Some of you may have already read the shorter version of this post over at my blog, but I thought the issue important enough to rewrite it for The Anglo-Catholic. Here are some collected thoughts on the dangers of married clergy.
1) If the Church supports both married and celibate clergy (and she does) then we should stand by our leaders. As with young children we all are called to respectful and happy obedience to those God has placed over us (whether we think they deserve it or not). Disagreements should be voiced in a gentle and submissive manner, not beginning with an argument and escalating to a brawl. If someone wants any kind of change he should pray for it humbly, and discuss it respectfully.
2) The vast majority of Christian marriages today are a mess, and numerous baptized children are either constantly backsliding or outright disobedient and worldly. Everyone needs guidance and teaching to help them live faithfully before our God. Those Christians who are in marriages that are disorderly need a good example of a faithful and well ordered family (i.e., no dysfunctions) and a wise priest to lead them in how to correct the problems in their households. If this is not remedied (by either celibate or married clergy) then the children will likely be lost to the world. I have met more people than I can count who are in wrecked marriages and they have no idea that a family can actually be faithful to the Lord precisely because they have never seen it.
3) A pastor who does not solidly and clearly rule his family well (cf. 1 Tim 3:5 & Titus 1:6) should not be leading God's people. He is a bad example and is therefore misleading the sheep under his care; he misleads them by displaying a family that is out of order as though that were pleasing to God. Every marriage is telling something about Christ and His bride the Church; they either tell the truth or they tell a lie. Thus, it is far better to have a godly celibate priest (with no family to be an example), than to have a married priest whose wife is not submissive and whose children do not obey and are not showing the beauty of Christian faithfulness. If a priest's children look like the typical image of rebellion, then how can he say he knows how to teach God's people to obey? If he thinks he can do this he is lying. A clergyman's family should be the first family that people look to when they seek to see how Christian households should work.
4) The debate regarding "married versus celibate" clergy is, in my opinion, a bit off track because it misses many of these points. It is not "married vs. celibate" as much as it is "faithful vs. unfaithful". A faithful married priest is a great asset to a church and his family can be a wonderful example. An unfaithful married priest (and that means more than sexually) is a plague on the church. Priests are called to be examples of faithfulness in every area of their lives, most especially their homes. If their homes have a wife and children then godliness and purity should be evident there also. If his wife is hooked on Prozac and the children are being pumped with Ritalin just so they can get through the day, then we have a problem. In a number of Protestant Churches that I have seen, the pastor's children are the worst behaved children in the entire congregation and everyone just accepts it as par for the course. I hear much about the concern of celibate priests being pedophiles in disguise; yes, that is a concern, but we cannot let that concern overshadow the dangers of married clergy (which can potentially have far more long term consequences).
5) The challenges on fathers are enough by themselves, but when you add in the challenges of ministry the responsibility on clergy is very difficult. The scriptural principle is that you do not give someone a big responsibility until they can handle smaller ones (cf. Luke 19:12ff). Therefore, if a priest cannot handle the responsibility of leading his own "domestic church" then he should never be allowed to have the responsibility of leading an ecclesiastical church. It is better to have fewer priests overall than to have a large number of married priests whose wives are a wreck and whose children are on the verge of leaving the faith.
6) If you cannot tell the difference between the priest's children and a typical punk down at the mall, then he is disqualified for the office; no questions asked, no "ifs" "ands" or "buts". If the priest's children are the least faithful children in the congregation then he should leave the ministry. If his wife is a gossip who is a thorn in everyone's side, then he should resign and find another calling–yesterday. If he is unwilling to do this, then his Bishop should take him out–the day before yesterday. If he cannot be trusted to deal with his own problems then he should not be trusted to deal with those of a parish.
7) A priest's family is the best example of how well he can minister. Theology, liturgics, counseling; yes, they are important. Yet, I would rather be ministered to by a man whose family is in order and who is short on "pastoral training" than by a man who has gobs of training and yet cannot properly lead his own family to Christ (if he cannot help them, how can he help the rest of us?). I know far too many priests (and Protestant pastors) who are wonderfully trained in theological and ecclesiastical issues, but they have no idea how to deal with real family dysfunctions.
8 ) I've heard the complaint of: "How can you require so much of a pastor? It isn't his fault if his family falls away." This is an attempt to lower the standards that God has given in His Word. Scripture requires clergy to "lead their family well" and to have "obedient and faithful children"; we should not be seeking a way to reinterpret this. The prestige and honor given to clerical office is hard to give up, but for many married clergymen it is time to bite the bullet.
9) I have heard some people calling for a rejection of the custom of celibate clergy, or at least a softening of it. Although I am happy that Pope Benedict has chosen to allow more married priests in the Church, I am not sure that it will be a good thing entirely. A celibate priest is only one person to be a bad example; a married priest however has his wife and children who also can be bad examples. Every priest lives in a "fishbowl" before his congregation and that is not a bad thing. A friend of mine is a Baptist pastor and he hates the fishbowl, so he hides. He keeps his family mostly away from the rest of his congregation because he does not want to "be judged" by them. As my grandma used to say, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". If a man does not want to live on display, then he should not seek holy orders. In addition, the complaint has come to my ears many times, "How can an unmarried priest counsel a married man how to lead his home?" I know many celibate priests who do a fine job of counseling husbands and fathers; I also know a number of married priests that I would not trust to counsel someone how to mow the lawn (to say nothing of how to order his household).
10) We should not assume that because a clergyman is married that this means he is more "safe" than a celibate man; neither marriage nor celibacy guarantees faithfulness or unfaithfulness. A blessing will only come in married Catholic clergy if we see good strong fathers and husbands as priests leading their congregations with a good family life being exemplified before the parish. If the influx of married clergy into the Catholic Church through the Ordinariates means an influx of bad examples and priests whose households are messed up then we are only creating one more problem to be fixed. This is not what the Holy Father wants, and it is our responsibility to make sure that we do not give him "spotted sacrifices".
11) If you are a priest, this is the time to take a good look at your home life. We who are going to enter the Ordinariate are going to be setting the example for the future. If the CDF sees in us a failure because we brought failing families into the ministry, then what will be the future of the married clergy in the Ordinariates? Will Rome reconsider whether they have made a mistake because we blew it? Anyone who is unwilling to be challenged on this issue has proven his unfaithfulness. Ask yourself: Would Christ honestly be pleased to use your family (right now!) as an example of godly home life? Would He use your home to set the standard for an entire congregation? A healthy spiritual checkup is important, and as clergy we often think that we are completely capable of examining ourselves without anyone else's help; in this area we are not. Each clergyman should ask someone else for an honest answer as to whether his family is a beautiful example of a godly home. Men, let us together do this inventory of where our families are at, and be honest with the assessment (not merely overlook things because you want to stay a priest). The consequences are eternal.
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!
Chori . . . I gather your are not married.
Reading sometimes helps… in his profile, it says he is married with five children.
I know a lot of Ukrainian (Greek) Catholic priests, some of them married, some not. If I have learned one thing of them, it is that married clergy have not less personal problems, they have different ones. I know of two cases where the wife took the children and left her husband – what kind of an example does that set for the community (both are parish priests)?
If the Church relied upon the good examples of clergy it would have ceased to exist long before the paedophile crisis amongst the "celibate" clergy or the recent bad example you mention.
Profiles are indeed interesting reading but forgiveness is needed by all regardless of marital status.
BTW – Did you mean "fewer" problems or do you mean lesser problems? I read "less problems" as a grammatical error.
Let me reformulate that: I do not think that every priest, celibate or married, must be a perfect example (though they certainly should) – but I very much doubt those arguing that the Catholic Church could solve all her problems by allowing her clergy to be married. Married clergy have not fewer but different problems.
Since Fr. Chori is married himself, you certainly can't accuse him of talking about things he doesn't know about (that's what you intended, didn't you?) Married and celibate priests likewise are asked to forgive, but those that have been forgiven are ordered to "go and sin no more". I sometimes miss that part of the story…
Sorry for the grammatical errors – English is not my mothertongue.
Father Chori,
There's a good book on the theological and legal considerations behind the law of celibacy, by Dr Heinz-Jurgen Vogels, "Celibacy: Gift or Law?". He comes down on the side of voluntary celibacy. I think H.H. has probably read it too.
This is only hearsay, but consider the following –
'During the ad limina visit of the bishops of New York State in June, Pope Benedict XVI sked the bishops: "What do you think of the restoration of the tradition of a married priesthood?" For some moments there was an amazed silence. The the Pope asked the question a second time: "I really would like to know what your people think on that issue." Then one bishop, Michael Clark of Rochester, responded: 'It is strange, Holiness, that you should ask this question, because we just had a synod in our diocese, where over ninety per cent of the laity voted in favour of a married priesthood.' And the other bishops joined him in saying that a great majority of their faithful is in favour of married priests.'
Now, that's all I'm going to say on this topic, as last time it was brought up, I got into a big fight.
P.S. Finally, just for the purposes of full disclosure: Yes, as one or two of my interlocutors during the last time this topic was dealt with might have expected/hinted, I forfeited my vocation with a certain traditionalist group over this, but I hope that hasn't unfairly coloured my outlook. And no, I'm not looking to take it up again with the ordinariates – even if I could do so legally.
Mr. McGregor,
I don't believe you are very familiar with Bishop Matthew (not Michael) Clark of Rochester. He is one of the most liberal bishops in the Catholic Church in the U.S.A. He and his good friend Howard Hubbard of Albany, N.Y. Would be right at home in the Episopal Church.
Sorry, that was a report from the "Ministerium Novum" No 5, August 2005.
"The vast majority of Christian marriages today are a mess."
Oh dear!
A useful article. Yet bringing Anglo-Catholics, with their rich patrimony, into full union is more important for the Church. And the price for this is married priests.
"Price" is a poor choice of words. Better: Along with this will come married priests, and there may be even some special benefit in this for Anglo-Catholics.
"What do you think of the restoration of the tradition of a married priesthood?" For some moments there was an amazed silence. The the Pope asked the question a second time: "I really would like to know what your people think on that issue."
Could it be the Holy Father just wanted the bishops to know he is aware of the happenings at the local levels of the church and that he is on top of things? This as well as having a genuine interest on the matter? Just a thought.
I am not totally opposed to married clergy though I prefer celibacy. I try to be open minded and would definately accept a married clergy if approved by the Church. Having said this I think Father Seraiah's post is impartant. A married priesthood would raise as many porblems as it solves. The divorce rate in the United States in about 50%. The rate for Protestant clergy is about the same and the great majority remarry. There is no reason to believe Catholic clergy would be any different. This would produce a dropout rate as high if not higher than with celibate clergy. The ECUSA is a good example though allow divorced clergy. Another problem is placement of clergy. Again the ECUSA is a good example. They have an abundant clergy but still have a higher rate of vacant parishes than the Catholic Church. Going where they are needed is not as impartant the needs and wants of the family. I don't mean to be disrespectful of married priests but think it is important to understand there are advantages and disadvantages on both sides of the celibacy issue.
And when all is said and done, I trust we all understand that the challenges involved with doing WHATEVER do not constitute reasons not to do it.
Rather, the challenges inherent in any valid modality of the One Priesthood of Jesus Christ, as manifest in particular times and places, are occasions for earnest discernment and scrutiny of candidates, as well as opportunities for continual fraternal spiritual and professional formation and development.
One thing that plagues the Catholic priesthood today is that too many men serve as "lone rangers", without the kind of support that multi-priested rectories used to provide in the "good old days". I think that with an influx of Anglican-Catholic clergy, married and celibate, into the priesthood the kind of fraternal interactions that used to both take the stress off of ordained ministry and provide honest feedback to clergy in need of correction will again occur and enrich the priesthood. Married clergy will find support and, where occasioned, holy rebuke from fellow priests – both married and celibate – and celibate clergy will doubtless find their own lives enriched, perhaps even in some cases by them serving as "Dutch Uncles" to some clergy kids very much in need of additional discipline – and love.
At least that's how I see the possibilities. Maybe it sounds a bit too Pollyanna, but I honest think it call could work together for good, if we just give it half a chance!
Just so there is no confusion:
I am married (20 years now) with five children (and praying for more). I am completely in favor of the married priesthood, but have concerns about unfaithful clergy (married or celibate). My post was not intended to give reasons to resist married priests in the Ordinariate (I would like to be one myself), but merely to point out that the Holy Father's generosity does not mean that we can ignore our personal responsibilities (and they are many).
I am also glad to see that this post has brought comments with different perspectives as that is often the most helpful way of working through a subject.
Father the exercise of Christian headship by a married priest or layman, is profoundly challenging in these times when the rights of women to equality are held by the majority of people – secular and by a substantial proportion, perhaps majority too, of Christians.
Ultimately wives are individual souls before God, accountable before God in the same way as any man. I think you place far too much consequence on married priests. They are doing their best, and their wives are doing their best. Maybe they don't fit a culturally atrophied stereotype. Prayer and the grace of the Lord can change people and circumstances.
Prayer, fasting, humility and service – these have much more capacity to assist a married priest to deal with marital challenges than expecting contemporary women to respond positively to assertive male headship.
Thank you for your input here, but I must humbly disagree (no quarrel, just making myself clear). First (if I'm reading you correctly), I do not consider Scripture to be a stereotype (Eph 5:22-33), and I place no more on the married priests (of which I am one) than Jesus already has done in His Word (Titus 1:6, etc.). Secondly, we are in our current mess precisely because of what is held by the "majority of people" who have so changed this society that now the biblical order for a family is viewed as strange. It may be strange, it may be old fashioned, but it is still the standard that we are called to. We got into this mess slowly and it will be slow getting out, but we cannot accept the error as the new norm.
I do, however, agree that "prayer, fasting, humility and service" are desperately needed, but please don't forget repentance.
Dear Father – thank you for your comments. I do not disagree with Holy Scripture at all in relation to what it teaches in relation to the family and I do not accept the new order as normative.
My only point was that sometimes God calls me to holy orders with marriages that are not Biblical – and prayer, fasting and repentance and humility are what the priest needs to exercise to seek the power of God to effect change.
In relation to the place of women in Holy Church why does the Roman Church – or at least the modern Novus Ordo Church that is 99% of the Latin Church in the First World have women "special ministers" but often no male acolytes and no subdeacons since Paul VI abolished them for all except FFSP? Why does the Roman Church not teach women to cover their hair as was done before Vatican II, or does not object to women in trousers? Within the Eastern Church head scarves and seemly skirts are normative for women, young and old. In the East one never sees women in the sanctuary or women reading the Epistle or leading the prayers of the faithful.
In my view there should be no women special ministers, and a restoration of the subdiaconate and extension of the permanent diaconate would at least enable parishes to return to the liturgical order that characterised the Latin Church before the unseemly reforms of Paul VI.
You and I are on the same page as regards the "place of women in Holy Church". It is a subject that is considered "taboo" by many so that no one will get offended; I'm glad you mentioned it. God bless you!
I am a Roman Catholic, and have been all my life. I read this blog because I hope for all Christians to one day be united, and I appreciate reading about the experience of Anglicans as they consider "coming home to Rome" (as we call it).
However, I must interject here that there seems to be some basic misunderstanding about the celibate priesthood. Firstly, celibacy has nothing to do with pedophilia. If it did, married Protestant pastors in marital relationships, who have not been having relations with their wives in great lengths of time would be out molesting children. I hear nothing about this on the nightly news, so I can only assume that it is not happening.
Secondly, when a man marries a woman, they have a family. The man is head of that household, and he is devoted to the welfare of his wife and children. They are the objects of his time and attention. When a man is ordained a priest in the Catholic Church, he is married to the Church, in a sense. He becomes the spiritual father to hundreds of families. He must be devoted to them and their welfare, available to them in God's service at all hours of the day and night. While it is commendable that a Protestant woman is willing to share her husband with her church, and I respect the married priests on this site, a man who is married simply is not capable of the complete and total sacrifice of his life to God if he is married to a woman and has an earthly family for whom he he is responsible.
Thirdly, it is my understanding that within the Catholic Church, any married priests are NOT allowed at the actual altar, that even back in church history, non-celibate priests were not allowed to perform the Eucharistic portion of the liturgy. I apologize for my lack of appropriate terminology, I know there's a phrase for it. If there is a Catholic priest or theologian out there who knows better than I, please correct me.
I do hope that all Anglicans (and any others) will prayerfully consider making the move. We Catholics do miss our separated Christian brethren, and pray for us all to be united once again.
Dear Teresa, a few thoughts…
Concerning pedophilia and celibacy: no argument here, although looking for news-stories about sex-starved protestant clergymen is a bit bizarre.
From time to time I hear this thing about a priest being "married to the Church." This isn't an image the Church uses. In fact, a priest who is in the sacrament of marriage actually "images" in his own life the scriptural reference to marriage being a "type" of the relationship between Christ and His Church. His own life shows his understanding of this principle, and his faithfulness in marriage is reflected in his faithfulness to his priestly vocation. And when people bring out the tired old argument which says that a celibate man can devote more time to his people, they've lowered the discussion to mere practicality. The Church now has more than a generation's time of seeing how devoted married priest are, and whether they are available to their people. I can say without exception that I am available at the same level as any of my celibate brethren. My day begins at 5 a.m. I'm often called out in the middle of the night. I know my celibate brethren don't spend more hours or effort in their priestly ministry than I do. We all have the same twenty-four hours in the day. In fact, when I had a celibate priest as an assistant for a few years, his "day off" was according to what I learned was fairly common practice: his day off was Wednesday, so he would leave the parish on Tuesday evening and return on Thursday morning. Compare that with my "day off," which is Saturday afternoon, unless there's a wedding.
As to your point that married priests are not allowed at the altar, I have never heard of this before. Does this reflect the idea that the marriage relationship is somehow "dirty" or causes defilement? While there were some in the history of the Church that thought this way, it has never been the Church's understanding of marriage. But, as I said, I've never heard of that before, and it certainly was not imposed by the Church when I was ordained twenty-seven years ago.
Thank you Father for your personal reflection and for setting the record straight.
I find the following statement made by Teresa to be incredible :
"it is my understanding that within the Catholic Church, any married priests are NOT allowed at the actual altar, that even back in church history, non-celibate priests were not allowed to perform the Eucharistic portion of the liturgy."
This would mean that St. Peter, the first Bishop of Rome (Pope) whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the New Testament was not allowed near the altar because he war married. The fact that he is buried in one of the most sacred places in the world, under the altar of St. Peter's in Rome should put that one to rest.
I could not agree with you more about the amazing pastoral availability and the ministry of married priests and, I might add, their wives. I can think of any number of instances of rectory families ministering over long periods of time to individuals, couples and families. Talk about availability! The rectory families that I know have been the most available and supportive people in many communities and that included celibates.
Many single priests disappear after Sunday and reappear for appointments and liturgy, but try to locate them through the week. Again, I do not speak of all or even most celibates, but there is a pattern and this is as much an issue as anything related to clergy families. So let's be honest about the range of issues and realize that there are concerns on both sides of this coin.
Finally, I think that your questioning the Jansenist element in this whole matter is more than fair. Priests married in the Western Church for the first thousand years of Christianity and continue to do so in the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church so let's be clear there is no second rate or "unclean" element to the married priest. There is one priesthood and it is that of Jesus Christ whose apostles and first bishops were both married and single.
All who are ordained are equally priests, married or single.
Fr. Phillips, I was hoping you would join in this discussion. Your insights here are priceless, as always.
Father: this reads like tough love. Well done!
Thank you. It is tough (and I wrestled over writing it for days), but every word of it is exactly as you say: said in love.
Catholic priests are married to the church in both soul and body just as Catholic nuns are married to Jesus Christ both in body and soul. yes, St. Peter was married, but he gave up his bed and treated his wife as a sister, he really renounced his family to serve His Master and father all of his spiritual children. so were the other married Apostles.
Try this: https://www.valtorta.org/mary_speaks__of_jesus_defaultpage.asp