I was doing some internet research about married priests
(http://www.catholic-forum.com/luxveritatis/married.htm), and I don’t understand the purpose of celibacy.
To quote the site:
“By remaining celibate, priests can enter into Holy Orders with an undivided heart, fulfilling the sacrament as it was intended.”
Does this mean that Catholics who are not celibate are not fulfilling all the tenents of their religion? Does Catholicism have a negative view of those who are not celibate?
Well, if by “negative” you mean less than ideal, then, yes. Becoming a priest or nun is definitely seen as the highest calling in the Catholic church. However, people who choose instead to marry and raise children are certainly seen to be living acceptable lives and aren’t considered to be sinning by doing this.
Everybody else is questionable.
No. “Fullfilling the sacrament” (i.e., Holy Orders), is in reference to the call to be a leader/confessor/shepherd/comforter/etc. to the people. The idea is that a manwho has to spend time worrying about clothing and feeding his kids or not upsetting his wife is less single-minded in his commitment to caring for his parishioners. There is probably some truth to the idea. On the other hand, such a person may also be less understanding of people who actually have to raise kids or live with one other adult for life. The argument can be made in both directions.
Matrimony is also a sacrament, and is the exact opposite of celibacy (but not chastity).
The Church, overall, does not claim that Holy Orders is superior to Matrimony (although, it is noted, only ordained priests seem to get picked to be pope or run the various congregations that make up the RCC bureaucracy).
Even the idea that Holy Orders requires celibacy is not an absolute. The tradition dates back to the earliest church period, but it has gone in and out of fashion since then. There are Catholic rites (Maronite, Chaldean, Greek, etc.) where the priests are not required to be celibate. The “Roman” in Roman Catholic refers to the specific liturgcal services practiced by that group–which is the 800 pound gorilla of Catholic groups, but which is nominally just the biggest among equals.
Now, there are individuals within the RCC who believe that the celibate priesthood is a higher calling than that of a married person. I had an ordained college professor who firmly believed that. On the other hand, after mocking the idea, several of us mentioned it to one of his fellow faculty members, also a priest, who laughed at the suggestion (and at the original prof).
Single people are questionable?? :eek:
Well, I was being slightly facetious, but, yes, I think that, while it is not a sin to be single (providing you are celibate), marriage is held in higher esteem. (I’m talking about choosing to be single here, not about people who just haven’t found a partner yet.) The exception would be if you had some sort of health problem that would make you infertile, in which case it would be seen as better to either remain single or marry another infertile person.
I’m sure tomndeb is correct in the above post, however, there is definitely a strong current of belief among Catholics that taking Holy Orders is the highest calling.
Actually, now that I think of it, I believe marriage is discouraged only for certain types of infertility, specifically those that involve an inability to achieve intercourse, such as complete impotence in the man or some vaginal abnormality in the woman. (Presumably, if God is going to pull a Sarah and Abraham he needs something to work with.) So something like a premarital hysterectomy wouldn’t count–the couple could marry and have sex and would also be encouraged to adopt or care for children in some way.
And aren’t there also some (very few) Roman Catholic priests who are married? usually former Anglican priests who became RC, but were married at the time. I understood that the RC church can give special dispensations for priests who are received into the church in those circumstances - but it’s not very common.
Maybe you’re thinking of Easter Orthodox, where the priests CAN marry. But only the bottom layer of priests. (IS it White Priests or the Black Priests? I get those confused!)
I think I would respectfully disagree with 2 of your points. I don’t think that marriage is held in higher esteem in the RCC, at least through a church teaching point of view (There may, for example, be a sociologic “preference” to a married lifestyle…much like in the rest of society. For example, most, if not all, church activities are “family oriented”). I think that the single vocation is not always recognized as a “vocation”…but I think that’s reflective of a society as a whole…and not specific church teaching.
Also, I am not aware of any “strong current of belief” (at least today…I have seen an old Baltimore Catechism that seemed to place priesthood at the top of the list) that Holy Orders is the “highest” calling. There certainly is a shortage of ordained priests, and so an emphasis on encouraging priestly vocations among (sadly, IMHO) just men…I do not equate that with a perception that being a priest is a higher calling than being married, single, a nun or a brother.
To answer jti’s question…yes there are a fair number of Anglican (and I believe Episcopalian) priests who are married …and are accepted as such into RCC priesthood.
Beagledave,
My experience is probably colored by the fact that our parish has a strong contingent of first generation Portuguese who tend to be more old-school in their practices. Our priests are also older and Irish. For example, I know a number of people who won’t take communion from anyone other than the priest, even though some lay-people are now allowed to administer it. My comment came from talking with people around here and may not reflect other parishes, especially in America.
And, as I said, I’m sure you’re right about the Church’s official position.
Good point…I’ve certainly seen the attitude you speak of (although, thankfully not in my current parish).
Interestingly enough, a few generations ago…many mothers encouraged their boys to consider the priesthood vocation…for a variety of reasons (that are probably best covered in a different thread 
) that seems quite rare these days…
in the orthodox church, priests cannot marry.
a married man may become a priest. once you have been ordained a priest you cannot marry and still be a priest. it is a bit of a semantics thing. should a priest either divorce or become a widower, he can either continue as a celebate priest, become a hiero-monk or further (bishop, etc), or be laitized and remarry.
guinastasia: white priest usualy refers to a parish priest, black priest to a monastic priest.
But wait! I know you can’t get married if you’re a priest.
HOWEVER, if you’re already married, and want to become one, they let you. Isn’t that right?
In the RCC no…(however…if you are married, you can become a deacon…if you become a deacon first while single, I don’t believe you can marry).
In the Orthodox church, I plead complete and total ignorance, maybe somebody can help me out?
According to a recent article I read in the Economist, the RCC has stopped this practice. However, there are Eastern Rite Catholic churches (Churches that generally follow the Orthodox tradition, but are obedient to Rome) that allow married priests - presumably under the same strictures are the Orthodox, but I’m not sure.
Sua
Just read an article in the paper today, sorry can’t find the cite online, about a priest who started as an episcopalian, is married, with kids, and is now in the RC church. He talks about his “bigamy” in having a family and a congregation. And describes how some parishoners told him they’d feel that taking communion from him is the same as taking it from an adulterer. In all, the article stated about 100 episcopalian/anglican priests have become RC priests.
aha, found it! I think
Qadgop,
Would love to read the article. Unfortunately:
Bad, Qadgop! Bad! Sit! Stay! Lie down! Re-post!
I’m an Episcopal priest, so I won’t presume to explain Roman Catholic church discipline, but I will address the observation made above by tomndebb:
“Fullfilling the sacrament” (i.e., Holy Orders), is in reference to the call to be a leader/confessor/shepherd/comforter/etc. to the people. The idea is that a manwho has to spend time worrying about clothing and feeding his kids or not upsetting his wife is less single-minded in his commitment to caring for his parishioners. There is probably some truth to the idea. On the other hand, such a person may also be less understanding of people who actually have to raise kids or live with one other adult for life. The argument can be made in both directions."
I’m married with kids, and my parishioners seem to feel that this gives me a helpful insight into their own family lives. On the other hand, I’m aquainted with a number of RC and Orthodox priests who are deeply insightful persons and completely qualified to provide marriage counseling. As I see it, my own familiy gives me a certain advantage in such situations, but it doesn’t make me uniquely qualified.
It is certainly true that my marriage and family influence my work, but this is true for anyone with a family. Most people would have an easier time with their careers if they were free from family responsibilities, but we enter into both with the belief that the advantages outweigh the hardships.
I don’t think the Economist’s article and the one you cite are contradictory. The article I read simply said that the RCC doesn’t accept married episcopalian priests anymore. It didn’t say that the RCC has revoked the priesthoods of those who came over when the policy was in effect (and I strongly doubt the RCC would do that).
Sua