Priesthood Question for Soulty

[JSojourner]

Hey there Soulty, you seem to really know your way around Roman Catholicism...which I find very commendable. 

I have a question for you, or for other Catholic folk on the forum.

Commonly, we are told Roman Catholic priests are not permitted to be married.  But isn't that an over-simplification?  First, am I correct that at least one Rite or Order permits priests who are married before receiving a call to the Priesthood to go through with ordination?  (Is this called the Byzantine Rite?)

Second, is it not true that a married Protestant clergyperson who converts and wishes to become a priest remains married?

It may seem obvious to you, but some of my less informed friends (all sadly anti-Catholic) are convinced that the church forbids married men from seeking holy orders. I say they are wrong, but will defer to you.

Thanks bud!

[12th Doctor]

Hey there Soulty, you seem to really know your way around Roman Catholicism...which I find very commendable. 

I have a question for you, or for other Catholic folk on the forum.

Commonly, we are told Roman Catholic priests are not permitted to be married.  But isn't that an over-simplification?  First, am I correct that at least one Rite or Order permits priests who are married before receiving a call to the Priesthood to go through with ordination?  (Is this called the Byzantine Rite?)

Second, is it not true that a married Protestant clergyperson who converts and wishes to become a priest remains married?

It may seem obvious to you, but some of my less informed friends (all sadly anti-Catholic) are convinced that the church forbids married men from seeking holy orders. I say they are wrong, but will defer to you.

Thanks bud!

To answer your first question, most of the non-Roman Rites do allow married priests.  Generally, however, the condition is that only non-married priests are allowed to become bishops.  Also, in those rites, you must be married before you are ordained.  The common practice is for a man to go to minor seminary, take a few years off to get married, then he goes to major seminary to be ordained.

For your second question, yes, married Protestant clergy who convert and want to become Roman Catholic priests are allowed to do so without conflict... and actually, I think this is true just for Protestants in general, though I'm not sure on that one.

The emergence of full clerical celibacy came about for reasons that were practical, political and spiritual. 

First off, St. Paul does say that it is immoral to not allow a person to marry, but he also says that those who can remain celibate for the sake of God should.  In the view of the Church, no one is being forbidden from marriage.  Rather, they are voluntarily giving up marriage to administer the sacraments.  Keep in mind, not all clergy are celibate.  Deacons, who are far fewer on the ground today than in earlier times, are clergy in every respect and they are allowed to marry.

From the beginning of Christian times (and indeed Jewish times), it was believed that, if a priest was going to administer sacraments, then he should remain celibate for a particular amount of time (generally 24 hours) before doing so.  As the Church emerged from the dark of the persecutions and became the dominate faith, priests soon started to administer sacraments on a daily basis.  Since the Church has always believed that the two major ends of marriage are unitive and procreative, this became a problem, as priests were getting married and literally spending their whole lives without having sex with their wives.  So as a spiritual and practical matter, the Church soon started making new priests swear to remain celibate... which eliminated the marriage question altogether.

Another reason that emerged that put pressure on the Church was that those church members who could manage to have kids were a treat to the established order in many kingdoms.  How so?  Well, the clergy were the only people who were literate.  They also held alot of power in every realm.  It was thought that their powerful, literate children might poss a threat to many rulers.  This problem caused a serious Church/State crisis (those are nothing new) and so many rulers requested that local bishops administer oaths of celibacy on new priests.

There is alot more to this issue, but those are three basic points.  Hope that helps.

[12th Doctor]

Wow... I just realized that I posted an answer almost exactly one hour after your question.  If only I could have pushed the button 11 seconds sooner.

[JSojourner]

Thanks!  Much appreciated.  :-)

[J. J.]

I would add two points:

1.  In the very early centuries of the Church, there was no requirement for priestly celibacy.

2.  Even today, having been married (such as a widower), and having children, does not preclude someone from the priesthood, in the Catholic Church.

[minionofmidas]

Another reason that emerged that put pressure on the Church was that those church members who could manage to have kids were a treat to the established order in many kingdoms.

I suppose you meant "threat"... although, of course, your wording actually makes more sense on balance.

Although the ideal of priestly celibacy is ancient, the church didn't attempt to enforce it until the 11th century. And then it was the threat to papal power posed by those quasi-hereditary bishoprics that played a sizeable role here.

[afleitch]

Another reason that emerged that put pressure on the Church was that those church members who could manage to have kids were a treat to the established order in many kingdoms.

I suppose you meant "threat"... although, of course, your wording actually makes more sense on balance.

Although the ideal of priestly celibacy is ancient, the church didn't attempt to enforce it until the 11th century. And then it was the threat to papal power posed by those quasi-hereditary bishoprics that played a sizeable role here.

Very true.

The enforcement of the practice of celebacy was also attempt to curb 'dynasticism' within the medieval Church where positions of authority were were often passed down through family; in some cases directly from father to son. This was of course when the Church had land, power and political authority (and threats to such authority) Celibacy was not designed necessarily to curb the clergy having offspring. At least not intentionally. It was designed to remove the obligation of marriage and therefore bastardise any children a clergyman may have and null any succession rights within the Church.

Now we should all be aware that medieval Europe was not an era of prudery or restraint. Children were often 'begat' outside of marriage, but could be normalised within the family and within the family dynasty (depending on what rules of succession were adhered to - and there were many) if the child was that of a lover but the father was married to someone else. Hence the need to no only be sexually celebate, but also from marriage.

[patrick1]

My Old Testament professor at college was a married Catholic priest. He was a high church Episcopal priest who converted to Roman Catholicism. He was also probably the one of the most brilliant and brave men whom I've had the pleasure to know. He could read ancient Hebrew, Greek and Latin and he did not let the stroke which paralyzed the complete right side of his body get in his way.

On the point of deacons: If you receive orders as a deacon as an unmarried man then you cannot get married subsequently.  I've never met an unmarried deacon myself.  I also never understood why the un-ordained  or non priest brothers in my high school never went the distance and became full fledged priests. But then again ,despite the brothers best efforts, I never gave life in the clergy a serious thought and did not investigate the differences in callings.  And Superoulty deacons seem much more numerous nowadays than in the church I grew up in.


I for one think that the tradition of priestly celibacy should be changed for the health and future  of the church.  This is a small sampling but the kids I graduated with who eventually became brothers were weird outcasts or frankly repressed homosexuals.   I think you need dynamic and people who are in touch with others to lead your flock. I also think that it is not good to have even a small amount in the priesthood because they cannot come to terms with their identity. As a last point of clarification, I don't have a problem with a "gay" priest.  I met Fr Mychal Judge, the first victim of 9/11, who biological would likely be classified as a homosexual and found him to be a great priest and man.  I do find it troubling that there are some who go into the priesthood because they cannot come to terms with their identity.

[12th Doctor]

My Old Testament professor at college was a married Catholic priest. He was a high church Episcopal priest who converted to Roman Catholicism. He was also probably the one of the most brilliant and brave men whom I've had the pleasure to know. He could read ancient Hebrew, Greek and Latin and he did not let the stroke which paralyzed the complete right side of his body get in his way.

On the point of deacons: If you receive orders as a deacon as an unmarried man then you cannot get married subsequently.  I've never met an unmarried deacon myself.  I also never understood why the un-ordained  or non priest brothers in my high school never went the distance and became full fledged priests. But then again ,despite the brothers best efforts, I never gave life in the clergy a serious thought and did not investigate the differences in callings.  And Superoulty deacons seem much more numerous nowadays than in the church I grew up in.

Actually, you can get married if you are already an ordained deacon, you just need the permission of the Bishop, which is usually granted.  And deacons are making a bit of a comeback, largely because of the lack of priestly vocations.  The RCC is getting desperate.

[JSojourner]

My Old Testament professor at college was a married Catholic priest. He was a high church Episcopal priest who converted to Roman Catholicism. He was also probably the one of the most brilliant and brave men whom I've had the pleasure to know. He could read ancient Hebrew, Greek and Latin and he did not let the stroke which paralyzed the complete right side of his body get in his way.

On the point of deacons: If you receive orders as a deacon as an unmarried man then you cannot get married subsequently.  I've never met an unmarried deacon myself.  I also never understood why the un-ordained  or non priest brothers in my high school never went the distance and became full fledged priests. But then again ,despite the brothers best efforts, I never gave life in the clergy a serious thought and did not investigate the differences in callings.  And Superoulty deacons seem much more numerous nowadays than in the church I grew up in.

Actually, you can get married if you are already an ordained deacon, you just need the permission of the Bishop, which is usually granted.  And deacons are making a bit of a comeback, largely because of the lack of priestly vocations.  The RCC is getting desperate.

The Diaconate is an ordained order in the Episcopal Church, as well.  Do Catholics refer to Deacons as "Reverend", "Father" or something else? 

Also -- I understand the RCC hierarchy as going, approximately, like this...

Pope
Cardinal
Archbishop
Bishop
Priest
Deacon
Religious (Monk or Nun)

Can you explain to me what a Monsignor is?  The Episcopal Church does not have Cardinals or Monsignors and I am trying to figure out their role in the RCC.  Just curious.  Thanks!

[12th Doctor]

My Old Testament professor at college was a married Catholic priest. He was a high church Episcopal priest who converted to Roman Catholicism. He was also probably the one of the most brilliant and brave men whom I've had the pleasure to know. He could read ancient Hebrew, Greek and Latin and he did not let the stroke which paralyzed the complete right side of his body get in his way.

On the point of deacons: If you receive orders as a deacon as an unmarried man then you cannot get married subsequently.  I've never met an unmarried deacon myself.  I also never understood why the un-ordained  or non priest brothers in my high school never went the distance and became full fledged priests. But then again ,despite the brothers best efforts, I never gave life in the clergy a serious thought and did not investigate the differences in callings.  And Superoulty deacons seem much more numerous nowadays than in the church I grew up in.

Actually, you can get married if you are already an ordained deacon, you just need the permission of the Bishop, which is usually granted.  And deacons are making a bit of a comeback, largely because of the lack of priestly vocations.  The RCC is getting desperate.

The Diaconate is an ordained order in the Episcopal Church, as well.  Do Catholics refer to Deacons as "Reverend", "Father" or something else? 

Also -- I understand the RCC hierarchy as going, approximately, like this...

Pope
Cardinal
Archbishop
Bishop
Priest
Deacon
Religious (Monk or Nun)

Can you explain to me what a Monsignor is?  The Episcopal Church does not have Cardinals or Monsignors and I am trying to figure out their role in the RCC.  Just curious.  Thanks!

Deacons just go by the title "Deacon".  A "Monsignor" is just a regular priest who is either an elder or has shown exemplary service in the Church.  Many people say it is French for "my Lord"... but that's not where the title comes from.  Actually, it comes from Latin, it means roughly "Wise One".

As for the hierarchy... it doesn't work quite that way.  Technically, the Pope is just the (Arch)Bishop of Rome and Archbishops have no real actual rank above a regular bishop... he is just the bishop of a "Archdiocese" which is just a big diocese.  The archdiocese usually is the flagship of the "metropolitan see" which is comprised of several diocese... Pennsylvania is considered a "metropolitan see"... but that only makes the Archbishop a kinda figure head leader.  In terms of responsibilities and powers, all bishops and archbishops are equal.

The Cardinals also don't really "outrank" the other Bishops, they are just the ones tasked with the ability to vote for a Pope.

[J. J.]

My Old Testament professor at college was a married Catholic priest. He was a high church Episcopal priest who converted to Roman Catholicism. He was also probably the one of the most brilliant and brave men whom I've had the pleasure to know. He could read ancient Hebrew, Greek and Latin and he did not let the stroke which paralyzed the complete right side of his body get in his way.

On the point of deacons: If you receive orders as a deacon as an unmarried man then you cannot get married subsequently.  I've never met an unmarried deacon myself.  I also never understood why the un-ordained  or non priest brothers in my high school never went the distance and became full fledged priests. But then again ,despite the brothers best efforts, I never gave life in the clergy a serious thought and did not investigate the differences in callings.  And Superoulty deacons seem much more numerous nowadays than in the church I grew up in.

Actually, you can get married if you are already an ordained deacon, you just need the permission of the Bishop, which is usually granted.  And deacons are making a bit of a comeback, largely because of the lack of priestly vocations.  The RCC is getting desperate.

The Diaconate is an ordained order in the Episcopal Church, as well.  Do Catholics refer to Deacons as "Reverend", "Father" or something else? 

Also -- I understand the RCC hierarchy as going, approximately, like this...

Pope
Cardinal
Archbishop
Bishop
Priest
Deacon
Religious (Monk or Nun)

Can you explain to me what a Monsignor is?  The Episcopal Church does not have Cardinals or Monsignors and I am trying to figure out their role in the RCC.  Just curious.  Thanks!

Deacons just go by the title "Deacon".  A "Monsignor" is just a regular priest who is either an elder or has shown exemplary service in the Church.  Many people say it is French for "my Lord"... but that's not where the title comes from.  Actually, it comes from Latin, it means roughly "Wise One".

As for the hierarchy... it doesn't work quite that way.  Technically, the Pope is just the (Arch)Bishop of Rome and Archbishops have no real actual rank above a regular bishop... he is just the bishop of a "Archdiocese" which is just a big diocese.  The archdiocese usually is the flagship of the "metropolitan see" which is comprised of several diocese... Pennsylvania is considered a "metropolitan see"... but that only makes the Archbishop a kinda figure head leader.  In terms of responsibilities and powers, all bishops and archbishops are equal.

The Cardinals also don't really "outrank" the other Bishops, they are just the ones tasked with the ability to vote for a Pope.

I think that you should add that "Monsignor" is basically an honorific granted by the Pope, and  at one time  expired upon the Pope's death.

[JSojourner]

Very interesting and informative feedback, guys.  Thank you so much.