<p>Well Baelor, based on the link to the article I posted there seems to be some contradiction.</p>
<p>a widower with a child then became a priest.</p>
<p>The Church typically will not ordain a widower with minor-aged children. However, in our diocese we have a couple “widower priests.” One was a doctor and one was an atty. Both have grown children and have grand-children. It’s kind of cute. LOL</p>
<p>The Church does ordain former ministers of “high churches” to the priesthood. There are over 100 in the US. And, most are married with children.</p>
<p>Celibacy is not a doctrine…it’s a custom. And the married priests do not take a vow of celibacy.</p>
<p>Typically, these “married priests” cannot be pastors…they can be ass’t pastors.</p>
<p>^Yeah, all that was noted earlier, mom. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The article explains carefully that he is a convert to Catholicism from a Protestant tradition. Therefore, the fact that he has minor children but is from a different religious tradition is an exception to the rule, the same kind of exception I already introduced earlier when discussing the assimilation of Anglican priests with families into the Roman Catholic priesthood. The normal means of entering into Catholic clerical or religous life is not by conversion from a different sect.</p>
<p>So there are a different set of rules for clergy from other denominations than their are for non-clergy?</p>
<p>BalconyBoy, your question makes no sense to me. You seem to be contrasting “other denominations” with “non-clergy.” Maybe it’s just your phrasing.</p>
<p>The Catholic Church has no jurisdiction over any religious system than its own. It obviously is in no position to tell other religions that their ministers, priests, rabbis cannot marry & create families. But if you’re asking if there’s a double standard for non-Catholic clergy with families, later absorbed into the Catholic clergy, you are correct: there is currently a double standard. And as I stated in an earlier post on that very subject, that is going to become a problem soon that will have to be addressed. So far I haven’t heard of any direct challenges to the double standard, but as a practical matter, it could be demoralizing and affect the sense of collegiality/fraternity within a diocesan rectory, eventually, depending on various factors. </p>
<p>Understand that what most people propose is optional celibacy (currently it’s mandatory for non-converting Catholics entering). Not every priest – or even most – would necessarily choose to come into religious life as a married man, let alone father as well. (Mucho responsibility.) So double-standards do not necessarily in themselves herald problems. (And it would be considered too late, as I mentioned, for an already ordained priest to later get married.) But if such a priest had wanted that option before seminary, and discovers that there’s now on staff a priest with his Anglican family living in the parish, it could become a source of resentment for him.</p>
<p>
I think most Protestant clergy are married. If celibacy became optional for Catholic clergy, what would be the reason to assume that things would be much different for them? Aside from celibacy, the jobs aren’t that much different.</p>
<p>epiphany, you mention that men cannot enter the priesthood if they have dependents, including elder dependents, since such responsibilities make them unfit for the demands of priesthood.</p>
<p>What happens if a priest becomes the sole custodian for an elder dependent? Does he have to step back from his duties until the responsibilty ends? </p>
<p>I was raised a Methodist, and they had a similar practice for dealing with certain serious personal issues. The church automatically relieved him/her of all pastoral duties for a year. So I can understand why the Catholics are wary of personal responsibilities interfering with the priestly priorities. People who have had a pastor in their families know how much care, thought and time goes into ministering to a congregation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(1) Actually, scope and hours are greater for Catholic priests, especially right now because of thin ranks. It is not unheard of, even in more densely populated urban parishes, to have cluster parishes requiring significant job-sharing and exceptionally little free time for any particular priest. Not a recipe for a good marriage. Priests are on call virtually 24/7, especially for things like Annointing of the Sick, deaths, etc.</p>
<p>(2) No Catholic parish has ever had to support a priest’s family in any remotely modern age. As it is, parishes have been closing, not opening (due to low funding for basic parish needs without any kind of add’l support given to a pastor’s family, etc.) Priests themselves get small stipends; tithing is not something required for Catholics, and the economic base of a typical congregation is shaky. And that was before the Wall Street meltdown and resulting economic contraction. If that weren’t enough (again, I’m talking especially currently), parish attendance is signficantly down vs. one year ago. The vast majority of Catholics appear in person to contribute; in addition, if they’re absent, they probably have ‘issues’ with the Church, also, translating to lack of donations.</p>
<p>Does that mean that relaxing celibacy is not an option for the future? No. Much would depend on the fiscal situation of the individual parish, combined with some kind of workable arrangement. Thus, I kind of doubt that this would entail lots of wives with young children being housed in the parish and fully paid for by the congregation. It would be more like a wife in a position to work part time, combined with few children to subsidize, or children virtually grown and nearing financial independence. And that would also probably mean little or no plans to expand that family (or few fertile years left, or both). So, on a case by case basis, depending on the parish responsibilities, I can envision it as a possibility.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If there were some unfortunate Perfect Storm, by which that priest were sibling-less (and literally no other relatives would/could step forward), and there would also be no trusted family friend to be such “sole custodian,” he could be partly or totally relieved from his pastoral duties for a time being, of course. I’m sure it does happen. He would probably try to keep some ongoing connection with his parish (or a parish near that relative). I’ve heard of a priest who took care of one dying parent, but he has never been assigned to a parish (he’s not a pastoral type, but has a different role as something of a high-visibility traveling lecturer), and he essentially took a hiatus during that time.</p>
<p>im non catholic but i go to a catholic school and apparently, according to my christology teacher, god is open to everyone and he will be more than happy to hear you repent your sins. the end.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False. The positions are actually reconcilable because the teaching on pastoral celibacy is disciplinary, not doctrinal. Therefore, the Church can both believe in the spiritual and practical benefits of celibacy while theologically permitting priests of other rites (who have always been Catholic) or priestly converts to have families. Which is, incidentally, exactly what it does.</p>
<p>The celibacy is a requirement for non-converts in the Latin rite. There is no inconsistency because it is, and always has been disciplinary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please explain the “who have always been Catholic” part.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are many Catholic rites, e.g. Latin, Chaldean, Eritrean. They are all Catholic and follow the Catholic Church. Some rites have married priests.</p>
<p>You are more than welcome to do this research on your own; a Google search will suffice.</p>
<p>Thanks for the explaination. </p>
<p>In the link I posted, this guy is not of any Catholic rite.</p>
<p>I am aware of that. Read my post detailing exceptions to celibacy very carefully. Then read the article very carefully. You will find that his situation is hardly unique and that there is no inconsistency.</p>
<p>
This isn’t really any different for Protestant clergy. In my denomination, quite a few pastors have “charges,” which means that they serve multiple churches and are on call for multiple congregations. Your point about supporting a family is a valid one, although again, Protestant pastors are often not paid that much, and many of their spouses work to provide a second income.</p>
<p>Post 177:</p>
<p>(1) From what I have heard about Protestant vs. Catholic congregations, in sum, the time demands are not equivalent, even for the “charges” you just mentioned. Historically, because priests have not been married in modern times – and now because they sometimes serve three parishes at a time – one situation feeds the other. My guess is that, were they allowed to be married, there would be less “exploitation” of the fact that they have had no other commitments outside of their priestly duties, therefore there’s been an add’l infringement upon their private time. And that’s why I disagree with you, that on a practical level, being a Catholic priest is equivalent in time demands to being a married Protestant minister.</p>
<p>(2) Diocesan priests get a stipend of approx. $900/mo, currently. Again, given huge financial deficits in parishes, there will not be money magically pouring into parish coffers to support suddenly a priest who is in turn supporting, or partly supporting, a family. And again because of historical needs and the lack thereof, there is not the culture of giving, the expectations of giving, that are more standard in Protestant churches. Jewish and Protestant families understand implicitly that their contributions are essential to maintain the very existence of their minister or rabbi, and that without such support, they will lose that clergyperson.</p>
<p>So I’m agreeing with you in substance, but slightly disagreeing in some important nuances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cradle Catholics. But the point is anyone who had a Catholic identity before marrying would be held to a different expectation than a Protestant who married and then wanted to convert to Catholicism. The latter would be allowed (& expected!) to bring the family. The former would not (currently, but again the dsicipline could change eventually) bring a family into his priesthood. He will not be accepted, currently, into seminary.</p>