Comments (95)

rb-freedom-for-all:
The RC church expects married couples to be celibate unless they are intending to procreate. No birth control allowed. No contraceptives. No condoms. Even the rythmn method is technically a sin!
***

Sorry, you are misinformed. The RC actually promotes a version of the rhythm method, somewhat more advanced as it is based on greater understanding of the physical changes across the ovulatory cycle. In other words, the RC uses science to promote more effective birth control. This is held to be acceptable as no artificial barriers to conception are used.

The Church has many problems with sex, but it does recognize that it is an important part of the bond between husband and wife.

Would a weekend priest only have to practice cellibacy on weekends?

Neal, you wrote:

"It is my understanding that the RC Church expects not only its priests, but all of its unmarried members to be celibate. It is also my understanding that it expects its permanently "disordered" homosexually oriented members, who are automatically ineligible for marriage, to remain celibate all of their lives."

Its even worse than you thought, Neal. The RC church expects married couples to be celibate unless they are intending to procreate. No birth control allowed. No contraceptives. No condoms. Even the rythmn method is technically a sin! This is just another reason catholics in America ignore their church's teachings. If people were expected to actually adhere to the tenets of catholicism, catholicism would quickly cease to exist, except for a small group of fanatics.

Dear Professor Stevens-Arroyo, Mary, Ryan, Paul and all other Catholics visiting this thread:

I wish you all a Happy Pentecost Day! May the Holy Spirit be poured into your hearts and minds anew everyday and guide and lead you to do God's will in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

(PS: My post of yesterday seems to have disappeared, hence this is a repeat.)

I asked very related question about the fact that the clergy is increasingly become characterized by a greater number of gay priets -- to a large extent I believe because straight men find the sacrifice of family and sex too great. I wondered, as a non-Catholic, how Catholics feel about the possibility of an all gay clergy -- not about whether gay men should be in the clergy but about the clergy being made up of almost exclusively of gay men because of the ban against marriage. My question was not posted -- I assume because it was considered offensive. It wasn't meant to be.

Catholic clergy were banned from marrying because they were spending church funds on supporting their families. As with most matters pertaining to organised religion follow the money and you will find the truth.
Saint Peter, the founder of the catholic church, was married, a fact conveniently ignored by the first lateran council. Anyway when the church starts to run out of priests to rattle the collection plate no doubt god will change his mind about it again.

Why not change rites in the Catholic Church to one of the Eastern Rites which allows for marriage of priests? Problem solved. These churches are in full communion with Rome. After two years of attending an Eastern Rite Catholic Church you could start attending an Eastern Rite Catholic Seminary and become a Catholic priest. However, you would need to serve the eastern rite church to which you belonged, but you could become bi-ritual or tri-ritual and be on loan to a Roman Catholic Church.

I was the anonymous who posted at 8:33 PM (10 May).

Church doctrines should not be treated like fossils. Just as a doctrine that allowed priests to marry for the first thousand years of Church history was changed to accommodate changed circumstances, so can the doctrine that prevents marriage now be changed to meet the current crisis. One would hardly consider it wise to cling rigidly to a doctrine that is against the best interests of the Church itself.

Married Catholic clergy could keep the Church alive for the next thousand years as it did the first thousand.

Providing marriage as an option does not prevent Catholic clergy from remaining celibate if they chose to.

What do young boys in their early/mid teens understand about the challenge of rising above a very legitimate need for a sexual partner and life companion and about the lifelong challenges imposed on a lone priest in a parish for the rest of their lives among lay people? That is when they are expected to make a decision concerning their life. What if they had been told that they could be a priest and marry if they chose to? Would that make their vocation any less of a vocation?

Celibates need to live in communities with other celibates in order to derive their spiritual support. Hermits of yore lived completely cut off from normal society. It is hard to be exposed day in and day out to a legitimate human need and have to suppress it, especially when one is not supported by a community that lives by the same set of rules sharing the same struggles.

It should not be about being a priest or being married.

Paul, if the doctrine of celibacy worked so well there should be no Catholic men who say that they would opt for the priesthood if they were allowed to be married.

If the doctrine worked so well, no celibate clergy would leave the priesthood in order to marry.

If the doctrine worked so well, then there would be no crisis in priestly vocation now.

If married Catholic priests kept Christianity going for the first thousand years, there is no reason to doubt that it would stand in the way for the next thousand years if it was reintroduced now. Orthodox Christians have kept Christianity alive for two thousand unbroken years with married clerg

LDS Mark:
What do you mean, you got over being Catholic? What made you leave the church?

As for areas of Church DOCTRINE not being biblical, Explain ONE area of actual Catholic Doctrine that fits this category. As already discussed extensively in this forum, the married clergy is NOT a matter a Church Doctrine, but a practice that the Catholic Church has instituted to better bring the DOCTRINE to the people. As Discussed by Ryan and others here, there are many reasons that the church has taken this position and it has worked well for it for ~1000 years.

Ryan Haber:

I was born, raised and educated catholic.

But, I got over it.

I never understood why catholic priests couldn't marry, and got scolded for asking why.

My point is that both the old and new testaments do not support the catholic priest celibacy doctrine.

The whole catholic priesthood doctrine would also have to be changed if priesthood celibacy were dropped, an unlikely event.

If a priest chooses to marry and raise a family, he should be able to. How better to get first hand experience in marriage to help him advise his parishioners when they need it.

This would also require him to give up his vow of poverty, get a job, and pay tithes. He should have that option as well.

Paying tithes, getting a job, raising a family and marriage is not likely to happen. The whole structure would have to be revised. I don’t see that happening.

There are many other areas in catholic doctrine that are not supported in the bible. This is just one of them.

Mark

I'll never understand why eschewing women and marriage honors God. I was married to the same woman for 32 years until her death. I can't tell you how many times having my best friend to come home to kept me sane & balanced. Sure it wasn't always bliss, but even when we had disagreements or strain, we always came back to what mattered to us both -- our faith, our marriage, our children -- and we worked hard to keep those central. Having a wife tempered me, helped me see other perspectives, and gave me support to fulfill my duties as a father and in my profession. On balance, the benefits far out weighed the "strain."

Speaking of strain -- having to attend to multiple parishes because of the lack of priests is a huge strain on priests now. Having no one to perform the sacraments, give comfort & support, and lead the flock is a strain on our faith and our ability to live connected to Christ. At least with married priests, the so-called strain of a family carries huge benefits, too. Celibacy may have served a purpose once but now it is an anachronism that interferes with not supports our ability to live in Christ.

Catholic faith? Vatican is a State, not a religion, all men's state, where old f.... makes decisions about everyday life of ordinary people they have no clue about. State that tolerates only two types of women: church poster girls that are dead already and wending machines (get a .... in get a baby out). State of rotten bones and catacombs, history of horror. What does that have to do with Mary and Jesus, who were about light and love? Many nations in the world have a very similar thought: To be a Catholic priest, there is something wrong up or down or both with that man. This state is already a matter of the past, and it will dissolve naturally in a next great schism: contemporary church and homoerotic dinosaur from 11th century.

One big REASON why catholic priests can't marry is when they have a divorce, all the worms they've been doing would be exposed.

The Catholic church is a false religion and the Vatican is the seat of satan.

It is my understanding that the RC Church expects not only its priests, but all of its unmarried members to be celibate. It is also my understanding that it expects its permanently "disordered" homosexually oriented members, who are automatically ineligible for marriage, to remain celibate all of their lives. If both of those are true (and for as long as they remain true), it seems reasonable to conclude that homosexually oriented people might tend to be disproportionately represented in the ranks of the clergy: if one is a very devout Catholic and willing to remain celibate all of one's life anyway, then the clerical life would seem to be a perfectly honorable and compatible choice.

(When I hear some Catholics suggesting that seminarians be screened out for homosexual *orientation*, I get this mental image of some ancient priest showing pictures of Sophia Loren or Gina Lollobrigida to young candidates trying to gauge their orientation from their responses.)

Mariano Patalinjug,

"Much of the travails of the Catholic Church in the United States is traceable to the unnatural requirement that they be celibate."

The large majority of persons molested as children are molested by married persons, rather than single persons. Marriage is no guard against perversion.

Nobody's questioned here, at least no Catholic, the goodness of sexuality and its role in God's plan, not to mention the need for procreation. Your sex education lesson was unusual in these settings, to be sure, but I am even more certain that the Pope, bishops, celibate priests, and faithful lay Catholics (whatever their thoughts about celibacy or marital condition) are aware of how children are begotten.

You understand those things well, but your understanding of the role and reasons for celibacy in the Church is revealed by your thought that celibacy should be relaxed not only for priests but for nuns as well.

Now, there is nothing contrary in the priesthood to marriage. It happens that the Church has found it best for all involved, generally speaking, that celibacy be the norm for priests in the Latin rite. I happen to know two married men who are legitimately ordained, ministering Latin rite priests, and two more who are Eastern rite priests - all faithful and in good-standing. Each has told me that to varying degrees the priesthood strains their marriage and that their marriage strains their priesthood. For many priests, especially in the Eastern churches, I've no doubt that the vocations - priesthood and marriage - work very well together, and even complement each other.

But, Mariano, what you don't realize is that while priesthood and marriage aren't inherently contrary, marriage and being a nun are. Nuns (properly speaking, women religious) and monks (men religious) aren't priests without priest-powers. Nor are they social workers forced into celibacy. They are a whole different thing.

The whole point of joining a religious community (say a convent or monastery) is an alternate to normal family-neighborhood-community. INSTEAD of doing that, people started founding monasteries and convents in the 2nd and 3rd century so that, without the distractions of family and civic life they could devote themselves entirely to prayer. It was about 1000 years later that someone dreamed up the idea was of founding such communities specifically to engage in social service. To this day, in such communities, notably the Franciscans, the Sisters of Mercy, or most recently Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity, men and women specifically choose NOT to marry and rather instead to live chastely in single-sex communities to support each other and prayer and works of mercy. Most of them, if told that they were now "permitted to marry" would be alarmed or confused, because they hadn't asked or wanted to marry.

The whole thing is likely to sound ridiculous or unbelievable, I admit, unless one has had the experience of meeting a happy man or woman religious, and happy, celibates. I live in the DC area and we are spoiled here to have oodles of young and old priests and religious who are happily and faithfully living their promises, made voluntarily and embraced joyfully. It does, I admit, make the whole thing more plausible to see it lived out well. I hope y'all have the opportunity sometime.

Anonymous,

I make the reminders about the life of our Lord because they are not reminders to many people, and because someone on the blog did question our Lord's celibacy. Maybe He wasn't - but the only evidence we have is that He was.

I wasn't trying to raise a strawman, but only point out that celibacy not only doesn't come out of thin air, but is well-grounded.

I wasn't insisting, and never have, that the priesthood must be celibate, only that arguments like "Our Lord valued marriage," etc., are off the point or inadequate to deduce that married men ought to be admitted to orders.

"those of us who believe in Christ believe that He uniquely was and is true God from true God, true Light from true Light -- so the analogy is useful but limited."

We must not say that "Jesus did it, but He was God, and the same can't be expected of us, because we aren't." I am not sure if that is what you are getting at, but that line of thinking misses the point of Christianity - that God wants, in the person of Jesus Christ, to "partakers of the divine nature," (2 Pet 1:4). If a man is called by Christ to celibacy, then Christ who was celibate will certainly empower the man to live celibately.

"Comments about Dan Brown trivialize the discussion. He writes fiction."

A lot of people, including some who have posted here, are not aware of that. Comments that Constantine "invented Christianity," "picked the books of the Bible," or "enforced priestly celibacy" clutter these boards and are literally stupid. That is, they speak about what they do not understand. They trivialize and distract from the conversation.

Your comments are particularly valuable because they are not only formed in complete sentences, but equally rarely on these boards, they express coherent thoughts in a rational order. They are also pertinent to the topic.

I grant immediately that it is within the Church's authority to permit married men into orders. I've never said that would be a horrible mistake or anything. Mostly, I am interested in defending the established, and as of yet, in the long-term, very successful tradition of ordaining only celibate men as it now exists within the Latin Church.

I'm a Copt

You are right. Many on these boards do not know much about the Orthodox Church.

I am not a Copt...just in case someone thinks I am cheering my own!!

RH:

I hesitated in responding because a closed mind can bear little fertile thought, and usually misses the point being made. Those of us respectfully participating in this discussion do not need reminders about Christ's life. Raising his celibacy is a straw man argument because those of us who believe in Christ believe that He uniquely was and is true God from true God, true Light from true Light -- so the analogy is useful but limited. Comments about Dan Brown trivialize the discussion. He writes fiction. I would add that questioning Christ's celibacy also is just plain silly, a bit offensive, & misses the point.

Anonymous in the Autumn of Your Life,

Our Lord himself valued celibacy, as I mentioned before. He gives evidence of having eschewed normal family life, for some reason:

"And Jesus said to him, 'Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head,'" (Mt 8:20; Lk 9:58).

Not only His example but His advice show it has a high place in His thinking:

"But he said to them, 'Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it,'" (Mt 19:11-12).

And in Lk 18:24-30,

"Jesus looking at him said, 'How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'
Those who heard it said, 'Then who can be saved?'
But he said, 'What is impossible with men is possible with God.'
And Peter said, 'Lo, we have left our homes and followed you.'
And he said to them, 'Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.'"

This last one seems to imply that our Lord thought the Apostles had, or that others would, leave behind not only property, but family as well, for His sake.

We must not glibly neglect the example and advice of our Lord in such weighty matters.

For my part, personally, I tend to be pessimistic about the world. There's a lot of evil out there. But I am not in the autumn of my life; rather I am in the first hot days of summer. The sky is blue here, and the sun is bold, the trees full of green, and I have not lost hope in Jesus, that if we just follow Him, He will take care of us His beloved flock.

He has so far.

Sorry, say anything for married priest in our church, and she will nuts....it comes to one thing only and only one thing, MONEY, life insurance policy, medical care for a family and all life's little problem it comes to a married person. Yes perhaps a divorce here and there and welcome to God's community father.

All those sex scandals and our church done nothing, but then here comes money, law sues etc and all of sudden things changed...sorry bro, but are church is cheap and hates that married woman will manipulate our priest, on the the other hand she will strengthen our holy mother church!

In answer to the main question, should Catholic priests be able to marry? The short answer is yes, they should. There are of course the obvious reasons that make this answer the best answer. The first thing that comes to –my mind- is a hope that it might cut down on the amount of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. The second one is the reunion of married priests back into what was established by the original church prior to all splits. My opinion, I’m sure is biased since I’m a member of the Orthodox denomination, however, I think it really is beneficial to the Catholic denomination to implement the marriage of priests, both for the inner peace of those serving in the church as well as providing encouragement of more people to join the priesthood / deaconship. Why shouldn’t a priest have the opportunity to have a life partner and children? As someone mentioned above, the Orthodox denomination basically has two routes, one for a priest, which requires that individual to be married before entering the priesthood. The other route is for someone who prefers not to be married, and live his life completely for God alone (i.e. monk). Regardless of which route is taken, it does offer up a clear path for the person who is truthful to himself and to God, on how to serve to best of his desires and ability. There has been little to no change in how we do things in the Orthodox Church since its beginning (~2000years ago), nor have man’s idiosyncrasies. When the Church was first established there was a rhyme and reason behind the things that were implemented. The same rhyme and reason still exists today, while there is no one universal church anymore the grassroots of the order in the church has been lost among those denominations that have been born over the centuries. People don’t understand why women can’t become priests; why is there a necessity to confess to a priest, there is confusion / question of what’s wrong with a homosexual clergy member? The question as to why a priest shouldn’t be married is just another one of those questions. While the Catholic Church is probably the closest of all denominations to the Orthodox Church, as it is an apostolic church (i.e. meaning that it was established by an apostle of Jesus Christ), it also has made changes in its doctrine over the years in order to appease its church members (example – Vatican II). I think may have only further confused people, and caused for things to be lost in translation. I have to admit that Orthodoxy may not rub all people the right way (sorry no homosexual clergy, female priests, confession, repentance, only the priest gives out communion. etc.). However, I truly feel that Orthodoxy really closes the loop on a lot of questions and gaps that some people may feel that they have in their own denomination.

Sorry, I didn’t mean this to be a bandwagon for everyone to join the Orthodox Church, I only meant point out something that something as simple as having a married priest is not a wild or outlandish idea that would be breaking tradition or God’s plan for his clergy. On the contrary, God has outlined how He wants His church to look like, how His priests should live, etc. in the Old Testament (Of course I’m sure there are people out there that don’t think much of the OT, which is another discussion ). None of this ever changed until mankind decided things should be different.

If you want to be catholic, married and serve the church become a decon.

Simple

In answer to the main question, should Catholic priests be able to marry? The short answer is yes, they should. There are of course the obvious reasons that make this answer the best answer. The first thing that comes to –my mind- is a hope that it might cut down on the amount of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. The second one is the reunion of married priests back into what was established by the original church prior to all splits. My opinion, I’m sure is biased since I’m a member of the Orthodox denomination, however, I think it really is beneficial to the Catholic denomination to implement the marriage of priests, both for the inner peace of those serving in the church as well as providing encouragement of more people to join the priesthood / deaconship. Why shouldn’t a priest have the opportunity to have a life partner and children? As someone mentioned above, the Orthodox denomination basically has two routes, one for a priest, which requires that individual to be married before entering the priesthood. The other route is for someone who prefers not to be married, and live his life completely for God alone (i.e. monk). Regardless of which route is taken, it does offer up a clear path for the person who is truthful to himself and to God, on how to serve to best of his desires and ability. There has been little to no change in how we do things in the Orthodox Church since its beginning (~2000years ago), nor have man’s idiosyncrasies. When the Church was first established there was a rhyme and reason behind the things that were implemented. The same rhyme and reason still exists today, while there is no one universal church anymore the grassroots of the order in the church has been lost among those denominations that have been born over the centuries. People don’t understand why women can’t become priests; why is there a necessity to confess to a priest, there is confusion / question of what’s wrong with a homosexual clergy member? The question as to why a priest shouldn’t be married is just another one of those questions. While the Catholic Church is probably the closest of all denominations to the Orthodox Church, as it is an apostolic church (i.e. meaning that it was established by an apostle of Jesus Christ), it also has made changes in its doctrine over the years in order to appease its church members (example – Vatican II). I think may have only further confused people, and caused for things to be lost in translation. I have to admit that Orthodoxy may not rub all people the right way (sorry no homosexual clergy, female priests, confession, repentance, only the priest gives out communion. etc.). However, I truly feel that Orthodoxy really closes the loop on a lot of questions and gaps that some people may feel that they have in their own denomination.

Sorry, I didn’t mean this to be a bandwagon for everyone to join the Orthodox Church, I only meant point out something that something as simple as having a married priest is not a wild or outlandish idea that would be breaking tradition or God’s plan for his clergy. On the contrary, God has outlined how He wants His church to look like, how His priests should live, etc. in the Old Testament (Of course I’m sure there are people out there that don’t think much of the OT, which is another discussion ). None of this ever changed until mankind decided things should be different.

Anonymous in the Autumn of Your Life,

You are right that our Lord values marriage and sexual intimacy. He also apparently values celibacy and chaste intimacy because that is the example He Himself gave us. Let's not forget that.

DaveG,

All the Scriptural evidence is that our Lord was in fact celibate. Only Dan Brown and few such clowns disagree.

and/or let them have partners. Since the church is so behind the times, why not catch them up in one fell swoop.

Christians of all types still believe that denial of human sexuality is the way to go.

No wonder there are so many screwed up people.

They need to find a better way to understand it and integrate it into their belief system.

How many Christians are honoring the principle that sex is for procreation only?

How many are being faithful to their spouses?

Ok, LDS Mark,

We're gonna have to agree to disagree here, because the differences are too broad to be bridged while sticking to the particular question at hand, which pertains to the Roman Catholic priesthood.

Since you presumably have neither a vested interest in the Catholic Church (not being Catholic), nor education in its principles, instead of sidetracking things or chiming in irrelevantly, maybe it's best for you just to read the posts of people who are even remotely on topic.

We can discuss Mormonism and its differences from Christianity, or more specifically from Catholicism, somewhere else or some other time.

God bless.

The Orthodox tradition involves much more than just priests being married. In the traditional village life, and even as towns and cities grew in the 19th and 20th centuries, the priest always has been a respected leader of the community not just someone who ran a church. This leadership would not be possible without a wife and children, and the social networking which accompanys this. It allows for a true Christian community of believers in a way which is mirrored by traditional Jewish and Muslim communities in their own respective faiths. By contrast, the Catholic Church of Western Europe was viewed with such fear and suspicion that by the late Middle Ages the foundations of the Protestant Reformation had been laid, resulting in Catholicism losing half of its congregations. It is Catholicism, not Orthodoxy or Protestantism, which departed from the original roots of Christianity by forbiding priests to marry and raise families.

how just great. then we have to worry about a gay wanting to marry another man, or maybe women priests.
if you want to be a catholic priest you dont get to have sex, or get married.
if you want to have sex and be married dont be a catholic priest!

"As for Jesus’s celibacy, let’s not miss the point here either"

Better to say, as for Jesus's celibacy, there are no reliable indicators to suggest that he ever was, so why is that even brought up?

Yonkers, New York
09 May 2008

Anthony Stevens-Arroyo has hit the nail right on the head.

Much of the travails of the Catholic Church in the United States is traceable to the unnatural requirement that they be celibate.

I say unnatural because Homo sapiens has been endowed by Nature with the capacity to reproduce his kind, in order to perpetuate the species. Absent this capacity, Homo sapiens will of course go the way of the dodo--extinction.

Thus man is endowed with reproductive organs: usually two testicles, spermatozoa to fertilize the egg from a female of the species, the male hormone testosterone, and a penis to penetrate the female vagina and deliver the sperm for its journey into the ovary.

The perpetuation of the species is a primal drive of all mammals, including of course human beings. Thus testosterone will always trump celibacy.

Pope Benedict XVI will be doing the Catholic Church an unforgettable service by reinstituting marriage for priests as well as nuns. He should not be surprised at all if all of a sudden the travails experienced just recently by the Catholic Church, particularly in the United States, will quickly diminish if not stop altogether.

Mariano Patalinjug

MarPatalinjug@aol.com

I've been monitoring the discussion re this issue since the 1970s, from the orthodox to the liberal. Here are a few observations from a devout Catholic in the autumn of my life:

1. I’d like to reclaim the term fundamental from the reactionaries. The fundamental point is – how priests can better serve God and the community. Jesus was about salvation, love, and yes obedience to the Father. Does that require, really require, a celibate priesthood? I think it is more about who is called to the priesthood, and how he carries out his duties – with or without a family. But we seem to think one aspect – celibacy – is an absolute requirement to fulfill those missions faithfully and well. There are plenty of celibate priests who aren’t the best in carrying out their vocations. So too there are plenty of men who would be wonderful priest but they are not called to a celibate life – meaning one without intimate relationships. Think about that – it is a very sad and a really odd thing -- to believe that intimate, respectful love should be sacrificed in the name of God. As for Jesus’s celibacy, let’s not miss the point here either. Priests do carrying out the mission of St. Peter, but they are not, nor do they claim to be, Christ.

2. The priesthood is in crisis and by extension so is the Catholic Church. The answer lies in thoughtful reform derived from prayer and an honest appraisal of where the Church is in 2008. I'm tired of the argument that boils down to, "I don't want the Church to change because this is what I know and this is what I want." Wake up -- and stop being selfish. The Church is in crisis and we need thoughtful answers, not closed minds. My guess is that the majority of those with closed minds are married with children. Easy to call on others to make the sacrifice. Would Christ really oppose easing their isolation, loneliness, and bringing them closer to the congregation? God values marriage and human, intimate companionship.
3. Which brings me to why we value foregoing a sacrament (marriage) that should be about love, responsibility, and enhancing the community with a marriage built on Christian values. We need more of that today. And we are all called to put Christ first and foremost in our lives. It is our common obligation and should be our common wish if we are truly Christian. Priests would still dedicate themselves more fully to that than the laity, and would still be called to do so by the Holy Spirit. Celibacy is a discipline – not dogma – that had its time but perhaps that time is now over & priests would better serve the Church and Christ being married, if they desire.
4. It strikes me as odd that the sexual practices of a group of people is so widely discussed when generally we would be offended if any other group faced this. I realize the reasons, but maybe celibacy is something that should be a personal choice.
5. Did celibacy contribute to the abuse of children – I don’t know & I don’t think anyone does conclusively. Celibacy is not our natural state. We are sexual beings & repressing that does have consequences. Still, what I do know is that the majority of priests are true to their vows and, without minimizing the horror, it was a small minority who abused children. Let’s stop treating celibacy as the exclusive cause of this problem. The causes of this kind of sickness are much more complex than that.
6. The so-called problems of a married clergy could be solved with a little common sense, maturity, and compassion. Not only could the Eastern Rite & Protestant churches provide insight on how to solve most of these problems (even learning from their mistakes), so too could the military -- for example, having to relocate for the needs of the service. Wives of married priests would have to accept what they sign up for without whining about it afterward. Salaries -- yes, they would have to be increased but there also could be other compensations. Catholic colleges offering scholarships or at least reduced tuition for the children of clergy is just one example. Most families at least at some point need two incomes, and learning to do so while raising a family would further broaden the priest's ability to counsel and preach. Moreover, a married clergy for many reasons might draw in returning or new Catholics -- and more income.

In the end the reason for loosening the discipline of celibacy shouldn’t be about increasing the number of priests but because today it would help bring people closer to Christ and living his Word in the spirit of compassion and love which is really what His message was all about. It also is about compassion for priests, who will always be asked to give so much. Can’t we open our hearts to them as well? And if they choose celibacy, respect that, too, as their personal sacrifice to God.

obrie64,

The Church can easily change its discipline on ordaining married men. No problem.

Artificial means of contraception is intrinsically immoral and every human culture has recognized that until during their terminal periods. In the modern world (AD 1517 to present, let's say) EVERY Christian group has also recognized this immorality until the 1930 Lambeth Conference at which Anglican bishops decided that poor married couples might in good conscience use artificial contraception.

The Church isn't refusing to budge on a "rule" about contraception, but insisting on recognizing a fact built into the structure of the universe as surely as the orbits of planets and the law of gravity.

(Now, of course, the Church and all humanity until the last few decades might be mistaken about this fact, but they do see it as a fact, and accordingly cannot change it any more than they can change the path of a star.)

The Church could stop teaching against contraception, but that would, in Her eyes, be like to stop preaching against murder, rape, robbery, or lying.

In other words, don't hold your breath.

I understand that many older Catholics are all twisted up about women priests because they were raised to believe that women basically defective men who are, weak and unholy, a mindset that unfortunately is still deeply rooted in Church Hierarchy. I don't get why there is so much worry about married men being priests.

Reading over all the comments I don't understand why so many people feel so deeply threatened by the thought or married priests.

I don't understand the basis of this fear. Do they think that some how married priests are going to pass out tainted grace and keep their parishioners from heaven? Do they think the sacraments coming from married hands would be somehow less holy? They obviously feel that married priests will somehow interfere with their salvation, but I don't understand why.

On a more nuts and bolts everyday level married priests would give love and energy to their families and maybe have less energy for the parish, but is that worse than a single priest in his mid 70's ministering to a parish? Since I can't remember going to a Mass with a priest under 60 in the past five years that seems to be the norm in the American church these days. How much spare energy does a priest like that have for anything?

I think the fully dedicated, celibate priesthood provides a level of moral authority not generally available in other religions. The celibate priest is able to focus solely on his duties to God and community and by virtue of his obvious sacrifices and the 6-8 years of training in the seminary, his dedication and devotion to the tasks are very clear. A married clergy would not have those virtues. For one thing, a married man always has to worry about the financial well being of his family. This is clearly a distraction and in some cases, creates conflicts of interest. I think our focus as Catholics should be on highlighting the joy of the priesthood to those that are currently eligible (unmarried men) instead of trying to increase the pool of applicants to women and married men. The pool is big enough already - it just needs to be tapped appropriately. Lets discuss what that means...

"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a deacon in the church in Cenchrea. Welcome her in the Lord as one who is worthy of honor among God’s people. Help her in whatever she needs, for she has been helpful to many, and especially to me." Romans 16:1-2
I accepted the call to ordained ministry in an alternative Catholic Church as an African-American mother, grandmother, senior associate pastor and with a full time job. In my book I talk about my call to ordained ministry and how God directs our steps and not a man or a woman. Many of the comments that I read were regulations that came from men. Where is God in all of it? The Scripture where Paul speaks to being celebate also mentions "if you can". Marriage and womanhood was created by God...please tell me how it can be inferior?? In Genesis did it not say we were ALL made in God's image and likeness both male and female? I enjoy being a Priest not as a woman, but as a child of the Most High God!

Ryan Haber:

Yes, Ryan, my priesthood is different than what you are talking about. It is of divine origin, and follows the teachings of the bible –to the letter--.

The priesthood you are talking about is a priesthood of man, not God. That doesn’t make it bad, just without divine authority.

The divinely originated priesthood that Jesus restarted ~2000 years ago (not the first time or the last) was lost to the earth when the last of the original 12 apostles were killed and the earth fell into apostasy.
In fact it was the Catholics that admitted the priesthood had been lost and coined the phrase “The Dark Ages”. They never got it back.

The restoration of God’s priesthood began again, and for the last time, in 1820 again by Jesus’ direction.

If you were to read your bible, you will find no such restrictions for the priesthood as you are discussing.

Mark.

There are plenty of single people willing to serve the Church as priests - but since they are women, they are scorned. The Church would even rather take married Lutherans and Anglicans who also oppose women priests than ordain devoted women who have already chosen to serve and live celibate lives. Imagine the mental and spiritual gymnastics required of the wives and daughters of these men, who change communions rather than share their place at the altar with, bah, women.

Married priests would provide Catholic priests with the same protection from their abuse of parishioners that non-catholic clergy have, however: now they, too, could hide behind faithful wives instead of mere bishops.

I was always taught that the origin of clerical celibacy was to counter the common practice during the dark ages and Medieval period for priests and especially bishops to bequeath church property and clerical offices to their children (both legitimate and illegitimate). Over the centuries, this morphed into the current commonly accepted belief that "priests are married to the church" and other similar mumbo-jumbo, once the true origin of the practice had been forgotten.

Doesn't much matter to me. My parish used to have 5 full time priests, now it has 2. There used to be around 800 parishioners at each Sunday mass, now there's around 300. Parochial schools are closing by the dozens and the hundreds, even as parents look for quality alternatives to the public schools. There's a lot more wrong with the Church than whether priests can have sex or not.

Rich:

With respect to your opinion and recitation: if we accept your argument that the debate as to married/women priests is merely foreclosed, are we not also aligning ourselves with the Church when it declared Galileo a heretic, which declaration it was forced to abjure 350+ years later and admit that it was wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary as to his ideas? To close one's mind to any issue is to die intellectually; why else are we given brains, and the means to use them? God did not make us robots, nor are we automatons. The surest way to kill the Church -- or at least to completely marginalize it -- is to fossilize it, make it intellectually moribund, to condemn it to a short brief, dead-ended life of "sublime recapitulation," since nothing new ever can be thought or known. Whether JPII (God bless him!) likes it or not, this issue will not die, and will not disappear. It cannot, since the very survival of the Church as a viable institution may ultimately depend upon it in the not-too-distant future. The choice is either change, or become something that no one alive today could ever recognize as "The Holy Mother Church." Closing intellectual doors by attempting to slam them shut is no answer; it certainly isn't a solution.

Rich:

with respect to your opinion and recitation: if we accept your argument that the debate as to married/women priests is merely foreclosed, are we not also aligning ourselves with the Church when it declared Galileo a heretic, which declaration it was forced to abjure 300+ years later and admit that it was wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary as to his ideas? To close one's mind to any issue is to die intellectually; why else are we given brains, and the means to use them? God did not make us robots, nor are we automatons. The surest way to kill the Church -- or at least to completely marginalize it -- is to fossilize it, make it intellectually moribund, to condemn it to a short brief, dead-ended life of "sublime recapitulation," since nothing new ever can be thought or known? Whether JPII (God bless him!)likes it or not, this issue will not die, and will not disappear. It cannot, since the very survival of the Church as a viable institution may ultimately depend upon it in the not-too-distant future. The choice is either change, or become something that no one alive today could ever recognize as "The Holy Mother Church." Slamming intellectual doors closed is no answer.

Priestly celibacy is a great gift to the Catholic Church. The priest takes the role of husband to the Church, acting like Christ (recall that the Church is the Bride of Christ) and as a father to his parishioners. Being a priest is a vocation, just as being a husband or wife is a vocation. It is not a job .The most perfect way is to have one vocation.

While the eastern churches have allowed marriage, and celibacy in the Roman rite is a matter of rule and not a doctrine, look at the fruits of Roman celebacy: look at how much the Roman church has spread, in comparison to the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches. Do you not think that this might be the result of our priests being able to devote themselves completely to their vocation?

Regarding female priests, this simply is not a possibility. It is more than a rule. JPII spoke from the chair on this matter:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”

I agree with Nick. And although I feel inclined to say "I appreciate the sacrifice that priest make by not marrying", that would miss the point. And although many married people serve the Church in many effective ways, the call to the priesthood is a call to a unique and undivided service to the Lord through service to the people. It's not a better or worse way to serve God than the married life, but it is distinct and unique. As a married Catholic, my faith is enriched by the vocation of my parish priests and the clergy around the world. And although neither they, nor anyone, is perfect, I thanks God for them and decry how freely they are ridiculed by our foolish society. But as Jesus showed, the righteous are often those most accosted by society.

I agree with Nick. And although I feel inclined to say "I appreciate the sacrifice that priest make by not marrying", that would miss the point. And although many married people serve the Church in many effective ways, the call to the priesthood is a call to a unique and undivided service to the Lord through service to the people. It's not a better or worse way to serve God than the married life, but it is distinct and unique. As a married Catholic, my faith is enriched by the vocation of my parish priests and the clergy around the world. And although neither they, nor anyone, is perfect, I thanks God for them and decry how freely they are ridiculed by our foolish society. But as Jesus showed, the righteous are often those most accosted by society.

Hi Mr. Arroyo:

With due reverence to you, you're entitled to your opinion about married Catholic clergy.

a) Those married men who are clamoring to join the priesthood see the priesthood not as a vocation, but a JOB!!!

b) What makes you think that Catholic priests, already ordained, will not leave the priesthood in droves in protest, since a host of my priest friends have threatened to leave if priests are allowed to marry, beginning with me of course?

let's tell ourselves the truth!

To allow priests to marry would clear the air of much hypocrisy and make the calling less unpalatable to the vast 99% of humanity who cannot comply with celibacy and less of a refuge for those with a deranged obsession with female avoidance, that sublimates in weird ways. The only historical virtue of celibacy was to prevent priests from transferring positions or property to their offspring, but this still occured under the euphemism of nepotism. Priests without siblings still managed to have so many "nephews." As Paul wrote, better to marry than to burn.

The one problem, though, is that the Church lets weak priests relinquish their vows and revert to lay status. It has a much harder time letting ordinary folks fail when it comes to marital ties. Imagine the parish scandal if Father so-and-so and Sister whatzit tie the knot and then break up a few years later, no better than nearly half their (probably lapsed) parishoners.