The Catholic Church seems to be running out or priests. They don’t allow female or married priests. The spokesman for the Pope says that gay men can’t be ordained.
Personally I hope they don’t allow them. I am not happy with the church’s assault on reproductive rights. I think as the number of priests dwindle, so will their influence.
And all the charitable actions of the Catholic church? Overrated. Better off without 'em, says I.
Since when does one need to be Catholic to be charitable?
Besides, where would all the little old ladies go to play Bingo?
Not to mention the loss of tax reve… oh, wait - that’s a lobbying group that is tax-exempt, isn’t it?
It’s unlikely that any change will occur in canonical law with regards to the ordination of women or married men, at least not as long as John Paul II is alive.
Once his successor is chosen, we’ll have a clearer idea of the long-term possibilities. Rumours have it that the next pope may come from Africa or South America. Would this bring about a renewal within the RC Church? I hope so, for the sake of the members of that church. It is known that the Vatican has allowed in certain cases the ordination of married men in some countries, notably when those men had been married ministers of another creed who converted to Catholicism, and that a good number of those exemptions were granted in Africa, but can one conclude that an African pontiff would be more open to the idea than a Polish or Italian one? I don’t know.
By the way, before people assume that I agree with all of this, I was raised a Catholic. “Fallen-from-faith” is what good Catholics would call me now, I guess.
Is the RCC running out of priests? I suppose that fewer young men feel “called” to the clergy than, say, 100 years ago, when mere birth order could determine your fate.
I think I did hear recently that there are fewer men in seminary, at least in some areas, but I haven’t seen anything concrete.
I don’t want to dance on the RCC’s grave, but I’ll bet some of the pissed off, never-recovered-from-Catholic-school crowd may be in shortly!
No, I’m not Catholic, I just don’t know enough about the Church to slam it!
Well, the ordination of married men is allowed in Catholicism. It’s just not (with a few exceptions) allowed in the Roman Rite. Other rites, like the Byzantine rite, allow married priests and have them.
When/Why?
I heard (from usually suspect sources) that this was essentially a ‘land-grab’ by the Vatican - Priesthood was a father-to-oldest- son career, and that some had accumulated sizable holdings (as default beneficiaries (sp) from persons with no descendants).
Given these holdings, and the fact that only LEGIMATE sons could inherit, the banning of marriage meant that Priests could no longer bequeath their land to anyone - so the RCC ended up with the land.
Can anyone confirm/debunk this story?
Well, monastic orders tended to use a version of the Rule of St. Benedict, which dates back to the 6th century, which promotes chastity as a virtue. The rule of St. Augustine demands chastity, and so does the “Aachen Rule for Clerics”, which dates to the 800’s.
It becomes mandatory for priests in the Latin Rite at the Second Lateran Council in 1139, Canons 6 and 7 saying
This rule could have been initiated to avoid inheritance going to children, and the second Lateran council also includes other canons strenghtening the power of the church and restricting priests from secular professions, but the move towards clerical celebacy had been going on for centuries, its advocates saying that abstinence from sex led to spiritual purity and increased devotion to the church.
The idea of celibacy is very old within the church. St. Paul’s admonition to all Christians to abstain from marriage (“but better to marry than to burn”) was very possibly penned with the idea that the Second Coming would arrive so soon that there was no need to become entangled with a spouse.
However, regardless of Paul’s intent, many of the earliest church fathers stated that men who were priests should avoid marriage so that they would be free to minister to their people without worrying about the needs of their family. Whether the “distracting” element of a family was higher in their thoughts or whether they felt that sex (even in marriage) was somehow demeaning to the priesthood probably differed from one author to the next.
Tertullian in the second half of the 2d century speaks favorably of those in the ministry who have chosen to give up marriage.
St. Epiphanius in the same period claims (a little unclearly) that no one is allowed to be in the clergy who is married.
Origen (185 - 254) implies that celibacy is the norm without explicity saying that.
Eusebius (291 - 342) and St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315 - 386) each talked about how the clergy were expected to be celibate (without claiming, as Epiphanius did) that it was the rule.
On the other hand, Clement of Alexandria (died 215), after praising chastity highly, very clearly says that as long as a priest is faithful in his marriage, he is a worthy priest.
And the church historian Socrates (not that Socrates) who wrote a history of the church extending from 306 to 439 said that neither priests nor even bishops were required to be celibate in the Eastern church, provided that their marriage occurred before they took orders.
The first formal declaration that priests must be celibate came from a council (a regional meeting of bishops, in this case) in Elvira, Spain around 300. Apparently, a motion was made to make this a universal rule of the church at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, (325), but that motion was defeated.
Throughout the next several centuries, the western church leaned more and more toward mandatory celibacy while the eastern church did not.
happyheathen’s comment refers to the
Gregorean Reforms: Following the breakup of the Empire of Charlemagne, there followed a period of over 200 years in which the civil chaos carried over into increasing corruption within the RCC, with the local nobility taking over churches and church lands and declaring that the power to appoint bishops was theirs. As a result, people who wanted to increase their own power through the power inherent in the church began to barter with the local lords for positions within the church and people within the church began selling the services of the church (the sin of simony). At the same time, this passing of church property between persons led to further abuses regarding inheritance by the wives and children of priests. Hildebrand (his birth name), as a young man, had been schooled in a Benedictine abbey connected to the abbey of Cluny where they were attempting a spiritual reform of the church–one abbey and one church at a time. Once he had been educated, he became the chaplain to John Gratian, later Pope Gregory VI. Working for John Gratian it became apparent that Hildbrand had both a deep spirituality and a genius for organization. When Gregory VI was forced into exile by various political machinations, Hildebrand went with him. When Gregory VI died, his successor looked up Hildebrand and invited him to serve in his staff. Over the next 20 years, or so, Hildebrand used his administrative powers to order numerous reforms within the church, speaking through the voices of several successive popes (all of whom kept him on their staffs). One of the reforms was that the pope would be chosen by the collected cardinals of the church, and not appointed by the Emperor. In 1073, when Pope Alexander II died, the cardinals chose Hildebrand to be pope, and he chose the name Gregory VII. (He actually protested his own election, but, fortunately, gave in to the college of cardinals.) Once in power, he decreed the following reforms to the clergy:
So, the practice of celibacy goes back to the earliest days of the RCC, the mandate of celibacy goes back (but sporadically) to the fourth century (Synod of Elvira) or second century (St. Epiphanius), and the formalization of the law dates to the twelfth century in response to specific violations of other existing church laws.
Let’s see:
St. Vincent de Paul Society
Little Sisters of the Poor
Maryknoll Orders
Society of Jesus (aka, the Jesuits and their schools and charities)
Franciscans
Catholic Action
Christian Base Communities
Capetians
No, no help there. :rolleyes:
Actually, an African pope would most likely be MORE conservative than our current PJPII. PJPII is actually fairly liberal, as popes go. Ask your local far right-wing Catholic zealot, and they’ll most likely say that John Paul II is a bleeding heart liberal.
HH, you might want to brush up on your tax code to see what organizations are tax exempt. Churches are 501©(3) organizations.
Re JPII’s liberalism/conservatism: it’s very much a mixed bag.
The present Pontiff is unquestionably liberal on economic and broad social issues, following in the footsteps of Paul VI. But he’s a conservative on matters of sex roles in the Church and other sex- and gender-related issues (also in Paul VI’s footsteps), and he’s a conservative on issues relating to Church authority, where he’s done his damnedest to expand the reach of papal authority.
For instance, the Pope is supposedly infallible only when speaking ex cathedra, which has only been done once or twice IIRC. But he’s made it clear that even when he’s not speaking ex cathedra, good Catholics shouldn’t question him. Which takes much of the practical meaning out of not being infallible.
On issues related to sexuality, gender, and gender roles, Third Worlders in the Anglican communion are, on average, much more conservative than North Americans and Europeans. I expect the same would be true in Roman Catholicism.
Re priestly celibacy:
It seems, according to those who’ve posted already, as if there have been two main motivations at different times: first, the notion of divided loyalties - that a married priest is going to short either his family or his congregation - and second, that sex, even within marriage, is somehow ‘impure’, or is a lesser calling than celibacy.
Hopefully, the second reason has gotten squeezed out of RC theology over time. It seems to owe a lot to the (hopefully archaic) notion that the flesh was inherently sinful, rather than simply one more milieu in which one could serve God faithfully or fall into sin.
I have no idea where RC (or any other church’s) theology currently stands on the notion of greater and lesser callings: my personal theology says that there’s only that which God has called me to, and it is neither greater nor lesser than other callings; it’s just the one I’ve got - just like the woman I’m married to is neither better nor worse than other women, but she’s the one who’s right for me. But that’s my own theology, and it and $2 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck’s. 
Still, it seems that the RCC’s willingness to accept married priests from other denominations as Catholic priests if they convert, seems to undermine any justification for keeping the Catholic priesthood celibate. If the RCC says former Anglican priests with wives can juggle priesthood and family, it would seem that men who’ve been Catholics all along can do the same. And if the ‘impurity’ of marriage somehow defiles the holiness of the priesthood, why should this be any less true for someone entering the RCC priesthood via conversion than it is for someone entering it from within the Church?
It makes as much sense to me as the RCC’s stance on birth control. :rolleyes:
So what is (or was) the Church’s take on the requirements for ecclesiastical leadership found in 1 Timothy 3:
(“Overseer” could also be translated as “bishop”, but others might use “elder” instead.)
The same sort of language is used for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:12:
These are traditionally attributed to Paul, not generally considered a cheerleader for marriage and family. The language could really be taken to require marriage rather than just permit it; the remarks about being able to manage ones own household make it sound like being a proven husband and father is a prerequisite for church leadership.
Re-e-e-e-ealy ambivalent. It depends on the author of the pronouncement, the context of the pronouncement, (the date of the pronouncement), and who they think might bother to read the pronouncement.
In theory, all charisms are equal–but some may be more equal than others.
When discussing the priesthood, it seems to be elevated to a “higher” state. As soon as the issue is raised that women are denied entrance to that “higher” state, it seems to be ratcheted down a notch.
I heard of a teacher in a seminary who got laughed out of his class for claiming that priesthood was a higher calling, (indicating that some future priests did not agree with him), but I’m sure that he was not alone in his beliefs.
The statements from I Timothy 3 have pretty consistently been viewed as statements that the leaders may have no more than one wife, thus denying both polygyny and, in several interpretations, re-marriage after being widowed. I have never seen it treated as a command that the leader must have demonstrated the ability to order a household before they can be allowed to run a congregation.
I’ll have to wait to get home to review the Greek to see if there is any grammatical basis for those interpretations.
I do happen to have the Greek here in front of me, though I admit that I’m only in my second semester of Greek right now, my knowledge of Greek grammar is limited. That said, from my reading, it doesn’t appear that the text mandates marriage. Like Tom said, it appears to be a prohibition against polygyny as part the overall moral character expected of the bishop. It seems by my reading that it’s assumed that a candidate for bishop will be married more often than not, though.
My rendering of the passage is as follows:
“If anyone aspires to being a bishop, he desires a fine task. It is necessary therefore [for] the bishop to be without reproach, a husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, skillful in teaching, not given to drunkenness, not violent, but forbearing, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money, managing his own household well, having his children in subjection, with all respect–if anyone does not know [how] to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” – 1 Tim 3:1-5)
The Greek for the passage in question can be found here, for those curious. Perseus is a wonderful thing.
What do you think, Tom?
Since I’m rather pressed for time now, I don’t have time to present my opinion regarding the OP in full, and I’d like to do so later this evening or tomorrow if I can find the time. In short, though, let me say that I don’t think that the Church will be folding any time soon. There are still over four hundred thousand priests worldwide ministering to a flock of over one billion members. I don’t think that the current vocations shortage in North America and western Europe is at its core connected to the issue of celibacy.
There is a Russian Orthodox seminary not far from here (St. Tikhon’s Monastary, if anyone’s wondering), and their numbers have dropped significantly in recent years as well. Orthodox priests are allowed to marry, so why the decrease? As a seminarian myself, I think that it’s more related to changing cultural attitudes.
Back in the 1950s, my diocese had so many candidates for the seminary every year that the bishop could afford to reject half of them or more. Priesthood provided opportunities for education and social advancement that were not otherwise available to many individuals during that time period. In addition, cultural values were different during that time period. The Church was a much larger part of daily life than it is now. It was more likely that a young man might consider the priesthood, and the environment was more supportive of people who’d made that decision. The reaction I received from my parents when I broke the news that I was applying to the seminary was stunned silence.
Today, it’s not uncommon to get confused stares when I tell people what I do, and I’ve had a number of people (some of them friends) question my sanity and/or sexual orientation. Poverty, chastity, and obedience are absolutely countercultural in a society that increasingly tending toward materalism, relativism, and self indulgence. Some people I’ve spoken with at the (Catholic) university where I attend most of my classes consider the very concept of voluntary self-denial one step short of insanity.
And let’s face it, a clerical collar is no longer the bulletproof shield and ticket to instant respect that it used to be. It’s not easy to be a priest these days, whether married or not, and only the people who are truly committed are going to apply.
That said, vocations are flourishing in many parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. If anything, this trend may indicate a fundamental shift in the Church’s center of gravity in coming years.
–Dan
There was a cover story about this in the NY Times magazine a couple of years back. I can’t find it on-line, though. Sorry.
From what I remember:
There are definitely fewer men interested in becoming priests these days.
An ever greater percentage of the men in seminary are of Latino background.
It’s worth mentioning that it wasn’t only the church that benefited from celebate priests, or at least, bishops: German emporers, most notably the Ottonians (918-1024) used bishops as politcal leaders to manage great swathes of territory: German emporers were always having to control the unruly dukes, and one sucessful way to do this was to replace the counts that were under the dukes with bishops that were loyal to the emporer: this made a sort of sandwitch around them. The fact that bishops did not have legitimate heirs and their sucessors were chosen by the emporer was an integral part of this system and part of the reason Henry IV was willing to go to such lenghs to keep the right to appoint bishops.
Ohh! Ohh! etymology time. “Morgage” apparently comes from the french “Mort Gage” or “dead hand”–this refers to the way land that entered the church stayed in the church, as it was never sub-divided out amoung heirs.
To get a medival view of how this worked, when William X of Aquitaine wrote the charter for the Abby at Cluny, he didn’t donate the land to “the church” or “the pope” or anything like that: he donated the land explicitly to Peter and Paul. The fact that they are, well, dead, was not that critical to a medival mind: the important thing was that Peter and Paul owned Cluny, and the Church is just watching it for them.
I’ve been looking for a copy of the Annuario Pontificio (sort of a Church census that contains a lot of statistics) online, but I can’t seem to find a copy online anywhere. I’ll look for a copy during my spare time at school tomorrow so I can give you some concrete stats. At the moment, there are approximately 110,000 men in all stages of seminary formation worldwide. That number has been slowly increasing since it bottomed out at 65,000 in 1975. While it’s an improvement, there’s stil a great need for priests in many parts of the world.
Green Bean , it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that increasing numbers of seminarians are of Latino extraction. I’ll have to get the numbers from the Annuario, but something like 49.4% of the world’s Catholics live in the Americas. Many areas of the country have rising Spanish-speaking populations, and Hispanic ministry is becoming more and more important even in my home diocese of Scranton, PA. We’re doing the best we can at the moment, but what we really need is some seminarians from our local Latino population.
I haven’t read through every post here, but here are my two bits.
The poster who wrote about birth order factor sometimes deciding your fate was right on.
I had two great uncles who became priests. One - Fr. Vin - was apparently a sickly child and his mother (my great grandmother) promised God that if he survived that he would enter the priest hood and he did. The man was a genius. He spoke something like 12 languages and read even more, fluently. had a photographic memory. Had he been in the real world, who knows how well he would have done because of this extraordinary gift. My mom (his neice and favorite one) said he never complained about the decision his mother made for him and he was a very good preist. I cannot imagine in not having a say in such a decision.
The other brother - Fr. Leon - was the youngest in the family and there was no money for college or basically anything other than working in a rural area. So, he up and joined the priesthood and saw the world. ( Mind you that these men were born in the 1890’s and early 1900’s) both men were exceedingly well traveled.
Secondly, in regards to celibacy: Back when Vatican II (The Grudge Match) was in session, the above Fr. Vin was apart of the behind the scenes action. He wasn’t in the big room with the big cheif and the lesser cheifs, he was a support guy for whomever his cardinal/monsienour (sp)/Whatever was at the time.
One of the issues that he and many other priests lobbied to get on the table before Pope Whatever was the issue of celibacy and marriage. Fr. Vin (and his direct boss) said there was no Biblical/Cannonical reason for either. This particular issue never made it to the table, what a surprise.
When he died ( mid 70’s) all his paperwork/notes was sent to the Diocese in Toronto ( I don’t know why, he was ordained in Canada but went all over the US and world) and several nieces of his (all nuns,it’s a family thing) tried to get these papers so as to a) study them b) publish them. As you can imagine, the Diocese will not release them. (they probably lost them.)
Many of the reasons why men became priests were birth order factor and ecomonics. If they came from a poor family, joining the priest hood ensured an education,meal and housing during a time period when the country was at great ecomonic strife. The above uncle, Fr. Leon, use to teach at the seminary (30’s-60’s) and they had to turn men away because it was too crowded.
Now, the places are empty. In one way it is so very sad to see an institution die. In another, they brought it upon themselves by refusing to change with the times, kinda like Kmart, dying a slow asphixiation.