We’ve got a thread going about women priests in the Catholic Church. While I think of it, can any of the Catholic/historically minded Dopers fill me in on the background around married priests?
I believe there used to be married priests, so when were they banned and why?
What is the Church’s present position (“No Way” - as I understand it) and what are the [theological] arguements to support their position?
Thanks!
There are married Roman Catholic priests now. They started out as married Anglican or Episcopal priests, and switched.
And here’s a history of Celibacy in the Roman Catholic church. I don’t guarantee it’s not biased, but the facts seem reliable: Celibacy
Basically, Celibacy came down as the rule about 1192. Which means the church did not require celibacy from its clergy for longer than it has required it.
Re: The link in my above post. While the facts seem reliable, there’s a whole lot more speculation than fact. Take with grain of salt.
Celibacy is not required of all Catholic priests. Clerical celibacy is a discipline of the Church, not a doctrinal position. It depends upon the rite. Latin rite priests (the majority) are required to be celibate. The rules are different for those within the Eastern Rite churches in communion with Rome (the Uniate Churches), where some priests can be, and are, married.
Scroll down in the link to the bit about “Clerical Celibacy”.
And, as Qadgop noted, there are many examples of married Anglican ministers who have converted to the Catholic church and been ordained as priests.
There was a tradition of celibacy before the 2nd Lateran Council. which made it mandatory in the Roman Rite in 1139. But there was also a tradition of married priests. One major reason for the ban on clergy marriages was the handing down of benefices – essentially, the right to be the priest for X parish – from father to son, with the son often not feeling a call to serve as a priest but getting ordained for the income.
While the Roman Rite is something like 95% of Catholicism, it’s important to note that there are 21 other rites, mostly Eastern Orthodox groups that reunited with Rome, who are equally as much Catholics, in communion with the Pope, and that they all have married priests.
A couple of points:
Converts to Catholicism who were married Anglican priests or Protestant ministers are permitted to be ordained and remain married, as Qadgop notes. While the majority are Anglican (including Episcopalian), there are a significant number of others who were Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, etc.
To be 100% technical, there is no such thing as “a Catholic priest who left the priesthood to marry.” This is because, in Catholic theology, ordination leaves an indelible mark on the soul. Rather, those men who would so be described have been laicized – their ability to exercise the powers of the priesthood suspended by order of bishop, Pope, or Roman Curia, except in emergency. (E.g., a “former priest” who has been laicized and who comes on a traffic accident with a dying Catholic is completely free to give him/her the last rites – he is still a priest, just impeded from performing the functions of the office.) If my information is correct, some bishops will extend to a laicized priest who is a Catholic in good standing the right to perform certain priestly functions for his own family, e.g., to baptize his children or grandchildren, but this is purely discretionary on the bishop’s part.
A friend of mine is one of the “Married Catholic priests.” There are about 100 or so in the US. He was a Lutheran minister, converted to catholicism, ended up being a priest. Very difficult process, and the order of sacraments has to be correct to even be eligible. Bishop has to approve, inventory of the marriage, in depth interview with the wife and family. Quite a few years later, he is now my parish priest.
Oh, it’s not a theological issue. There’s no divine ban on it in Catholic theology (as evidenced by the Eastern Rite married priests). It’s simply a matter that there has been a sense, for nearly 1000 years, that one cannot be an effective priest to a parish and an effective father to a family, and so must answer the call to one or the other role (or, of course, to neither). I’ve heard it said that this is one of the six Laws of the Church (capitalized), though exactly what that means and where it fits into the complex structure of canon law, I’ll have to leave for Bricker or tomndebb or some other knowledgeable Catholic to explain.
Here was the most recent tomndebb recounts the history of celibacy in the West post.
[ Mod note: please do not respond to any post in that ancient thread. If the point is pertinent to this thread, post it here, otherwise open a new thread and link to the old one. /Mod note ]
All of the above posts give examples of non-RC clergymen who were married and then converted to Roman Catholicism, and then became Roman Catholic priests.
I’ve heard that another route would be possible: Suppose a married Roman Catholic layman wanted to become a priest. I’ve heard that this would be allowed, and he could continue to stay married. Am I mistaken?
I have encountered anecdotes in which a married man applied to become a priest and his request was granted (generally in advanced age when his children had already left home). However, the “rest of the story” on those anecdotes has been that the man and his wife must agree to live as brother and sister with no sexual relations. I have no idea whether there is any truth to the tales.* I will note that, if true, the church would absolutely require the complete assent of the wife. No guy could just declare that he wanted to change his life and make that decision unilaterally.
Is that only for such laymen, or would this also apply to the “converts to Catholicism who were married Anglican priests or Protestant ministers” mentioned by Polycarp? Just curious.
Strictly speaking, this would not require any episcopal (meaning, in this context, “of the bishop”) dispensation: Anyone at all, even a non-Christian, is allowed to perform a baptism, even though it’s usually done by a priest. For instance, I was officially baptised by my own parents in the bathroom sink (there was a party a month or two later with my godparents and other relatives where a priest poured some water over my head, but officially it didn’t mean anything).
And it’s my understanding that the bit about married Protestant ministers converting applies only to ministers ordained in the Apostolic succession: That is to say, the minister was ordained by someone who was ordained by someone else who was ordained by… on back to one of the Apostles. Officially, the Catholic Church maintains that this is the case for all of its priests (though how the Succession was traced through the first few centuries, I don’t know), but this is not the case for most Protestant denominations (the Anglicans and other Episcopalians follow it, but I don’t know about any others).
Finally, I can relate one other annecdote about a married priest. One of my teachers in high school had had a rather tumultous, almost Augustinian, youth. During that time, he was married at one point, but he and his wife became estranged, and she resisted all attempts at re-establishing contact. Years later, not knowing where his ex-wife was, or even if she was still alive, he converted, and heard the call to become a priest. I don’t know exactly what red tape he had to go through, but apparently, it worked, because when I knew him, he was a priest. If his wife had ever shown up again, it might have caused problems with the abbey, but she didn’t, and I think he’s dead now, so it’s irrelevant anyway.
Thanks to all who replied, particularly tomndebb for the link to the old thread.
If it’s tradition rather than theology presumably the Church could change its mind. I have been hearing about the shortage of priests - could this be a solution? Easier to stomach than women priests that the Anglicans have accepted.
As an aside, according to the Church, a Catholic Priest is always a Catholic Priest. So if one is ordained, then marries, he won’t be able to give mass or hear confession or any of those things, but he would still technically be a married priest in the eyes of the Church.
From the Catechism:
Wow, totally missed Polycarp’s discussion of the same point above, sorry.
As far as I know, if it even has ever been permitted outside anecdotes, the continence rule would not be applied to Anglican priests seeking to become Catholic priests. There would (at the least) be a feeling that the vocation to priesthood was obviously not a way to avoid the vocation of marriage, so no “penalties” would be imposed.
Specifically, the statement from the Vatican was that an exception to the rule of celibacy was granted them (with no mention of continence) while the same declaration re-affirmed the commitment of the church to the rule of celibacy for anyone we were not stealing from other denominations. (Actually, I believe that this rule was established solely for priests of the Anglican Communion, and so has no effect on anyone else, at all. A Lutheran married pastor would not be eligible to become a priest, (although he could become a Permanent Deacon).
That discussion has been rolling around the halls of the RCC since 1970 at the latest. So far, there has been no indication that the hierarchy has any intention of reconsidering the matter. Reasons for that reluctance involve massive speculation spanning an entire spectrum of considered opinion and rampant speculation regarding conspiracies. (Most of the conspiracy theories are pretty silly.)
I’m not sure what you mean by this statement. Lutheran married ministers *can *become Catholic priests, if certain stringent criteria are met. They also have sex with their wives. It’s very rare, true, but entirely possible and entirely permissible within the Church.
The ministers becoming priests, not the sex with the wives. Gah.
Oh, and to all who say that allowing priests to marry would solve the shortage of priests, why then do the protestant denominations who allow married men, women and gays also have shortages as well?
In many countries there is an abundance of priests, in fact America is importing them to support our parishes.
The couple of times that I have seen the declaration from the Vatican (1980?) in reference to the admission of married Anglican Communion priests to the Catholic priesthood, I have seen no reference to priests or pastors of any other denomination. If someone has a citation of a similar declaration regarding other groups, I am willing to be corrected on the point.
Citations emailed, Tom.
The more I read about the pastoral provision, the more it seems like a distinct sect, a bridge between the Anglicans and the Church. The former Anglican priests are in their own parishes, and using a modified form of the liturgy, reflecting their Anglican backgrounds. I thought they were actually part of the regular dioceses, which had been my personal experience. I knew that they were not usually assigned their own parish, but had assumed that they worked in RC parishes.