So is consensual sex between priests forbidden or does the Church look the other way?
Consensual sex between any persons who are not married (to each other and of the opposite sex) is forbidden. Even solo-sex is forbidden.
Eastern rite Catholic priests are permitted to marry, although bishops are required to be celibate, both in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.
From what I know, there just hasn’t been any pressing reason to stop requiring the discipline of celibacy in the Roman rite. It’s not dogma- it could be changed- but there isn’t a general belief that if they drop the requirement that new vocations will blossom and the seminaries will be filled.
I think it would be pretty difficult to be a priest’s wife- I read the blog of one Eastern rite priest’s wife, and it sounds like combining marriage and a priestly vocation, with all the time and effort it requires, is hard.
Good answer, though there are two points it needs tweaking.
Eastern Rite Catholic and Eastern (and Oriental) Orthodox candidates for the priesthood may marry and then be ordained; priests once ordained may not marry. In other words, you can marry and then become a priest, but it has to be in that order.
All Oriental Orthodox and nearly all Eastern Orthodox bishops are chosen from the monastic clergy, who are celibate by reason of being part of a religious order, not because it’s a requirement for the priesthood or episcopate. While it’s very rare for a married priest to be chosen as a bishop in Eastern Orthodoxy, there have been a few cases where one was. To the best of my knowledge a married Eastern Rite (or Anglican Ordinariate) priest cannot become a bishop.
My 10th grade Lit teacher (in a Jesuit HS) was laicized and married; he made it very clear that the two points were separate, an emphasis which surprised us until we thought a bit about it and realized that every other laicized priest we knew had left the priesthood for marriage. He was making the point that in his case he’d left the priesthood due to realizing that he wasn’t really comfortable within it, that it “wasn’t his calling” - not because of a woman. He was involved in the Tertiary order, which are Jesuits but neither priests nor monks; he had a calling to teaching, to service and to theology, but not to being a priest.
Those I know who left the Church (which ok, amounts to two) don’t partake of the Sacraments, but they also don’t set foot in a church even for social reasons; the laicized ones may be called upon to serve (read certain parts of the Mass, carry Communion, etc) more often than most other people, but that’s simply because the local priests know they’re willing to do it. My mother and I are always being pulled to read and we’re not laicized priests, we’re simply known as good readers who won’t stutter trying to pronounce Eclesiastés in front of a church full of people.
Think of it as an officer who deserts, instead; I understand most armies frown heavily upon officers going AWOL and later cropping up in bermudas and a hawaiian shirt saying “hey man, coming down for chow, is it ok if I sit here?” Those who resign properly (laicized) do keep their right to vote.
My uncle is a priest in the Eastern Rite. I have never heard my aunt complain that being a priest’s wife presents any unusual burden. He was ordained after many years of marriage and two grown children.
Now that’s interesting- because CONSERVATIVE Catholics admre(d) Ratzinger. So… are you saying it’s the LIBERALS in the Vatican who were telling homophobic jokes about Ratzinger? Hmmm..?
Gurrrl, it doesn’t have anything to do with liberals and conservatives and everything to do with a city-state filled with gossipy queens.
There was a case in the 80’s of a Ukrainian rite bishop in western Canada who ordained a bunch of married priests. This got him a severe reprimand from the Vatcan and IIRC they said these wer not validly ordained priests. (Don’t recall the final outcome). Apparently the Vatican had come to an understanding with the Soviets, that served both their interests. The Soviets allowed a limited number of men to study for and become priests in the Ukraine. In return, the Vatican agreed that the bishop there would be the only one ordaining priests in that rite, assuaging fears that men might try to leave for the west to become priests, or prosletyzers would beordained in the west and flood the Ukraine undermining the godles commies. In return, the Vatican limited the number of married priests who might demoralize the Roman rite priests if too many eastern priests showed up with wives. 
there are 18 rites in the RC but the Roman rite is the largest anr IIRC many of the others allow married priests.
We also had a high school teacher who was a former priest, married to a former nun. In his case, he was still active member of his church, he just got dispensation from his vows so he was not acting in his preistly capacity. It used to be in the 70’s and 80’s that a priest only had to go and ask for dispensation, and it was granted (sort of like annulments for marriages).
About the mid to late 80’s, IIRC, JPII got ticked at the “business as usual” attitude of the Vatican bureacracy and the revolving door that made a mockery of vows; he cracked down and both dispensation for priests and annulments for marriage became a lot harder to get.
I remember a priest telling me about the mid-70’s that so many priests were walking away from their vows after seminary that the orders changed the rules - get your degree first and then come see us, instead of paying the seminarian’s way through college.
I guess the question about changing denominations boils down to - what are the formal requirements for a clergyman? Does this person meet the educational requirements and does the ordainig heirarchy of that church consider him sincere?
[moderator note]
Remember what forum you’re in, Kimmy_Gibbler. This is not the place for religious potshots.
[/moderator note]
Remember that forbidding priests to marry is a relatively new policy in the Catholic church. Priests could get married for about twice as long as the current no-marriage rules.
I have a relative who is a Catholic priest and yes, they can leave the priesthood if they choose.But according to doctrine as i understand it, they are a priest forever, have the power to use it, and in a case where a person id dying they can still hear its confession and it would be valid. It is my understanding that if a Bishop leaves the church and ordains; a man etc. it is a valid ordination but against the church’s rules.
This accords with my reading on the subject – once having been ordained, they’re permanently able to act in a priestly capacity within the Catholic Church, even if they “leave the ministry.” But their “faculties” – the authority from the church hierarchy – is impeded, so they are not authorized to act, except in case of emergency, other than as a layman. (There probably needs to be a carefully worded insert here that there are limited instances where the diocesan bishop, and broader circumstances where the Vatican, may authorize a laicized priest to act in a priestly capacity.) But they not only can but should make themselves available when someone is dying or there is a widespread disaster and a normal, non-laicized priest is not available and will not be available in time.
Really? Never made a study of it, but my recollection of reading about the priesthood even in the dark ages and early middle ages was celibacy. It was an offshoot IIRC of the monastic, ascetic view of life - you should not be enjoying certain pleasures if you were devoting your life to the service of God. Somewhere around 500 to 800AD it became official in the ROman rite for priests as well as monks, IIRC.
The priesthood used to be a favourite dumping ground for excess males to reduce competition for the family inheritance, or to place the extra sons if the country passed the estate to only the first son.
This does not mean that a lot of priests in remote parishes were above having a live-in housekeeper, depending on how strictly the rules were enforced…
Nuns I know about from personal experience. One of the nuns we knew well basically walked away. Her order (OSB) basically had to throw her out, in the process separating her from the Church and the loss of her privilege to receive communion. In short she was basically excommunicated.
One of my wifes aunts, a nun in the same order, lost her vocation and wanted to leave. She went through the process of discernment and removal (took a little over a year) and is no longer under vows but still considered a good and faithful Catholic. She takes communion when she visits the Mother House and sometimes stays there when she is visiting in the area.
Assuming things are similar at least for ordered priests I call it as YMMV depending on your specific actions.
As it happens, the Episcopal Church (the American/Caribbean/South and Central American/Taiwanese offshoot of the Church of England) is in full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as well as several other Protestant denominations, meaning clergy can move pretty freely between them with the consent of their respective bishops. Our large Episcopal parish has a Lutheran associate - a great guy - who does everything the Episcopal clergy do. For more: Episcopal Church (United States) - Wikipedia
Just about every American Catholic I’ve ever discussed this with is convinced that the celibacy requirement is a huge disincentive for potential RCC priests. I suspect the seminaries would be considerably better-attended if this rule were dropped, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the church is just a pope or two away from doing just that.
My information is second-hand, but it’s my understanding that the celibacy requirement of the priesthood came about to eliminate the confusion caused by inheritance laws. Descendants of priests were trying to lay claim to the Church property. Back in the days of yore when the Church and governing bodies were practically joined at the hip, the fights were nasty and caused a lot of fracturing between the ruling classes.
~VOW
It was the Lateran Councils of 1123 and 1169 that made this official. (But it took a while (100-200 years or so) for this to spread to all the countries and to be actually enforced.)
Probably the most famous example was John Newman. While he was only a priest, he was an important leader in the Anglican Church and led attempts to reform the church. In 1845 he converted to Catholicism. He did well in the Catholic Church and was later named as a Cardinal.
Ironically, his conversion undermined his earlier reforms. Critics within the Anglican Church used him as an example of what could result from reform attempts.
The opinions I’ve heard in Spain and some other Hispanic countries are more along the lines of “:mad: Bachelors! :mad:” (often directed at members of orders, who would still be celibate if priests were allowed to marry). It doesn’t seem to be so much a disincentive for potential RCC priests as a reason for priests to request laicization, now that women insist on getting a ring. But yeah, many people see it as pretty silly; the possible economic reasoning sounds like something which made sense back then, but not nowadays when priests may not get a rectory and many other jobs come with housing as a possible benefit. Nobody kicks up a fuss about “my husband was a game warden, he’s now dead and we’re being evicted!” (or Guardia Civil, military… there are almost no live-in lighthouse keepers any more).