According to the Austrian Catholic website Kath.net, Pope Francis is considering allowing the ordination of so-called viri probati. These “tested men” are said to have “proved their worth” by living virtuously in their marriages and in parish life, indicating a proposed relaxation of the requirement of celibacy in the priesthood for these men who would assist in the duties of celibate priests, including the offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Based on a report in the German newspaper Die Zeit, kath.net says that the promoter of the idea of married priests, Bishop Erwin Kräutler — an Austrian-born prelate who has spent much of his ecclesiastical career in Brazil — is said to have helped to write up a paper which is now lying on the desk of Pope Francis to be authoritatively signed. With this likely decision, the pope is said to wish to help alleviate the priest shortage in the Amazon region in Brazil.
This piece of news comes to us in light of Pope Francis’ recent decision to invoke a synod of bishops for the year 2019 about the Amazon region and its special challenges.
At the beginning of 2017, Pope Francis gave an interview to the newspaper responsible for breaking this story, Die Zeit, in which he opened up to the idea of ordaining certain viri probati. As we reported at the time:
When discussing the matter of married priests, Pope Francis answers: “But voluntary celibacy is not the answer.” Additionally, he does show, however, more openness toward the idea of giving more scope and clerical faculties to the “viri probati,” those married men who have lived abidingly a tested and proven virtuous life and who would be thus eligible for the permanent diaconate. Francis says:
“We have to reflect about whether the viri probati are a possibility. Then we also have to determine which tasks they could have, for example in far distant parishes. […] In the Church, it is always important to recognize the right moment, to recognize when the Holy Ghost demands something. That is why I say that we will continue to reflect about the viri probati.
Bishop Kräutler had earlier publicly spoken about the fact that Pope Francis had encouraged him privately about the furthering of the idea of married priests. As I reported in 2016:
He [Bishop Kräutler] claims that these words [“have courage!”] are “among the favorite words” of Pope Francis. Francis, says Kräutler, encourages especially the bishops to be courageous: “I will never forget how he [Pope Francis] told me during a private audience on 4 April 2014 that he expects from the bishops ‘courageous proposals’ ….” When asked what proposals he himself is thinking of with regard to the shortage of priests in some regions, the bishop answers that one needs to rethink the admission requirements for the priesthood. He continues: “But the Eucharistic celebration should not be dependent upon the fact whether or not a priest is present who is celibate. Pope Francis certainly does not want to decide this question all alone, but especially in this context he expects ‘courageous’ proposals.”
Last September, Radio Vatikan (the German branch of Vatican Radio) reported that Bishop Kräutler had raised the issue of married men again, in light of the lack of priests in his region in Brazil, claiming that “whether or not there is a celebration of the Eucharist should not be dependent upon the question whether there is available a priest who is celibate.” The bishops of the region of the Amazon had already been speaking about the matter last year, but sought support “from Europe,” according to this Radio Vatikan report.
Bishop Kräutler has again reportedly proposed to study further the work of Bishop emeritus Fritz Lobinger of Aliwal, South Africa who is not only in favor of married priests as such, but is also a promoter of female deacons, and has voiced support for the idea of female priests. Pope Francis himself once recommended the writing of that same author of South Africa to the German bishops during their Ad Limina visit to Rome in 2015.
Leonardo Boff, a liberation theologian from Brazil who has served recently as a consultant to Pope Francis, said last December that Cardinal Hummes, also from Brazil, had suggested that the pope consider the option of allowing married priests to perform pastoral care in his country, where only 18,000 priests serve a population of 140 million Catholics. Boff said that he was told the pope wanted to try an “experimental period in Brazil” to this end. Marco Tosatti and Sandro Magister, both long-time Vatican watchers, indicated in separate reports last year that they see movement in this direction. Simultaneously, the issue of relaxing celibacy has been pushed by the largest lay Catholic organization in Germany while Germany is facing an unprecedented vocations crisis. Their support comes at a time when the bishops of Germany are enjoying enormous influence in the Vatican.
Bishop Kräutler, whose study on the married priesthood is said to be under review by the pope, also said that Pope John Paul II’s proscription against women priests in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis “certainly has a lasting effect, but it is not a dogma.”
Steve Skojec contributed to this report.
If this does come to pass, it will be interesting to see the outcome.
No one should accept married men as priests.
Is this supposed to be surprising?
I hope this never happens.
But this really needs to be thought thru. Will parishes be willing to support a family and not just a priest? This could get expensive especially with declining mass attendance and less money in the collection plate. If this ends up happening Roman Rite should emulate the Byzantine Catholic model. 1. They must be married before they are ordained. 2. Their wife must give written permission. 3. If their wife dies they can not re marry. Those three are just off the top of my head, I’m sure there are more.
Presumably they would be part-time priests, fully employed elsewhere.
Hopefully, they aren’t at work when some poor soul needs “last rites”. Won’t wives be thrilled when their husbands are called to the bed of the dying at 3AM?
This is precisely why a man’s wife must give her full, unqualified, written consent in order for any bishop (in the Eastern rites) to ordain him. The Church does not take this lightly.
“The Church does not take this lightly.”
Does the Church demand adherence to the Canon Law requiring continence and chastity?
Not in the Eastern rites. Marriage is not given a “second” priority, but remains on an even level with the ministry. In the Eastern rites, the wives of men aspiring to the priesthood also receive formation at the seminaries so that they too can fully support their husband in the ministry. No wife is ever coerced into consent.
My point is that I have read canon law analysis that demands full chastity of married deacons and currently married priests in the Latin Rite. If true, I suspect it is wholly ignored.
And if we are so concerned about getting annulments right, just think how much of a witness to God and community we will be with same among married {ex-…} priests!
Your analysis is correct. But ignored is not quite accurate. The Holy See has chosen to remain silent on the issue.
In this situation, I actually have sympathy w/ PF. As an administrator, he has a disaster on his hands. Admittedly, it is a disaster that those who adhere to his views have helped to create, but nevertheless, the trouble exists and somehow the faithful need to be served.
But in all straighforwardness, I think I’d prefer to make a pilgrimage to receive once or twice per year if need be over daily/weekly reception if the latter was accompanied by ordination of priests that were going to divorce and otherwise inject chaos into the community.
I confess I just see this as one more capitulation in the face of modern life.
No, the Holy See has not remained silent on the issue. This is a dubium that has been answered and in this case with the response that continence for married clergy is not mandatory in the Latin Church. However the response to the dubium failed miserably to deal with any of the canonical issues raised as to why continence was no longer required. So rather than choosing to remain silent, it is more a case of another cack-handed post-Conciliar mess produced by faggots in Rome who are pig-ignorant of Sacred Tradition and pig-ignorant of Canon Law.
Would you care to elaborate, Reverend Deacon? This is really important.
As Ed Peters pointed out, in the draft of the 1983 Code, there was a specific exemption for married deacons to continence that was removed from the final promulgated code and the Supreme Legislator has not otherwise commented. Clearly, they have deliberately failed to enforce or even inform married deacons or their wives of the requirement of continence, only stressing chastity if the wife should pre-decease. Even then, particularly if they have little children they are able to request a dispensation for another marriage.
The entire deacon model is wildly inconsistent from diocese to diocese with most bishops not seeming to know what to do with them and many parishes don’t have them even where the bishop does ordain deacons and priests usually outnumber them.
The Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Rites does not mention continence for married clergy.
That consent might be full and unqualified when given, but depending on how often the demands of the flock intrude-it might later be accompanied by resentment.
No rites should allowed married men as priests.
It is true that many married priests in the Catholic Eastern rites maintain their full-time jobs outside of the Church. Additionally, the Catholic churches of the Eastern rites also do not celebrate Divine Liturgy (normally) outside of Sundays, Holy Days, and other Solemnities.
That is irrelevant. In the Latin Rite, priests generally celebrate Mass daily.
Let’s just call the situation as it is- a group of people telling God “I will give up anything to serve you, except sex” and wanting the Church to change rather than to have their conscience pricked continuously.
That is pretty shortsighted in my view. The fact of the matter is that many holy married, Catholic men would jump at the opportunity to serve as a priest. Your comment is tantamount to reducing marriage to the sex act. Look, the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church (as well as the Latin rite for the first several centuries after the Apostolic era) have had married men ordained as priests- quite successfully. From a purely cultural point of view, Latin rite Catholics in the West do not see a married clergy as a value. Instead, many Latin rite Catholics see married priests as an anomaly. In the East, Catholics receive married priests very well. Yes, challenges remain. But, keep in mind that the Eastern rites have married priests with children now in the West as of three years ago (permission given by the Holy See). We also have in the Latin rite the “Pastoral Provision” which allows certain Anglican/Episcopalian priests who convert to Catholicism to received ordination to the Catholic priesthood. I personally knew one who is now pastor of a major Catholic parish in Mobile, AL. And, yes, his wife lives with him at the rectory. I do not see a great number of married men applying wholesale for ordination. However, every little bit helps. The Church needs vocations. And, right now, the Church is suffering. No priest- no Mass. No priest- no sacraments. Now let that sink in for a moment or two.
Your defense for this is lackluster. Simply pointing out where its done and saying, “lol it’s a discipline, you see” does not prove a thing. The celibate life is objectively superior for the spiritual life and grace, an important component in the ministering of souls and bearing the cross of a spiritual father. Hence, it is objectively superior to have celibate priests.
The shortage of priests is not solved by allowing married priest under certain conditions. It requires prayer and penance, which has been communicated to us ad nauseum by Saints and apparitions for centuries. “But the SACRAMENTS.” Yes, the sacraments. Everything is dependent upon the outpouring of grace, not some novel scheme to ordain married men. It will not help much in the long run. Head the warning of St. Pius X in suppressing celibacy.
Tell this to all the validly married priest of the twenty-three Catholic Eastern rites of the Church. I am sure they will disagree with you. They, too, are just as Catholic as those of us in the West.
You did not engage in a thing I said. It doesn’t matter if there are one hundred trillion validity ordained priests who are married and are perfect orthodox Catohlics. I will make it simple: The celebrate state is objectively superior for the spiritual life. Ego, the celibate state is objectively superior for the priesthood.
I never said it was not.
And…??
Have you paused to consider that the Bergolian regime will have as potential candidates not only married priests, but divorced and “remarried” priests in “irregular” situations? What about priests in open homosexual relations deemed by the modern state to be “marriages?” Considering that under the newly-instituted discipline of the Church such people are perfectly free to present themselves for Communion, there’s little reason to suppose that in its current degraded state the Church would not leap at the chance to admit such people to the priesthood.
Now let that sink in for a moment or two.
I was on Catholic Answers Forums for a number of years. Every time the subject of married priests came up, one of their resident Eastern Catholics would inevitably chime in with the “they’ve always had married priests, cause they’re sooo much better” line. I don’t think that was your intention, but that’s how it comes across. It was old ten years ago, and it’s old now.
I live in the West, in a country that was settled mostly by people from the West. I have enough things to worry about here to consider what they do in the East relevant to my life.
Mon Dieu, married life is quite more than having sex! Fortunately Jesus didn’t have such weird thoughts when healing Peter’s mother-in-law.. Wasn’t it the Lord himself who chose a married fisherman to build his Church upon? By mistake perhaps?
Um… We don’t know very much at all about St Peter’s married life.
We do however know that His Savior was celibate and so was St Paul, the latter who has given us substantial teaching on the issue and PREFERENCE for chaste celibacy.
Which, of course, was taken so seriously by the Church basically for all time. This is not an issue being taken up for the first time just recently.
Peter’s wife was probably dead. That’s why his MIL is “woman of the house”.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have winner! Well said Michael.
If a man thinks he has a calling to the priesthood, what’s stopping him from testing that calling in the seminary before he decides to get married? The seminary isn’t a permanent commitment. If it isn’t meant to be and he is honest with himself, he’ll figure it out. He’ll then be able to leave the seminary to pursue a relationship with a woman. Lots of men who go to the seminary for a year or more discern out and end up getting married.
The only men I know calling for married priests are those who weren’t willing to give the seminary a try, because they weren’t willing to be celibate.
My Ukrainian Catholic parish has Mass celebrated six days a week, twice on Sundays. It has been that way since I began attending in 1974.
I am happy that you have it six days a week. However, where I live, we only have a mission Eastern rite parish with no resident pastor. We only have an Eastern rite Byzantine priest for Divine Liturgy once a month. So, the other three weeks out of the month the parish members attend either the local TLM or the Novus Ordo.
IIRC they also practice a Levitical continence, not being allowed to enjoy their conjugal rights the night before they celebrate the Divine Liturgy, either. If the Latin tradition of perpetual continence of the major orders is to be abandoned, this should be required to all married major orders clerics, to include married deacons.
No man should jump at the chance to be priests. Since they are married they have to accept tg as t they cannot be priests. If they desire to be priestsaved while they are married than they are not Catholic.
Throw in married women deaconesses and it really gets confusing!
I happen to know a priest, perhaps the holiest and most devout I’ve ever known, who is a former Anglican and thus is married. He’s a priest for the Ordinariate. He’s a great priest, but the expense is real. He’s a bit older so his children are all grown and moved out, but he has to support his wife (who barely sees him.) He celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass at the FSSP parish on behalf of the archdiocese, but wants to help those priests move the parish exclusively to the TLM. Anyways, he requires a greater stipend to celebrate Mass there than a celibate priest because of his household and family responsibilities. I don’t think people understand the cost a married priesthood requires. Not only financially, but the cost to his family (they will hardly see him) as well as to his parishioners, especially if he has young children (they will hardly see him.) As I said, this priest I know is one of the greatest priests, even men, I have ever known… but the cost is great. People don’t know what they’re asking for.
“People don’t know what they’re asking for.”
As the son of a Methodist minister {yeah, I know it’s different, but in many ways it isn’t} I am CERTAIN they don’t.
IMHO the Church leadership has chased after quick-fix after quick-fix since Vatican 2.
Come to think about it, you might say the whole revolution is about “quick-fixes”.
With respect, I don’t think financial concern’s ( there’re not irrelevant) are a high argument.
I am in favor of a top down campaign of the efficacy of Celibate Priesthood for the Mystical
Body as a whole.
No doubt I will be waiting a long time for that.
I do wonder how the remote Brazilian villages are going to support a married man with a full compliment of children. It was hard enough for my Methodist Dad to raise us 5.
Oh, shucks, we don’t have to worry about that.
Catholics have the pill and the condom now!
Catholics with pills and condoms don’t need priests – they need flame-retardant shrouds.
Indeed…
And if you don’t use them, you are a “rabbit.” /sarc/
They have two vocations, not one, and would be unable to offer themselves completely to either. I think the married priesthood is a HUGE mistake first and foremost spiritually, both for the priest and his flock. Most men in the situation you describe fully endorse celibate priesthood. I would be curious as to his take on this situation.
He fully endorses the celibate priesthood.
I don’t think this financial motive should be part of the argument. Besides, why should a married priest should cost more money than a celibate, since his wife can take a job? In today’s world men aren’t paid extras because they’re married.
But I oppose the whole idea of changing the law of the Church on this subject. It is what it is, and changes will only result in more changes that deepen the moral crisis of the Church.
It’s not good Christian witness to recommend that the Church embrace the ethics of the marketplace in dealing with her priests. Please consider how many times contraception and abortion are used because it’s deemed necessary that the wife work outside the home. “Today’s world” being pretty much the opposite of a moral norm, it should not be enshrined as such.
The best argument for a celibate priesthood is that it’s a participation in the Priesthood of our Lord, whose spouse is his Church.
Those who embrace the idea of married priests are the same who already embrace the ethics of the marketplace and radical equality for men and women, including opening the priesthood for women. So, from the liberal perspective of those who want to force this upon the Church, what’s the problem?
But perhaps the Francischurch can solve the financial problems by stipulating that priests can only enter marriage if it is a gay marriage, preferably with another priest. Most of them seem to be fags anyway.
Women should not be working.
Exactly. If a priest has to be on-call for the sacraments, then raising a family is much difficult. Just ask any military family. This is a reason why the Church imposed the requirement of celibacy.
I suspect they’d copy the deacon model and they’ll be mostly unpaid, except for maybe Mass stipends, unless they otherwise take a job at the parish currently staffed mostly by lay-women.
No one should accept these married men as priests. Even in the other rites.
A couple of things come to mind:
1. When are the Germans going to lose their influence? Have they not done enough damage to mankind and the Church throughout history?
2. What good would the married priesthood do in Germany? 1% of their population are practicing Catholics so 827,000. Of those, 75% are probably women. So the population of 827,000 is further reduced to 206,700. How many of them have any desire at all to be priests, 1/10 of 1%. So Germany add 206 priests…maybe….possibly. Wow! Problem solved.
3. When is the pope going to dissolve the Magesterium? He’s turned the papacy into a dictatorship with several non-appointed advisors. Why do we need men who spend all day considering these kind of issues when we have all of these overworked German (there seems to be a ration of 2 bishops to every 1 lay Catholic in Germany) and Brazilian bishops who are stretched to the limit yet seem to have hours and hour during the day to write papers and deconstruct the faith. Granted, none of the papers are theologically sound or researched–they are all pure opinion loaded with sophistry–but still, they must spend a considerable amount of time thinking of just the right opaque and ambiguous.
This isn’t going to help the German Church one iota.
I reckon the German bishops are in their last 15 years of influence, at best. By 2035, there will be so few practising Lutherans or Catholics that the Church Tax will be politically indefensible and the bishops’ influence at the Vatican will evaporate.
I totally agree with you. So my sarcastic response is in jest to your post & is not aimed at you but the heretical Germans who keep pushing and peddling these heresies and garbage. Let the German Church pay the stipend for all these married priests they want world wide. They seem to have no problem funding heretical contraception and abortion through various Catholic Charities as evident in what we saw last year with the Knights of Malta. If they can afford then surely they can pay for and support a married priest stipend. Bet yet let them all officially leave and take their heresies with them. Marx has already said the German Church is not a “subsidiary” of Rome. He should make that official and take himself and the rest of his ilk with with him and go and form some sought of new German church.
There is no absolutely immutable doctrine of clerical celibacy-but somehow having Pope Francis change it discomforts me.
We need to demand that celibate priests becomes doctrine.
I hope to be ensconced within an SSPX community watching the destruction of the post-Vatican NuChurch from afar. Hopefully y’all come join me. I think the deposit of Faith is safe there.
Except for the whole “It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” thing.
No, mentioning him in the Roman Canon does not suffice for submission to the Pontiff.
What does that even mean any more, when the Pope himself calls his priests to “make a mess” and oh, fudge, you know, all the rest of it?
Seriously, at this point we are “subject” to just exactly WHAT teaching?
What IS the teaching of the Pope when he himself won’t even clarify it except to allow what no Pope has ever allowed before?
How are we supposed to be subject to a pope when we don’t even know what he means, or when what he’s proposing, implying, etc., goes against everything firmly established in the deposit of Faith by his predecessors and the dogmatic councils?
How far do you want to take this? If Francis authorizes women priests, are we bound to accept them, even though it blatantly contradicts Tradition and the specific statements of the last two popes?
He’s already clandestinely said (and the Vatican acknowledged) “there is no other interpretation” with regard to allowing DRMs to receive Communion. So must we nod our heads and accept that as Truth, end of discussion? This is the trap Catholic Answers, EWTN, the “conservative” Catholic media, and Opus Dei have fallen into: that the Faith is whatever the current man in white says it is at a given moment.
Then lay men will have to have the courage to remove and the liberal bishops.
I agree. Everyone complaining that Pope Francis is too vague to be subject to is just trying to deflect the guilt of the obvious fact that neither they nor SSPX as a whole are subject to the pope, because Bishop Fellay sure doesn’t put himself under Pope Francis and neither do any of his rogue priests. SSPX is Satan’s ape parody of authentic traditional Catholicism and the group is a hollow, lifeless body without the head of the Church.
Everyone should do that. I’ve been with the SSPX ever since I began my conversion well over a year ago. The difference between the SSPX and the conciliar church is like day and night. With the SSPX you get the real sacraments and real Catholic doctrine. With the conciliar church you get the novus ordo religion and whatever it may be it’s not the Catholic faith.
The sacraments must be connected to the Pope.
Now if Francis was considering ordaining married women to the priesthood, that would be a story. It’s an indication of how bad things have become that this current report is hardly even news any longer. The abolition of celibacy in the Latin Rite has been on the cards since day 1 and I’ve been expecting this for quite some time now. Pope St JPII called celibacy “the brightest jewel of our priesthood”, so it’s no surprise that Francis wants to trash it. So long as the time clock is still running on this fiasco of a pontificate, he’ll keep pushing the envelope until the final buzzer sounds.
Celibacy is neither dogma or doctrine but rather a discipline. For almost the first millennium celibacy was optional so it is part of the tradition of the church. However, having said this, great care is going to be essential if it is to have any success.
It should not be. Not in the Latin Rite in the vast majority of cases. I have never heard any of the former Anglican now Catholic priests who are married ever say that priests should be allowed to be married; in fact it is almost always the opposite, that celibacy should be maintained… it is no dogma, but we should not lay aside practices that have held for 1,000 years or more lightly. They exist for a reason.
+1
The one and only reason being, that a priest is an alter Christus, whose entire being must be conformed to Him, WHO IS.
Those married Anglican priests should never have been allowed to be Catholic Priests.
Not quite. The discipline was always continence since coming out of the catacombs. Recall the ancient tradition was that while St. Peter was married, both him and wife were so moved by the personal encounter with Our Lord that they were continent the rest of their lives. Initially they would allow married men to be ordained but they were required to be continent. St. Jerome reported even the Greeks were continent in the East when he went there and it was only by the Quinisext (aka Trullo) Counil at the end of the 7th century that the East made lawful the former laxity of discipline. Note St. Bede called the Quinisext a “reprobate synod” and that the Pope of the time said he would rather die than accept its canons.
St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed that in was only the law of the Church in the West that was an impediment, not divine law and that in the East Orders was an impediment to marriage, but Orders did not impede the use of marriage lawfully contracted before.
Saint Peter left his wife to followed our Lord. Or she was already deceased when Jesus called St Peter.
It now needs to be dogma.
For those who know my postings on various Catholic website blogs over the past few years under the screen name of Al The Silent Crusader, many already know my position on this topic- allowing married men to receive Holy Orders to the Priesthood. I am all in favor provided the man is worthy, and his wife fully consents. Remember, celibacy is a discipline, not a matter of doctrine or dogma. With that said, I completely disagree with the “ordination” of women. Past popes, Councils, and the Ordinary Magisterium have spoken definitively- case closed, debate and discussion finished. However, for the current occupant of the Chair of Peter, it seems not to matter. This is the behavior that comes from a true despot. It is now quite obvious that the cardinals- any faithful ones, that is- must act. The situation in the Church is untenable. Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Sarah, and any cardinals with you, now is the time to come out with your fraternal correction. Not tomorrow, today. Please, I beg you all, remain faithful to your consecration and the red hats- stand up to Peter and tell him he is wrong! For the good of his soul, and the good of the souls of all Catholics, you must act. The salvation of your souls is also at stake. What will you say on the day of your judgment when you stand before Christ if you do nothing? Mary, Mother of God, Destroyer of Heresies, protect and pray for us!
No married man should be a priests. It well past time that the Eastern Rites truly convert to the Latin rite. So we can have true unity. One Latin Rite Church.
Then will come the “pastoral” aspect of the divorced and remarried priests, for the 2025 Synod.
“those married men who have lived abidingly a tested and proven virtuous life and who would be thus eligible for the permanent diaconate”.
I ask in all sincerity: How in the world do the words “tested and proven virtuous life” have any meaning in the Church of Cheap Annulments-On-Demand and Communion-for-All-Takers, Adulterers Included?
Well, I see your point- to a point. We must remember that faithful bishops remain, and they- hopefully- will exercise great discretion in their discernment of truly good married candidates. That is, if this all comes to pass.
I have ZERO confidence in that. ZERO.
This is a mess awaiting. But then, PF has called for a mess, and given us many.
I am not in principle against married priests, but am for pragmatic reasons. {My father, grandfather, greatgrandfather and grandmother were married ministers in the Methodist “Church” so I know a bit first hand about the type of challenges that such work involves}.
We here in our diocese are still paying the price of the generous ordaination of DEACONS by {RIP} Bishop Driscoll whose work I am told in that regard is NOT to be continued.
For sure I understand the tragedy that exists in so-called Catholic countries where the collapse of Catholcism has resulted in the desperate shortage of priests.
But this only begs for trouble.
What happens when {not if} these “tested and proven” men divorce and go on to find their true {next} Soulmate? Well they will get annulments and get married, that’s what they will do. See, the Methodists have no trouble with that. And that is why PF is remaking the Catholic Church in the image of the Methodist and Anglicans and Lutherans.
And they will divorce and remarry, in exactly the percentage of their respective socieites which is to say at increasing levels. Indeed, I have thought for the longest time that PF’s emphasis on allowing the divorced and remarried to receive communion is all about the married priesthood. His timetable screams it.
And what happens when all these “tested and proven” men are found sporting families consisting of 2.6 kids? Think they are going to be teaching the moral doctrines that aren’t even being taught NOW?
Indeed, the solution is hard, long and tough; orthodoxy and time.
This “solution” promises to be another prime source for articles on this and many other Catholic sites…
Rod, I understand your pragmatic view. However, I do not see many married Catholic men applying if this all comes to pass. Even in the Eastern rites, the number of married priests is relatively few in number. I think many Latin Catholics go into a frenzy of sorts whenever this topic is discussed. We must all leave our emotions behind and use our reasoning.
You are probably right about that.
Mine is not an emotional concern. It’s wholly pragmatic and based on my supposition that this will only make the problems in the Church worse, not better. In fact, I only came to my opinion after discussions with Catholic priests, simple relfection on my own experience and after watching PF’s unfolding of the New Catholic Church over the last 4 + years. Before that I was in favor of the “hitched” priesthood.
I understand.
Excellent point’s, thank’s for that.
“Their support comes at a time when the bishops of Germany are enjoying enormous influence in the Vatican.”
Not that I’m a rancid old cynic, but surely it is the German bishops’ money which enjoys enormous influence? Not for much longer, I suspect. As church attendance in Germany collapses to ever lower levels, the Church Tax will become politically indefensible and the German bishops’ influence will similarly fade away.
Church of the poor run by the rich.
Married priests will hardly be a novelty in England, as we have had some ex-Anglican married priests serving in a few parishes for over 20 years. It was a truly bizarre concession, as most Catholics had been taught that Anglican orders were totally null and void, as per Leo XIII. So your newly converted ex-vicar had no more rights than an ex-Anglican bank manager or bus driver who had converted.
They had/have to be ordained. The Anglican ordination has all the validity as a rite of priestmaking possessed by the driver’s license held by your lorry driver.
They were validly ordained Roman Catholic priests after conversion and requesting to receive Roman Catholic ordination.
For the record, despite my total opposition to the idea of a married clergy, I’d take one Father John Hunwicke for an infinite number of Jorge Bergoglio’s.
Exactly these men should not be considered valid priests.
“The clergy are asked to return to their ancient lowliness and poverty,
and in their ideas and action to be guided by the principles of
Modernism; and there are some who, echoing the teaching of their
Protestant masters, would like the suppression of ecclesiastical
celibacy.”
– Pascendi
– Pope St. Pius X (last truly Saintly canonized Pope)
http://bit.ly/1ute7Mi
This short piece by Cardinal Brandmüller, originally published by Sandro Magister and later reprinted by Catholic Family News, should be mandatory reading for anybody wishing to comment on this thread.
When I was a Protestant, I never thought this was a big issue to Catholics but apparently it is. Meaning, as it seems with everything else Catholic, many Catholics are doing their level best to ditch it.
For those who think the married priesthood should be the norm, see what Jesus’ and St Paul’s wives had to say about it…..
I tried the link but no luck 🙁
Didn’t work for me the first time either but did with another go at it.
For some strange reason, the long-form link I pasted initially didn’t work. I’ve replaced it with a shortened one, and this seems to work fine. Sorry about that.
Just read it, thank you!!!
Our Adversary who prowl’s around has us boxed in regarding this issue, waving a flag stating
“damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. It’s true re: Celibacy and Church history and the lack
of dogma unequivocal.
But it’s also true that…..
the “vocations crisis” is a symptom of His power, the world’s sin’s, Grace withdrawn.
But any such “remedies” no matter how disciplined will not “solve” fundamental problem’s.
We have a “teaching crisis”, a “pontifical crisis”, a “crisis of rebellion”, a “true leadership crisis”,
a “crisis of unapproved revelation’s”, in short we have (in the Church) a crisis of dis-unity that
NEED’S to take stage front and center before consideration of the issue of Celibacy.
They are very clever, so many horses have already bolted and they want us to man the barn door
on this issue, it’s distraction (with substance) but let’s retain perspective.
In all this turmoil, we must never forget what here the real goal could be, – namely, not a married priest, but probably those who will be in some kind of ‘communion’ with no-woman. Oh, .. and according to new one, most of time mentioned ‘commandment’ which replaces all other ten of God himself, – “Who am I to judge”, … do not forget all other well-no-multi gender possibilities in this ‘business’.
I share your vision ( nightmare ) the possibilities are endless….. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b099de0e8f3e43eea37843241a2fd59a1c398646426d7816c396813b12863a90.jpg
If Bergoglio was truly serious about fixing the priest shortage he would abrogate the Novus Ordo, and suppress the Jesuits. Just for starters.
Ain’t that the truth!!!
Next step: condemn Modernism and reaffirm the perennial teaching of the Church, in all its glory.
Require all clergy to sign the Oath Against Modernism.
And take action against those who sign, and then break it.
Write an unambiguous encyclical condemning the abuse of what Usury the
Church does allow…such abuse widespread today is causing inestimable damage
to Families, to society itself.
I suspect that there are those who would require such if they were elected….but could they be elected?
Suppressing the Jesuits would mean that PF suppresses himself, which would be his most valuable contribution…
His suppressed cognitive function precludes the recognition of the necessity of any further suppression, of the Jesuits or the primal appetites.
Until there is any real and effective solution to halt and suppress today’s Carnal Revolution, i.e. LGBT et al, I won’t agree with lifting the disciplines of celibacy.
The Reformation started in Germany by a German monk and since then the German bishops changed many thing’s regarding Vatican2 and they continue to be on the roll with their leader Bergoglio to destroy holy mother church. I do believe Bergoglio will soon demote or remove the holy outspoken Cardinal Sarah. Cardinal Sarah should have been elected Pope!
This is another contrived modernist crisis which is again built on a false premise. That false premise being that “there is a shortage of priests”. Sed contra – the real shortage is a shortage of Catholic laity.
Take the example of Brazil with a so-called Catholic population of 140,000,000. That “Catholic” population is disappearing at an incredible rate due to proselytism by pentecostal and charismatic sects. That will only escalate because the hierarchy there are totally ineffectual and can only offer “liberation theology” solutions which drive the faithful away at an even faster rate. The Catholics who actually get off their asses and into Mass each week are probably 25% of that figure at best i.e. 35,000,000. Of those who are actually in Mass each week around 85% will be using contraception and/or will not believe in the Real Presence and/or will not be even sure that God exists, so they should not even be receiving the Sacraments (apart from Confession) anyway. At best there will be about 5,000,000 faithful who are actually trying to live their faith. If they have 18,000 priests to serve 5,000,000 faithful, the ratio would be about 280 Catholics per priest i.e. no shortage.
God always sends enough priests to cater for His flock. If the clergy and faithful in that church actually started evangelizing among the nominal Catholics and started to get some growth in the number of believers, then God would send them more priests for the harvest. Married men in the priesthood and women in fake orders are faithless human solutions to a situation which can only be improved by more faith – not less of it.
I am glad you have weighed in with this.
I must admit, I am VERY skeptical about anything that comes from the Vatican and from the insurance business I have learned that any time somebody tells me “it’s an emergency and you need to do this now” before we can assess the situation…it’s a scam.
Again, thank you for your comment.
As we have learned over the last 50 years, becoming more Protestant never in the end solves anything, and in this case I actually suspect it’s the main reason for the priest shortage!
“becoming more Protestant never in the end solves anything, and in this case I actually suspect it’s the main reason for the priest shortage!”
Too d**n right it is. You only have to look at the orthodox NO bishops who run their dioceses like Catholic dioceses to see that they are getting plenty of vocations to the celibate priesthood as it stands now. The only problem with bishops like that is that there aren’t enough of them.
Men will give up a lot to follow a man who is following the Lord – but nobody in their right mind would give up anything to follow a modernist who is in love with his own reflection. It really isn’t rocket science, but we suffer with men in Rome who think 2+2=5!!!
“Men will give up a lot to follow a man who is following the Lord”.
Amen.
The crux of the problem is a failure to recognize the nature of the priesthood: it is a vocation!.
The solutions we hear about ignore this. A vocation is a call from God. The answer to a “shortage” of vocations is … Prayer! This is the answer Benedict always proposed when questioned about the “shortage”. You cannot manufacture vocations, and attempts to solve this problem by human means are simply misguided.
“That “Catholic” population is disappearing at an incredible rate due to proselytism by pentecostal and charismatic sects.”
As true as that is, don’t discount plain old gutter licentiousness.
Deacon Augustine, Yes you are right, it is contrived.
We have never been told the number of Priests that gave up due to the scandalous teaching that has occurred at some of the seminaries.
I can say that even here in France our priest said that the teaching when he was training wasn’t what he had expected and there was only a very small group within the seminary that stood up against the progressives, This may be the reason why there is and has been a serious shortage of priests here in France.
Recently, it seems that the future is getting brighter as the seminary in Bayonne is doing well and FSSP have been and continue to produce fruit.
I liked the idea of a ‘transitional priesthood.’ After seven years in the priesthood, the priest is allowed to decide whether or not he wishes to remain in the active ministry. If he decides to stay, then that is it; he is to remain celibate his entire life. If he decides to get married, he does not need to be ‘laicized’ (a misnomer anyway), he just ceases to be an active priest; sort of like an honorable discharge from the army.
This way, more men will pursue the priesthood (33 is not too young anymore to get married and start a family). The bishops will get ‘their money’s worth’ from sending them to seminary. These men, who are the best educated and possibly most qualified teachers, will be able to teach in Religious Education and Catholic schools if they so desire (something that former priests are NOT allowed to do nowadays). Plus, there will be a new generation of Catholic children who will be raised by men that actually take the faith seriously. Also, these guys can be called in to help out for hearing confessions (if the bishops allow them this power).
I can understand if someone wants to make the argument that this would ‘water down’ the Sacrament of Orders, but its not like they would cease being priests… Besides, why would you want an old curmudgeon who doesn’t want to be a priest as your pastor? Oh well, I am just being courageous in my proposal!
Speaking for the situation in the UK it costs around £250,000 to train a man for the priesthood. I can’t see that 7 years service as a priest would be a good return on that investment by any stretch of the imagination.
is this figure right?
Lo Qntia, the guestimated figures for the cost of training a priest are as flexible as a piece of elastic. I saw the figures quoted by the Diocese of Northampton in 2013. So you would have to adjust these for inflation:
Seminary: 6 years x £25K = £150K
Plus extra costs (travel, books, insurance, etc): 6 years x £2K = £12K
So £162K ($220K US) in total.
The seminary figures look reasonable, as that is the typical cost of a British boarding school – full tuition, food and accommodation.
BUT, you now have the extra cost of a propaedeutic year, before major seminary, at the seminary in Valladolid in Spain. Only a small minority of students for the priesthood go there, even though it is allegedly the English bishops’ policy to send nearly all students there.
Add another £27K for that year and you get £189K ($250K) for seven years.
BUT, the true cost per student may be much higher because British seminaries are so underused due to the catastrophic and unpublicised collapse in vocations. If the cost of running Valladolid is £500K per year (probably a low estimate) and you send less than 10 students per year (only 3 went there in 2016!!), then the true cost of Valladolid alone is way over £50K per student per year – or £166K per year for each of those 3 students!!!
Oscott seminary in Birmingham, with 44 staff listed on its website, allegedly costs £3 million a year to run, which looks reasonable for what is effectively a full university faculty. BUT it has just over 60 students spread over the 6 years. The 2017 intake is only 8 students, so numbers may plunge even lower before it finally follows the huge Ushaw seminary into the history books. So each student is really costing over £45K per year or the best part of £300K for 6 years.
Oscott survives for the time being because it has hefty endowments. And because no bishop wants to take another ugly decision.
Thanks both for the info. I had no idea it was so expensive in UK. The cost of full boarding and tuition in Rome is much cheaper I guess.
Perhaps they should keep only a propaedeuticum in each country (of the expensive ones) and send all students to Rome?
7 years of university level education during which all the tuition fees, accomodation costs, living costs and travel costs of the seminarian are covered in full by his diocese. At around £35,000 per annum that is not at all unreasonable.
If you have ever put any children through university I am sure that you will appreciate the expense. In the US I understand that students are expected to work their way through university to some extent to help cover the fees. However, in the case of “student priests” where they are expected to live in seminary and take a full part in community life there, I think you will find that they are not encouraged to take part-time jobs.
I also know the figure to be in the right ball-park because a deacon friend of mine runs the diocesan finances! Training priests is not a cheap business – and that is before you get into considerations of redeeming any unsecured debts they have accumulated prior to entering seminary life. Although this aspect of the law is more flexible in the way it is applied these days, it is still a canonical requirement that a man should not have debts at the time he is ordained to the priesthood.
This is just a step in his plan for women priest. Then, Father Joe and Father Jim can be married to each other and serve the same parish. Do not doubt the evil designs of this man. Unfortunately, most of the heirachy will not oppose him. Only his conversion to the Catholic Faith or death will stop him. Hope for a Catholic successor is dim.
Parrish, “Father Joe and Father Jim” is hardly satire!! Read the story of an English priest, ex-Father Barton, who was living with his boyfriend at a parish in Gloucestershire, in the west of England. It was plainly a pretty public affair, even if they didn’t flaunt it too brazenly. Barton’s bishop was most supportive when his boyfriend was dying.
Obviously Barton was barely even a believer for years before he finally abandoned the priesthood. But his bishop is plainly one of the “Who Am I To Judge” crew. As long as a priest preaches on Social Justice and doesn’t attract too much lurid publicity, hey, we’ve got a winner! And anyway, we are totally desperate for priests of any kind in England.
https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5119/leaving-the-priesthood-a-personal-story
Warms your heart, doesn’t it?
If I didn’t believe in God I’d take a gas pipe.
Who will be selected and who will do the selecting, you can bet the ‘ideal’ candidates will not be orthodox in their Catholic faith. This is all about destroying t he Church not building it up. What those who are busy plotting & planning do nor take into account is that God has His plan and is quietly at work in the world, and based on the growing number of young men entering traditional orthodox seminaries,it doesn’t include married priests. I marvel at the #of young men who serve at St Ann’s in Charlotte,NC, plus their 18 seminarians, after Mass (TLM or NO) is over, how ever many are serving that day, kneel at the altar to pray together. One Sunday they marched in after the Latin Mass from the sacristy -at least 10-12 of them, walking in single file, deliberately & in unison; the sound of the leather soles of their shoes on the ceramic/marble floor gave me the impression this is the army God is building ,this is the future of the Church, the work of the Holy Spirit which cannot be stopped by anyone, not even a Pope.
I must admit how fascinating it is that so many people go entirely nuts over the discussion of a disciplinary matter for which the Roman Pontiff can change if he so desires. I understand the angst among many who pull their hair out over doctrinal and dogmatic issues regarding Francis. We must all keep in mind that celibacy is not a matter of dogma or doctrine, although it has connections to both- especially among the primary virtues and charisms. I have read all of the documents on the Vatican’s website that pertain to this issue. It is abundantly clear that the Church Fathers have not definitely spoken on the matter due to this remaining an overarching disciplinary issue. I will leave it at that. I have made my comments on this issue and have nothing else to say except this issue is a cultural one to grapple with for the Latin rite. Perhaps we might hear from an Eastern rite Catholic married priest with children on this matter. That would help to put this into a much better perspective. God bless all of you on OnePeterFive.
No married person could give the required time and effort to his spiritual family as a priest today, without sacrificing his natural family as a husband and/or father. But in reality, both families would suffer.
The true answer is a return to the traditional Catholic faith, and God will faithfully take care of His Church. Just look at the FFSP, as men are naturally drawn to tradition. Only another example of modern men looking to ourselves for the ‘answers’ instead of almighty God.
Mirari Vos, Gregory XVI, 1832
It should be dogma and doctrine now so we can avoid the’s debates,
Why is anyone surprised? The only thing potentially getting in the way of married priests is the cost. And that would not be insignificant–especially if God gave the happy couple many children. It might even hurt the bishops Social Justice and Progressive political efforts which would be good. Given that possibility married priests will probably not happen.
The Rhine flows into the Tiber and back again.
The Rhine’s apparent source is a cesspool.
What is this? Reflecting on what, themselves, among themselves? Sounds to me more like a preconceived notion is decided upon and they’re using the name of the Holy Ghost as a stamp of approval.
If we’re getting ready for marriage in the priesthood, better get ready for divorce in the priesthood. Get ready for annulments and second unions and all the attendant scandal. Get ready for infidelity. Get ready for your priest to become unavailable because his family needs him. Get ready for him to become spiritually exhausted or just plain shallow because he has no time for prayer. Get ready for priests torn between pastoral and family duty to develop psychological problems. Get ready for a big jump in substance abuse and financial irregularities. Get ready for a collapse in priestly scholarship, writing, and community presence. Get ready for PKs and their very frequent rebelliousness and acting out. Get ready for parish rivalries and gossip and turf wars like you cannot begin to imagine. Get ready for a total abandonment of the sacrament of confession.
Pope Gregory XVI called those who sought to abolish priestly celibacy enemies and conspirators.
Check out Mirari Vos, #11.
Absolutely spot on multiple targets, Romulus.
Was it George Bernard Shaw who said that marriage was the ideal arrangement, because it combines the maximum of temptation with the maximum of opportunity? Now consider the married priest in a parish where he has a second combination of the maximum of temptation with the maximum of opportunity. There will always be occasions where he might find himself spending time alone with the lady from the Legion of Mary, or the lady from the finance committee, or his secretary or the lady from the Rosary group. All, indeed, for perfectly innocent reasons. Until the reasons are not innocent. Not to mention the ladies of a certain age who focus on the clergy like bees round a honeypot and will probably not be deterred by his married status.
‘Get ready for a big jump in substance abuse and financial irregularities”. The Church already has ample experience with these problems. The US Church probably has more financial abuse than parishes in other countries simply because there is far more money to steal. But the financial woes of supporting a family and paying for kids’ college fees, etc. provide extra incentives to dip into the collection. And who is going to decide what is the proper stipend and proper size of parish house for a priest with X children and a non-working wife?
If anyone thinks we might get fewer clergy who are attracted to altar boys…..well, we might, but we will get multiple different difficulties, such as you so ably list.
… and don’t forget be ready for Martin SJ bride figures…
One is left beside one’s self.
There is no vocation crisis.
There is a faith crisis.
Not a crisis “of faith” but a crisis of “absolutely no faith,” particularly pronounced among the clergy class, and even more so in the episcopate.
Surrendering to the unremitting assault on chastity by submitting to the absurdity of a married
priesthood is to prescribe heroin for the common cold.
Protestant seminaries are packed with heterosexual males hankering to minister to flourish
congregations?
Look again.
No males and eviscerated mainstream congregations.
Rather protestant seminaries are pack with lesbians who can‘t be assimilated – they have more of them than pastorates.
I can’t speak for the Eastern Orthodox, but here in the States I don’t see them flourishing, and
there has always appeared be a healthier stock of vocations to Eastern monasticism than the married clergy.
One hopes that should this initiative proceed that there will be the corresponding human resource enterprise in place to negotiate adult salaries, the web of insurance coverages required, housing for “thriving” families (although there is no need to reproduce like rabbits), paternity/maternity leaves, and of course we know that the incomparable network of katholic higher education will give scholarships to the horde of offspring of said marriages. Georgetown, Notre Dame, Fordham – open the gates.
By the way, will they be able to marry more than once? You know, mercy, mercy mercy…
Being a pastor’s wife ain’t all what it’s made out to be. (Bruce, too, need keep that in mind…)
I honestly don’t understand why the Bergoglians don’t just [1] retire (that is the critical one); [2] the remainder leave the entire ecclesiastical structure and get real jobs where they can exercise their libidos of whatever disorientation boldly (by the way, will the “gay” ones get to be married too? Not to beat a dead horse but it just wouldn’t be fair, you know?); [3] jump the Barque entirely and find a safe space within the protestant sects, ethical cultural societies, or your local Marxist pub.
” . . .certainly has a lasting effect, but it is not a dogma.”
The *take away”. Take it to the bank, really. Is there not a teaching, a doctrine, a dogma whose effect may be lasting but need not be lasting?
If this papacy rolls on for four more years, what defeat (set back) will they encounter. Things may have progressed more slowly than they had wished, but what has derailed them. Even the “conservative” (unity above all dogma ) folks, bit by bit and boiling frog by broiling frog, are being charmed, yielding to the anxiety of not wanting to be left out.
As for the topic of a married male priesthood here, no comment. It already exists. What’s at stake is uses a papal pronouncement will make on all that lining up behind for their own declarations and exhortations and encyclicals. A universal papal movement here (regardless of any moderate/conservative tone) will signal to the pushers and advocates of all those in the wings to step forward. Catholic doctrine is set across Fr. Martin’s bridge.
But, you say, the Holy Spirit will prevent things to go that far. Will he, when, apparently, Pope Francis came our way because we had asked for him; in ways, diverse, we had prepared the way for him. May be, we have yet to heed the lesson of the coming of Pope Francis.
Anyway, to repeat, whatever the honest interest in this subject, the purpose of this particular gaming-up is to move the Overton Window down the Doctrinal Development road so the horde of doctrine changers crowding behind this issue can climb through – regardless of often we proclaim that the door is shut.
As a betting man, would say, the Franciscans hold the cards, the Sarahians few (if none). At least until the lesson is learned.
Liberalism ruins everything it touches.
Keep it out of the church.
This already exists for Anglican priests who convert.