians think they're important.

The 'priests cannot marry or be female' thing bugs me though.

Those are actually two entirely unrelated issues. Clerical celibacy is not and never has been a matter of dogma, just a 'discipline,' as they say- part of the Employees' Handbook, like wearing black. The Church has never denied the legitimacy of Orthodox priests, who are often married; and, indeed, Catholic priests could marry for the first several Christian centuries. Heck, even Peter, the first Pope, had a wife! Actually the reason for the new rule in the early Middle Ages was hardly doctrinal- the Church was having a problem with priests and bishops bequeathing their benifices to their sons, which rather diluted the Church's real estate holdings.

Since it is just a discipline, the Vatican is free to change its mind if it wants- and I think it had bloody well better, given the drastic shortage of priests in the US.

[Crucifer]

Quote:

The 'priests cannot marry or be female' thing bugs me though.

Those are actually two entirely unrelated issues.

I realise that they're unrelated, but those are the two issues that still bug me. Priests are, after all, only human.

[solicitr]

Priests are, after all, only human

That's also a concern. While it's bigoted lowbrow Papist-bashing to assert "all priests are child molesters," (the chant of "Paedophile!!" is currently a favorite among pro-choice demonstrators whenever a priest is spotted), I can't help but wonder if the celibacy mandate does attract a rather higher proportion of gays and even paedophiles to the priesthood than their percentage in the general population.

It also frustrates me no end that we have quite a number of committed, compassionate, capable, intelligent, sometimes even saintly deacons in the Church who can't ever become priests because they have families.

[MithLuin]

An ordained Episcopalian priest who converts to Catholicism is still a priest, so it is possible to have a legitimate, married Roman Catholic priest. One taught me in high school; his son sat behind me in class .

Non-Roman rite Catholic churches often have married priests, but they choose their bishops from among the celibate clergy. For instance, Ukrainian Catholic. Since these Churches are still Catholic, they do help to elect the pope - you can tell who they are, because they are the cardinals with the different hats : example
Liturgically and culturally, these churches appear Orthodox, but they are, in fact, in union with Rome.

Eastern Orthodox churches separated from the Catholic churches in the schism of 1054. Doctrinally, they are much closer to the Catholic Church than to the Protestant churches. What would be required to reunite them would be a common council - ie, a church-wide council that included both Catholics and Orthodox (Vatican III?). That is the only way to work out the doctrinal differences with any sense of finality, I think, though there are of course the practical issues still.

I think that celibacy will always be preferred, but it is possible to see circumstances where it would not be required for priests (it is currently not required for deacons - the permanent diaconate was re-introduced after Vatican II). My father, who is a married man with 5 children, is currently being trained as a Catholic deacon. Once he is ordained, should my mother predecease him, he would not be allowed to remarry. Single men who are ordained to the diaconate also may not marry. Practically, the decision to allow married priests would also be a decision to agree to support the families of these men, and I don't think that would be taken lightly. Outside of the US, the priest-shortage is geographical more than demographical - the cities are fine, but there's no one out in the country. I'm not sure how to change that, but I'm not sure opening it up to married men would accomplish the goal of bringing the sacraments and priestly ministry to those who are currently without.



There are, broadly speaking, 3 types of Christians: Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant. To my knowledge, all Catholics and Orthodox would agree with this division, as would most mainstream Protestants (though they are more apt to forget about the Orthodox, I suppose ). As you start moving into the "newer" churches - for instance, Evangelical or Nondenominational (which I realize - by definition - is not a denomination ), they are less likely to accept this division, and will rather lump Catholic, Orthodox and very traditional Protestant together into one group, and then make finer distinctions of what is left. Catholics will not accept any division that treats them as a "denomination" - they consider that word to refer to the various Protestant churches.

Of course, hairs can be split infinitely thin - I'm just trying to capture the broadest categories - kingdoms or phyla, rather than species

[solicitr]

It would seem to me that one solution would be to allow it on a national basis- each country's Council of Bishops would make the decision, depending on their own situation. I expect the rules should be the same as currently apply to the Diaconate. As Mith points out, this is already the case when the Whore of Babylon succeeds in seducing a good Anglican Father

However, I do think it's a good idea not to allow the already-ordained to marry. I'm not totally comfortable with priests acting like ordinary bachelors. Father Pat in a singles bar? No, thank you.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, solicitr, the idea is that you end up with a happily married priest—one hopes the singles bar would not be involved. (In fact, it probably wouldn't be; churches are great places to meet nice people. . . .)

There is sometimes messiness associated with unhappily married clergy just as there is with unhappily celibate clergy, but I do think some pastoral duties such as marriage counseling are probably done better by married people. And there are also circumstances where a clergywoman is more likely to be of help than a clergyman.

[Crucifer]

Why should priests not be allowed to marry? It is not set down in any biblical text that men of the cloth should stay celibate.

[Rodia]

Practically, the decision to allow married priests would also be a decision to agree to support the families of these men, and I don't think that would be taken lightly.

Money being one thing, since not all priests earn it outside of the Church- and then you have all the other issues that a family brings, all the other ways they will need support. I am not sure a person can give equal attention to their family and their church flock; one will always have to be sacrificed in some way. That was always how I understood it, that priests remain celibate so that they can devote their lives to two things: God, and bringing His message to their congregation. Nothing else.

The only pro I could see for priests marrying is that they would have the 'full' human experience, but I'm not even sure that's really necessary. Plenty of people give excellent advice on matters they have never experienced themselves, and let's be honest, no one can say they've experienced everything and can relate to everyone. Now, priests, priests are messengers of God, and if their understanding of God is slightly better than their understanding of the modern world, that's fine by me, because God is what I expect them to help me out with, first of all. And the thing is, God isn't something completely separate from the mundane. I mean, He made us. So if a smart priest understands His message, he can give me good advice on matters like marriage, and he doesn't need to be married himself; he just has to ask his faith for the answer. I will expect his faith to be better developed than mine, and thus probably able to find an answer where I cannot. And if he's not a smart priest and doesn't get God's message, then it doesn't matter squat what kind of mundane experience he has, he won't be able to help me.

In short, I think it's beneficial for the clergy to remain celibate.

edit: Oh yeah and I'm Catholic, in case that wasn't clear.

[truehobbit]

Excellent post, Ro!

[Túrin Turambar]

I am not sure a person can give equal attention to their family and their church flock; one will always have to be sacrificed in some way. That was always how I understood it, that priests remain celibate so that they can devote their lives to two things: God, and bringing His message to their congregation. Nothing else.

Would a lonely and/or lovesick priest really be able to focus fully on God and doing his work?

[Rodia]

I am not sure a person can give equal attention to their family and their church flock; one will always have to be sacrificed in some way. That was always how I understood it, that priests remain celibate so that they can devote their lives to two things: God, and bringing His message to their congregation. Nothing else.

Would a lonely and/or lovesick priest really be able to focus fully on God and doing his work?

I don't know, but he would have to try. Priesthood is not about having it all easy, a major part of it is about sacrifice. Sacrifice is a very important lesson in life, and most of us regular folk go to extreme lengths to avoid it. That's completely okay, but a priest should have a different approach. If he doesn't, he's not a very good priest.
Besides, okay, so we give him the woman he yearns for. Does that make it easier to focus fully on God, or does it mean he has to divide his time and attention between God and his woman? The problem is not solved at all.

Really, if a priest is unwilling to try and deny himself this life's pleasures and comforts in order to attain a higher level of spirituality, then he probably shouldn't be among the clergy.

[Túrin Turambar]

Does that make it easier to focus fully on God, or does it mean he has to divide his time and attention between God and his woman? The problem is not solved at all.

How much time do his ecclesiastical duties take?

Also, can’t we take this argument to extremes and suggest that Priests should be allowed to do nothing but study and pray? If Priests are allowed to divide their time between their work and hobbies, I don’t see why they shouldn’t also be allowed to find time to have a wife and family.

Really, if a priest is unwilling to try and deny himself this life's pleasures and comforts in order to attain a higher level of spirituality, then he probably shouldn't be among the clergy.

Is being a priest really about denying pleasures to attain a high level of spirituality, though? This makes sense for Buddhist monks and Hindu ascetics, and possibly also Catholic monks. But should it hold for priests, who have many mundane duties as well as spiritual ones? A priest seems to me to be something of a community leader, and I don’t see why someone should be stopped from taking on the role if they would be good at it just because they are married or want to marry. If they believe that they cannot be married and be a good priest, then they needn’t marry.

[truehobbit]

Friends, please let's remember that this discussion is not meant to figure out what forms of worship are 'right' or 'wrong'.

One religious community has these rules and another has other rules. If you find they are the right rules for you, then you fit in the community, if not, you probably don't. That's why there are different forms of worship in the first place - if we all preferred the same ideas, we wouldn't have developed different forms of worship.

But should it hold for priests, who have many mundane duties as well as spiritual ones?

For Catholic priests it should, for all the reasons Ro has so excellently stated. That does not mean that a priest in other religions can't have a different role. But fact is that the role of a priest in Catholicism is what Ro explained.
The way I see it, there is no "should" in this, because there is no one right way to do things when it comes to forms of religion.

[Túrin Turambar]

But can't practical arguments still be made? For example, if there is no good reason for priests to be celibate, and people are turned away from joining the priesthood because of the vow of chastity, then the Catholic church has suffered a loss. Also, if it had any link at all to sexual abuse by priests, then it is obviously a problem.

[truehobbit]

LordM, do you really think sexual abuse is something that only unmarried people commit?

The good reason for Catholic priests to be celibate is what Ro explained. If that's not a good enough reason to convince you, then you just don't agree with Catholic views. That's fine, but others do.

I don't know if that puts people off the priesthood or not, but as far as I can tell, that wouldn't matter. Changing one's values to accomodate different tastes or gain more support is something that doesn't go too well with integrity.

Also, speaking more generally, I don't think practical arguments can be made, because, as I said, we are not determining whether a certain religious idea is right or wrong.

I might see your point if it came to truly harmful ideas, like teaching that murder is good or something like that, though I'm not entirely sure even on that. The only aspect that would in what I gather from your views fit this, is the sexual abuse accusation, and, to put it quite bluntly, I think that this wide-spread suspicion of latent sexual perversion in the Catholic priesthood is the result of dirty minds unable to picture a man and a child in the same room without imagining some vile deeds. Personally, I don't think that sexual abuse occurs as often as it does in your ordinary family that fulfills all the expectations of modern society.

[Rodia]

I think what I gave before are really good reasons for priests to be celibate. (sorry if I ramble, I'm not a Manweista ) Priest do very different things; from mission work to teaching at universities to simply taking care of a small village parish, to only name three examples. These tasks, besides keeping in touch with God, should be the most important thing in their lives. And you have to remember priests can be moved from their station at any moment; Church duties that are minor now could be major in a year's time. And here's another thing- you ask how much time ecclesiastical duties take. That obviously depends, but the idea is not that the priest says mass and that's his job for the day done. He's supposed to constantly contemplate faith, to seek out ways in which to get closer to God- yes, in essence, study and pray. This is important stuff, stuff that regular people like you or me don't do, but that's why people join convents and become priests- to devote their time to something else than a regular person would. I'm not forbidding priests hobbies or a human nature, but a family is harder to set aside than a stamp collection or a ski trip. What about when this good community leader has to choose between his family, and the community he's supposed to take care of?

I'm not saying sacrifice is the only path to growth, it's just a very important one in the Catholic faith, especially for men (and women) of the cloth. From the outside, it might seem a bit silly to have people dress in uniform and deny themself harmless comforts, but none of them are forced into such a lifestyle- they seek it out. They want to learn; they want to be more aware of what they do and why they do it, and to control their desires. What's the point of anyone training to run a marathon and going on a strict diet, pushing themselves to the limit and exercising when they'd rather be in front of the tv? They want to learn, and to do something right; to be the best.

As to sexual abuse among priests, I think that's a matter that has to be dealt with separately. I don't think allowing men who are prone to abuse to marry so they can ease their frustrations is the answer.

[Lurker]

From what I know, one of the reasons why the priests are not allowed to get married is that the church feels that they can't "serve" two "masters". They feel that the priests have to give 100% to the church and the community it serves, having a family will divide the priest's time between the church and his personal affairs.

There is always this misconception that the "vow of chastity" has turned away young men from joining the priesthood. I've contemplated joining the priesthood a few times and it never crossed my mind that the "vow of chastity" is the one that hindered me from pursuing it. To me the "vow of chastity" is a sacrifice, like most of the people I know who entered the priesthood and left. (As a Catholic, the only way you can "make love" is when you get married, so what is the difference. Or you can have sex all you want first, confess your sins, then join the priesthood and become celibate forever. You wouldn't be turned down I assure you.) I have two cousins who entered the priesthood, the reason they left it is because the "discipline" was so stringent, they can't cope up with it. It's not like "ok, I know the bible, that's it. I'll get my diploma tomorrow." It's like going through university and getting straight A's. One of my cousins just ended up being a "Brother" in seminary school because he was not smart enough like the rest of his peers. He has to prove that academically, he can cope up with their "studies" (maintaining a GPA of A in layman's term). It's years of "no life", all you do is study, pray, do household chores, that's it. My relatives have to visit them at the seminary cause they don't have time to actually travel or sometimes the seminary have strict rules about "going out of the seminary". It's like a military boot camp for Christ, I tell you! One of my cousins left the seminary cause he doesn't want to end up a "Brother", the other one (the Father to be) left when my other cousin (the Brother) left, since he can't bear to be in the seminary without having his "best cousin" to support him. To think they're already in their 3rd year!!! Yes, the Vow of Chastity is very difficult, in fact, my cousins admit (when they were still in the seminary) that they are not blind if they see a beautiful woman, they actually look and stare like the most of the male population. There is no harm in looking anyways. In fact, I am still laughing when they tole me that when they told the girl on the bus that they are "seminarians", she wanted to get to know them bettter, it was such a "babe magnet". They swear, the girls in HS who won't even look at them, now are coming out of the woodworks. I told them, maybe you don't look like "thugs" anymore with their clean cut and polite manners. In fact, even now if they say they are "ex-seminarians" every mother in the Church wants them to meet their daughters.

[JewelSong]

From what I know, one of the reasons why the priests are not allowed to get married is that the church feels that they can't "serve" two "masters". They feel that the priests have to give 100% to the church and the community it serves, having a family will divide the priest's time between the church and his personal affairs. .

Actually, priests were allowed to marry in the early years of the church...up until the 600's or so, I believe.

The reason for the prohibition had less to do with "serving two masters" and more to do with the practical nature of property. If a priest was married, his wife and children got his property when he died. If he was not, the property reverted to the Church. It was a financial, not a spiritual, reason.

This did not prevent priests from having mistresses and even families. But as long as this was done discreetly, the Church tended to turn a blind eye. Ditto for sexual activity with underage boys. The Catholic Church grew out of the Roman culture and this kind of activity was common and even expected. (I know this is not a pleasant thing to consider, but it is a fact.)

As society changed, the Church's viewpoint and stance - and reaction to such things - had to change as well. The recent sex abuse scandals in Ireland and the US is a result (IMHO) of the church not changing fast enough. The culture of "turning a blind eye" stayed in place way too long and the Church has paid (and is still paying) for it. As recently as 10 years ago, the Catholic Church's adminstrators instructed parents of abused boys not to go to the police; to let the church "take care of it" internally. To go to the police was to betray the Church.

[Alatar]

I am still laughing when they tole me that when they told the girl on the bus that they are "seminarians", she wanted to get to know them bettter, it was such a "babe magnet". They swear, the girls in HS who won't even look at them, now are coming out of the woodworks.

A priest friend of mine said they used to refer to those girls as "Vocation-testers" Besides, I'm pretty sure the vow of celibacy only takes effect officially at ordination, though obviously its encouraged among seminarians also.