www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Can East and West Coexist With Married Priests?

The past couple of weeks I have been working on an article at my blog on the issue of married priests in the Eastern Church and the ecumenical implications that might have for future reunion of East and West. While priestly celibacy is not viewed as one of the major issues in the ecumenical dialogue, the issue is something to contemplate. It actually could be one of the first things to be settled if actions would match words. But, I'm tipping my hand here...

The article has been a work in progress and has grown from its initial posting. It can be read here:

Can East and West Coexist With Married Priests? [orthocath.wordpress.com]

I seek comments from people here to help me finalize the final form. Please feel free to post comments and suggestions for improvement here or via PM. Thanks!

Dave,

I did a very quick read and it is, to no surprise, an excellent article. I want to read it again at a bit more leisure than I have at the moment and will get back to you after doing so.

Have to admit that even I - jaundiced and cynical as I am - was amazed at the speed with which someonee seized on the topic and declared that the


And that's the bottom line, we need to get with the program - that it's not our program is just our hard luck

Thank goodness, that was his balanced, non-polemical view - I'd have hated to see his comments were he feeling triumphalistic

Many years,

Neil

I think stronger mention should be made of the presence of married priests in the Latin Church--presently more than 100 in the United States alone, far outnumbering the married Eastern Catholic presbyters here--and the likelihood of many more entering through the new Anglican Use ordinariates.

You can also mention that, in addition to this dispensation, present Latin usage permitting married "permanent" deacons is a departure from the traditional Latin view that all higher clergy (subdeacons upward) had to be celibate. If the Latin Church is flexible in its application of its own disciplinary rules, and in fact can modify those rules according to its own needs, it is in no position to demand anything on that account from the Eastern Churches.

In fact, I would make the case that the problem lies more with some Eastern Catholic bishops than with the Latin Church. They do not really want married presbyters and find that celibates are cheaper and easier to administer. I've also heard the sorry excuse that admitting married men would not be "fair" to the existing celibate presbyters--a self-fulfilling prophesy if ever there was one.

"celibates are cheaper and easier to administer".

Easier to CONTROL micht be a better word. The Bishops (God bless 'em) know that married priests answer not only to them but also to their wives, children nad in-laws. Since I am persuaded that many if not most bishops really SAVOR exercizing POWER over people, a married priesthood would diminish that pleasure.

To say nothing of the expense involved in providing insurance, housing etc. for the priests' wives and children.

And then there's that old worry about what the Latins would think. When (if ever) are we gonna lay off being troubled by what they might think? Why would any of us even CARE?

If what I'm saying is true then things have seriously gone haywire.

Well, yes. I was trying to be, um. charitable. The first words that actually came to mind were control, manipulate, bully and cow. Kind of hard to do any of that with an angry Pani banging on the chancery door.


I would estimate that a married priest would require about $75,000 per year in direct compensation, plus housing, a car and a medical plan. Out of that, he could buy his own life insurance policy.

For comparative purposes, most rabbis make about $150,000, and some of the upscale synagogues pay their rabbi more than $300,000.

The manager of your local supermarket is paid more than six figures. A priest is worth at least that much. The journeyman is worthy of his wage.

75k, plus housing, a car, and a medical plan?
That's a pretty sweet deal that the majority of American families don't even have.

I will admit, though, I think that is really what it will take. I hold to the belief that what used to draw men to the priesthood was upward mobility. The priesthood used to offer education and increased social stature. Now that everyone has the chance to receive higher education, and can get a 401k plan, etc. the economic and social benefits aren't there anymore.
I wouldn't discount that factor in the decline of vocations in the past 60 years.

Consider Catholic social doctrine, which requires that a man earn a living wage, so that his wife can care for their children. Consider also the responsibilities that the parish priest undertakes: beyond his purely pastoral responsibility for the spiritual welfare of his flock, he manages a major physical plant, distributes charity, contracts for services, has to meet payroll. I would say his job is at least as onerous as a supermarket manager, wouldn't you?

And, to be honest, in many parts of the country $75,000 doesn't go very far (it would be lower middle class in my neck of the woods). A priest with children needs to sock away money for college, as well as for his own retirement (and life insurance, as I indicated above).

I'm not against having just one priest on payroll, by the way. The pastor has a full time job, but not the assistant pastor. He can have a secular job, provided it is suitable (bartender in a strip joint would be right out), and, like the deacons (and the Apostle Paul), can pay his own way.

I think you end up with a situation where a married priest with a family could only serve at a rather financhially stable parish.

Stuart,

I'm not disagreeing with you, in principle. But the argument always revolves around just what constitutes a "living wage".
Does a living wage constitute the ability to save for a 401k, to save for kids college, for a new car every 5 years? It depends upon how one defines the "needs" of a person.

Many protestant ministers are married, and many make a very good wage with a housing allowance as well. I don't be-grudge a minister his pay. But I think the devil is in the details.

Our parish is far from financially stable. It is only by the grace of God that we have survived at all the last 10 years. In September, we welcomed a married priest and his family. We are not even in a position to provide them with housing. Each month that goes by, we see a deficit and wonder how it will all work out. We invited him here, and he graciously left his homeland to come and serve us as our priest. We pray that someday our parish may grow to the point that we can support him and his growing family, and we are excited to see that growth happening, but we still have a long way to go. The practical issues are significant for Father and his family, though. Even the most generous parish in America is not used to giving at the level that would support a priest with a family.

By all accounts, he has been well received by the local Latin Rite church. His wife is Latin Rite and her family is well known in the community. I have not heard a single negative comment about his arrival, but his presence has created many opportunities for education. I have enjoyed watching the reactions of people as they learn about his marital status, which range from surprised to curious to very accepting.

I would say you have to look at comparable jobs and structure the compensation package to cover matters such as locality (costs of living vary widely), family size, and outside compensation (e.g., if there are no children or grown children, and the wife chooses to work, that can be taken into account). I do think a living wage ought to include provisions for retirement (unless, of course, the diocese wants to pick up that one), and something that would allow the family to send its children to school. If the priest and his wife live in accordance with Catholic moral doctrine, you can expect them to have many children, as well (though perhaps not as many as some Orthodox rabbis I know, who have seven or eight).

Per Lawrence, yes, financial stability is important. Somehow the Orthodox manage to do this. Most certainly there is going to have to be a change in the typical Catholic layman's attitude that dropping a couple of bucks in the collection plate absolves him of further financial commitments to the Church (part of that comes, I think, from the widespread notion that the Catholic Church is rich as Croesus).

Many Protestant groups actively encourage tithing; I think the Catholic Church ought to do the same, also taking into account in-kind contributions and sweat equity.

IMO, American (latin rite) Catholics are fickle. It seems that many want a married priesthood, but if they were then expected to pony up an extra 10-20 bucks a week in order to properly support a married priest, I'd bet it wouldn't happen. I hate to say it, but that's my guess.

Just running some numbers;

to support a married priest, with a total salary and benefits package of $90k, even for a very small parish of only 100 familes (assuming 1 offering per week per family), would be just over $17 per week from each family.

That's really not all that much if you think about it, and that's just with 100 regular weekly contributors.

My latin rite parish has over a thousand families.

I think you're underestimating the number of people who think they are doing well to put 5-10 dollars in the collection plate every week. For them, and they represent significant numbers, you are asking that they more than double their contribution.

I'm curious, how much do you think married clergy actually get per year?