Papal infallibility is fairly rare and only very recently formally defined and accepted as dogma. It wasn’t until the First Vatican Council in 1870 that it was even explicitly promulgated, although it was implicitly believed by the Church for much longer. Even then, you’d probably have a problem finding an even dozen Papal pronouncements in the last 2000 years that qualify under the rule of infallibility. Popes don’t proclaim ex cathedra like they’re posting on Facebook. There has been more than one pope who didn’t even believe in papal infallibility and actually fought against its acceptance as dogma.
What would happen if Benedict said that from now on priests don’t have to be celibate anymore?
That’s not a matter of faith and doctrine, since it’s basically administrative, not moral, so the Pope doesn’t need to declare it ex cathedra.
OK, maybe this is a different subject then. What would happen?
I doubt any Pope would do that unilaterally, anyway. They’d probably spend a lot of time polling the Curia to find out how the cardinals feel about it, pray a lot over it, and then either just change it or call a council to examine it further. It’s a church governance issue, not a doctrinal one. Unlike the restriction to male priests, which IS a doctrinal issue and was affirmed as such as recently as JPII’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994. Even the Ordinatio, though, isn’t ex cathedra, so it’s not infallible by that route. It IS considered infallible by what’s called the ordinary magisterium, which basically just means that that’s the way the Church has done it since the beginning so shut up, you.
Whats the problem? Ukranian Catholic priests can be married. So can several other rites of the Catholic church. The Roman RIte is the largest, and it has a “rule” against priests getting married, but this is not a matter of dogma or belief, it’s an administrative rule.
There’s a big difference between matters of faith (Jesus was God, born of Mary by immaculate conception, etc.) and administrative rules - Roman rite priests can’t be married, only bishops can ordain priests, etc.
I am honestly not trying to be difficult here and am genuinely curious. I get that it is extremely unlikely. Suppose that Benedict did say that one day. Would priests then be able to marry?
Yes. But it would have nothing to do with papal infallibility. Priestly celibacy is an administrative rule, not dogma or doctrine. At one time priests did not have to be celibate (in fact, Acts says that bishops had to be married in the very early Church), so the ordinary magisterium (“we’ve been doing it this way since the very beginning”) doesn’t apply. It was never a matter of faith or morals. It’s just a rule.
Upon reading this in Wikipedia:
my first thought was: “Wow, the Pope used to be able to control time!” 
Of course, there would have to be a lot of major changes for that to happen… All of them rules-oriented.
Priesthood and most other holy orders are like joining the military, only more so. The way it’s set up now, there’s a communal aspect - you go where you are told, you are given a little room to sleep in and there’s a common cafeteria or “mess hall”. Most priests are not working paying jobs. The church would give a parish priest what he needs to live on, a small allowance.
How would a married model work? Would a priest need to get a day job to pay for his family, or does the church need to start paying a living wage? Or do you expect the wife to bring home the bacon (until she gets pregnant). What about health benefits etc. for the family? WIll they buy a house like every Reverend Joe Schmoe, or live in a church-provided house? Can the church now suddenly say “you’re going across the country because they need you there”? Who pays for moving expenses? What if the wife has a really good job and does not want to go? What if they want you to go to Africa?
I’m not saying it cannot happen. Other denominations make it work. Just, it would require more than just a papal rule change; there would have to be a serious rethinking of the whole church procedures, and the change would probably sneak in gradually with exceptions for this, for that, until it was a universal rule.
The way it was explained to me once… The Catholic Church has been around for 2 millennia. If women priests or married priests is an idea whose time has come, it will ome eventually - but the church does not just hop on the bandwagon for every trend. Wait and see if this is a permanent thing. (Also give the ones who did not grow up with the idea time to die off and be replaced… much like the idea of legalizing marijuana in the USA…)
The Beetles song “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer” has long been ago discussed in relation to check if the Pope is dead on the SDMB here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-309815.html
I always though it was a homage to women’s lib? Or the Beatles had found their stash and finished it off.
Just for the record, there ARE currently some Roman Catholic married priests.
The Pope decided to accept married Anglican priests who wanted to convert. However, if their wives die, they would not be allowed to remarry.
To put it another way:
-
If the Pope exercises his special power to proclaim a dogma ex cathedra, that is infallible. This has only happened twice in the last 200 years (once to proclaim that the Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived, once to proclaim that she was assumed bodily into heaven when she died). According to some definitions these are the only times that the infallibility of ex cathedra pronouncements have ever been used, though other definitions add a handful of other pronouncements.
-
When the Pope reiterates a matter of faith or morals that the Church has always taught, he speaks infallibly.
-
In other circumstances, the Pope is not necessarily infallible. Like all mortals, he is a sinner.
I think the bit about only bishops being able to ordain priests is a bit more than an administrative rule – it’s pretty much a matter of faith that a consecrated bishop is a direct successor to one of the Apostles, and thus is able to ordain priests, while a mere priest (who has not yet been consecrated a bishop) cannot. I think it’s pretty central to the Catholic concept of the priesthood, which is very, very different from that of most Protestant denominations, or of the Jewish faith.
Jesus wasn’t born by immaculate conception; Mary was. The Immaculate Conception of Mary was a normal biological conception between her parents, St. Anne and St. Joachim, but one which was miraculously preserved by God from the taint of original sin, so that Mary would be fit to bear Christ.
The conception of Jesus by Mary and the Holy Spirit is called the Incarnation of Christ.
This clarification brought to you by the Sisters of Our Lady of Perpetual Nitpicking.
You are confusing priests with monks and IIRC it’s not the first time. Some monks are priests and some priests are monks, but not all monks are priests and not all priests are monks.
Ordinary or diocesan priests (that is, those who do not belong to an Order such as the Jesuits, Augustines or Franciscans) do not live in community. No mess hall, no cells, none of that. They live in ordinary housing, normally owned or rented by the diocese.
Doh! But I had the general concept right…
But basically, they are like soldiers - they go where they are told, the whole of their life is pretty much run by the heirarchy… or at least that’s the way I remember it. Beyond basic little things like books, radios, etc. they did not have a lot in the way of personal possessions and material goods. Although, if your country is like Canada, sometimes here the priest would end up with a car courtesy of a generous parishoner who owned a car dealership - but notice even then, the car is donated to the parish (hence a charitable deduction). If the priest left, the car stayed for the new priest. Similarly, household expenses for the parish house, groceries, or whatever come out of the collection revenue. A priest in a fairly well-off parish could appear to be living the high life - a car, nice lodgings, good furniture and amenities, maid service, etc. Much of this might come at a discount from generous parishoners.
This is very different than the typical protestant ministers or rabbis here - who (not an expert on this either) look for a contract with a congregation, then are hired for a wage that pays the living expenses of themselves and their family.
From stories I heard, then interesting things can happen - internal politics in a congregation can result in the minister being fired or let go; the minister may decide for his own reasons to quit and move on, or take a competing offer from a different congregation. Negotiations over wages could break down, and the minister quits.
All very very different from what happens with Catholic priests for the current way things are run. A priest may express his wishes, lobby for a certain option, he may be given choices, but generally it is not his decision to make, how he serves the church.
I assume this is how it works in various European countries too.
No. Diocesan priests in the United States are housed by the diocese and earn a salary on top of that. To pick a diocese in example, the Archdiocese of Cincinnati pays a base salary of $27422 per annum with increases for years of service. From that, priests buy cars, plane tickets, restaurant meals, and so on.
Not exactly.
Parishes have budgets and a budgeting process overseen by the diocese. A wealthy parish does not necessarily mean a luxurious rectory.
What, specifically, is your experience with the topic? You have some small, and some grave, misconceptions.
Again, it depends. Canon law vests priests with rights. A diocesan priest is incardinated to his diocese; he cannot be sent to another diocese, for example, involuntarily.
Again, what is the source of your information or experience?
Interesting. My misconception then is that my main experience was talking monastic types mainly, not parish priests.
The church I grew up near was actually more like hotel central for quite a few priests, and the nuns and monks who taught the schools were not given a lot of the perks you mentioned. The next parish I lived near the two priests (those were the days) lived in a small apartment set-up on the side of the church.
As opposed to the ex-ministers I worked with (one whom found there was no market for divorced baptist ministers); he had survived on the fact that his wife also worked and brought in some money too, since his salary was barely adequate.