Dear Rev. Know-it-all,
I have heard that they are thinking of
allowing some priests to marry somewhere in some jungle far away. What are your
thoughts? I thought priests were
supposed to be unmarried celibates.
Sally Bates
Dear Sally,
I think you are talking about a Synod
of Bishops, scheduled for October 2019 in which bishops from Latin America’s
Amazon region will meet to discuss issues confronting the church in that part
of the world. One of the most pressing issues is the lack of clergy in the
area. It is rumored that the possibility of ordaining married men may be on the
agenda.
What do I think of it? "Do not move your neighbor's boundary stone
set up by your predecessors in the inheritance you receive in the land the LORD
your God is giving you to possess.”
Deuteronomy 19:14 And for good measure, Deuteronomy 27:17: ”Cursed is he
who moves his neighbor's boundary mark.” Job 24:2: ”Some remove the landmarks;
They seize and devour flocks.” Proverbs 15:25: “The LORD will tear down the house
of the proud, but He will establish the boundary of the widow.” Proverbs 22:28
“Do not move the ancient boundary which your fathers have set”. Hosea 5:10:
“The princes of Judah have become like those who move a boundary. On them I
will pour out My wrath like water.”
Six separate times the Bible forbids
monkeying around with boundary stones. When the Bible says something six times,
I’d pay attention. Why shouldn’t you move an ancestral boundary stone? You can
never get it back quite the way it was, and soon you are going to find out why
it was there in the first place. I remember an old Lithuanian priest, Fr, John
Plancas. When he saw them taking the confessionals out of the churches, he
shook his head and said, “Soon they’ll figure out why they put them there in
the first place.” Change happens. It’s
supposed to happen, but how and why it happens is very important.
Celibacy has a long and disputed
history in the church The Council of Elvira (306) is apparently the first
official meeting of the church that required clergy to abstain from sexual
intercourse. "Bishops, priests, deacons, and others with a position in the
ministry are to abstain completely from sexual intercourse with their wives.”
This may refer to the period immediately preceding the celebration of the
Eucharist as is the practice in the Eastern Church Catholics and Orthodox even
for the laity. Around 390, the Council of Carthage decreed that, “It is fitting
that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites (deacons)…, to
observe perfect continence, (as) the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself
observed... It pleases us all that bishops, priests and deacons, guardians of
purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who
serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.” Note the phrase “serve at the
altar.” The implication, in light of
well-known custom among eastern Christians, is that when they are serving at
the altar they refrain from relations as a kind of fasting.
Saint Hilary of Poitiers (315–68), a
Doctor of the Church, was a married bishop. Pope Felix III (483–92), whose
father was almost certainly a priest, was the great-great-grandfather of Pope
Gregory the Great (590–604). Pope Hormisdas (514–23) was the father of Pope
Silverius (536–37). It is unknown whether they lived a normal conjugal life
after their ordinations. The First Council of Nicaea (325) considered ordering
all married clergy to refrain from conjugal relations, but the Council was
dissuaded from doing so by a monk, St. Paphnutius of Thebes. (Some scholars
doubt the existence of St. Paphnutius and say that clerical marriage was
allowed because of pressure by Emperor Constantine the Great. The point is
moot. Even when something is forbidden, it is not forbidden unless it was going
on, and Paphnutius is a really cool name. You can’t make up things like
that.) It seems to make great sense that
one fasted from intimacy for a stated time before the offering of the
Eucharist, as is still done in eastern Catholic and eastern Orthodox
communities.
The reason that priests in the Latin west are celibate is probably
because Western Christians became accustomed to daily mass following the custom
of the monasteries. Both east and west, monks celebrated daily Mass and
included intimacy as something from which they fasted in preparation.
Non-monastic priests and laity only fasted at certain times of the year and in
preparation for the Holy Eucharist. Where mass was offered every day, it makes
sense that the celebrants be unmarried. It seems that in the Latin west
celibacy began to be the usual custom around 400 or 500 AD. In the Greek
speaking east celibacy has never really caught on except among monks and
bishops.
The rule of thumb is this: a married man may be ordained, but an ordained
man may not marry. If a man is called to Holy Orders and comes with a
wife, well, he comes with a wife. If he doesn’t come with a wife, be he single,
or a widower, he may not marry after ordination. Married deacons in the west
are ordained with this condition. If they are married, they promise not to
marry a second time. That’s how it has always been. Unlike the Greek east, our
custom in the west is not to ordain married men to the presbyterate except by
rare exception. Why the long history?
Because I want to make the point that there is nothing innovative or heretical
about ordaining married men. We do it now. We have always done it. I know that I will get some complaints from
hyper traditionalists who are so traditional that they disregard tradition, but
history is history.
HOWEVER, I’m not sure that ordaining
Amazonian men is a good idea at this time or in the manner being contemplated.
There are problems.
1)
Money. If you are going to have married clergy who are full time you had
darn well better pay them a decent wage. If you don’t they will find
interesting ways to make money. I remember hearing of the situation in a
distant country where it was common for indigenous priests to have common law
wives and children. The locals preferred the missionaries from America over
their own clergy, because the Americans didn’t demand exorbitant fees for
sacraments. “How shameful!” I hear you say Hold on. If a man has a wife and a
slew of kids he must think about how he is going to feed, clothe, house and
educate them. A man’s natural concern
should first be his own family. This is natural and even holy. Familial
responsibilities will limit the clergy in unexpected ways. Priests don’t like
to offend their bishops or their congregations but will occasionally take a
bold strand when they believe it to be a matter of conscience. Had I a wife and
kids to feed my conscience would be a lot more picky. I ought to take the brave
stand even if it means getting kicked of the parish, but do I have the right to
make my family homeless for the sake of my conscience which I may just be
mistaking for my bad temper.
2)
Danger. I have served in really bad neighborhoods most of my life. Had I
a wife and children, you bet I would prefer the north suburban parish to the inner-city
parish. The priest may be hero, but it is only natural and noble to want the
best for one’s wife and kids.
3)
Sex. It is a very painful thing for a community when its priest falls
afoul of the sixth commandment. It is really painful and a source of really
enjoyable gossip when the priest’s wife or kids get caught in a compromising
situation. I just read about a Roman
Catholic priest of the Anglican usage who was recently arrested. His wife had
been having a fling, I believe with a member of the congregation. The priest
kidnapped her, drove her all over the city hitting her, yelling at her and blaring
heavy metal music. He stopped at their parish church where he made his wife
kneel at the altar as he threatened to choke her. This went on for 18 hours.
According to his wife, Father took nude photos of her which he threatened to
send to everyone in the parish. I assume this will not happen a lot but when it
does, believe, you will hear about it. Divorce and abuse will probably happen
just as commonly as they happen among the general Catholic population and when
there is trouble in the rectory, there will lots of kind people who will want
to console the pastor, or console his long-suffering wife, and I don’t just
mean by bringing them hot chocolate and cookies. Get ready.
4)
Kids. Most of the pastor’s kids I have known are great people. However,
some of them spend lives in therapy because dad took better care of his parish
than he did of his family. Preacher’s kids can be just great, and no one
notices. It’s expected, after all. See the preacher’s kid’s name on a police
blotter or on the evening news and just watch the fun. I have been told that it is hell to be under
the constant scrutiny of a congregation.
It is especially tough when you are thirteen and ticked at your parents
who of course are perfect because you, poor sap, are the preacher’s kid.
5)
Lunch. I had a fun experience a
while ago. I have a good friend who married a Greek Orthodox girl. I often
visit them at their home. Every time I go to some great celebration and her
family is there, they look very nervous. I thought this was because I am
Catholic. My friend told me that it had nothing to with Catholicism. It is just
that it’s unusual for a Greek priest to go to Sunday lunch at a parishioner’s
home especially without his wife. Just imagine the scene “Honey I am going to
the widow Woopenwurst’s for lunch after church. I’ll be back around 5.” Her response: “You’re what?” We in the west
are used to the priest being part our lives and families. He won’t be, or least
shouldn’t be when he has a wife and family of his own. My friend explained that
when a priest comes by to visit, it isn’t usually a fun moment. It means
someone had died, or at least soon will. We in the west are used to a certain
closeness and even informality with our priests. In the east it just ain’t so.
There is a wife to help make sure it ain’t so. Shall I continue? I might as well
take the plunge.
I have probably insulted most people
already, but now I will take on a real challenge. CLERGY WIVES!!!! I’ll save
that for next week at this point – it would probably good to have a wife
who would wisely tell me to cool it.
Rev. Know-it-all
History and exceptions are there for reasons and to know history "should" help us not repeat it when it is bad history. One other point is when the congregation is asked to give more and the preachers family is living better than others who are asked to give more. Then the college education is being paid by a congregation who may have members who cannot afford to send their kids to college but has to pay for the preachers children etc....
ReplyDelete