Married priests, Conservative views
D. Paul Sullins, a sociologist at Catholic University of America and himself a married priest-convert from the Episcopal Church, has a new survey of married convert-priests that shows they are generally as conservative as we suspected–only moreso. As summarized in the September issue of ReligionWatch (not yet on-line), Sullins’ survey of many of the 70 married men who have become priests in the U.S. since 1980 under the Vatican’s special exception shows that they are consistently more conservative on sexuality issues than celibate priests. Some 84 percent of convert-priests said sex before marriage is “always” a sin, as opposed to 57 percent of other priests, and 89 percent said homosexual behavior is always sinful, versus just over half of other priests.
Interestingly, married convert-priests were far more likely than other priests–61 versus 29 percent–to oppose allowing priests to marry. Hypocrisy, some may say. Or maybe they know something we don’t? Also, a whopping 97 percent of the converts describe themselves as “somewhat” or “very” conservative, versus under 30 percent of celibate priests who self-identify as conservative. Also, married convert-priests are more likely than other priests to view ordination as giving them “a distinct and permanent status in the church” (92 v. 77 percent).
Something tells me this story is more about conversion than optional celibacy.
on September 11th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say that the plural of statistic is anecdote. Interestingly, though, the survey also says more about what these priest coverts perceive rather than what they experience. I’d be interested in a qualitative survey that measures not just their positions on sexual ethics but also their experience of being both married and a priest. It might help sort out why the majority of them oppose allowing priests to marry, though they themselves have this dual vocation. Perception is often easier to make objective than reality.
on September 11th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I’d also be interested in a survey of Eastern Rite Catholic priests who are married, especially on the issue of allowing priests to marry. As to the other issues (e.g., premarital sex), I’m guessing their views would be roughly in line with those of celibate Latin Rite priests.
on September 11th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I believe that in this case the population is somewhat self-selecting, given that the issues discussed are all issues on which the Church’s doctrinal or disciplinary positions are conservative. It’s natural that clergy from other denominations would migrate to a Church whose teachings coincide with their own views.
Clergy who can’t abide Church teaching don’t join the Church - they leave it. :-(
Incidentally, regarding the married priests’ views on married priests: it’s important to distinguish between priests who are already married before ordination, and already-ordained unmarried priests being permitted to marry. The former is permitted, the latter not, in Eastern Rite Catholicism (and the same is true for the restored “permanent” diaconate within the Roman Catholic Church). It would be interesting to know whether the survey made this distinction.
Jim
on September 11th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
We might keep in mind that married ministers are screened before entering. Does anyone know the details. I would imagine that Rome would reject anyone advocating marries priests. Part of the litmus test.
The Dutch Dominicans, in my opinion, have the solution. http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/10320/
The priesthood has always been overrated and over sacralized.
on September 11th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Jim–
Your distinction about the timing of marriage among Eastern Rite priests sent me off to do some research. I found a 2004 NCR article by Fr. Robert Fin that makes the same distinction you made. The article (link provided below) also contains the following amusing (at least I thought so) comment by Fr. Fin, a Latin Rite priest:
“In the former Czechoslovakia, where I was ordained, there were plenty of Eastern Rite Catholics who acknowledged the jurisdiction of Rome. We lived in perfect harmony with their clergy (who jokingly referred to our rectories as ‘Homes for Unwed Fathers’).
In Czechoslovak seminaries, the Latin Rite students lived together with the Eastern Rite Catholics. Our curriculum was the same, but there were some small differences in lifestyle. For instance, we had to shave, but they grew beards.
The most piquing discrepancy was that on Saturday night the Latin Rite seminarians went to the chapel to read the Lives of the Saints, but the Eastern Rite seminarians took off to visit families with marriageable girls, since they had to tie the knot before ordination.”
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:LQOOeRl4akIJ:findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_24_40/ai_n6013191+eastern+rite+%2B+married+%2B+priests&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us
on September 11th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I don’t know if this is a legitamate question or not. I wonder where do married priests stand on birth control. I have no idea.
on September 11th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I’m not sure that all these descriptors mark one out as particularly “conservative.”
Is considering sex before marriage sinful really a “conservative” stance? I know a lot of Catholics who would self-identify as “liberal” that believe this to be true.
And doesn’t ordination give one “a distinct and permanent status in the Church”? There may be more “liberal” or “conservative” perspectives on what this means, but I wouldn’t identify it as a particularly “conservative” statement. And, again, I know a lot of “liberal” Catholics who would readily agree with it.
It doesn’t come as a great surprise that married clergy from other traditions should be more conservative. Indeed, it is frequently because they have more traditional or “conservative” views that they choose to leave their denominations to join the Catholic Church.
What, I wonder, would be the alternative “liberal” ways to express one’s belief about these things?
on September 11th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
That liberal Catholics would agree with the sacralization of the clergy is true. What it shows is that liberals have to work harder at their theology. All conservatives have to do is repeat the Council of Trent, Boniface VIII, Pius IX and they are in business.
I personally believe Jesus scoffs at the notion that a priest has :a distinct and permanet status” merely because he is ordained by a bishop. I would also think that is true with the Apostles who have to be wondering all these years how the clergy bask in glory while they really had to lay down their lives for their faith. No Roll Royces for them.
So that is right about the liberal dichotomy. That is why they get nowhere. One cannot be a Rockefeller liberal. Discipleship and work are required.
on September 11th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Hi, Mark,
How do you define “liberal” and “conservative”? It seems that I’m less and less certain of what the term means.
Are you using the terms purely with reference to economic issues?
Or are you referring to the kind of arguments that someone makes for a position? For example, I could imagine someone saying that someone who opposes contraception based on a theory of “unnatural” sexual acts out of the old manualist tradition is “conservative,” but someone who opposes it out of a theology of the body perspective or an eco-feminist respect for the naturalness of women’s bodies –is not. Is that what you’re getting at?
Cathy
on September 11th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
I think a survey of the wives of married priests would make for more interesting reading.
on September 11th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Actually the wives may be more forthcoming. As part of their transition to the Catholic presbyterate, married converts must agree with a Vatican decree that they “not give undue publicity to their status”–and most of them are loathe to speak to the media (beyond the usual reasons that folks don’t want to talk to us). They probably and understandably don’t want to be made showpieces for a cause. But it’s also hard to get a real sense of their lives as married Catholic priests. Another effort to lower their profile is that these married priests are not allowed to be pastors; at least technically. In reality, of course, the vocations shortage is prompting bishops to waive that rule, in the same way that religious and lay men and women are heading parishes.
on September 11th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
To answer your question directly Mark, an alternative (to my) liberal way to express one’s belief about the priesthood is that a priest is set apart in a most important role and we need to attract men and women who will live up to such a vocation’s calling.
On the contrary I say that sacralization is a significant part of the problem. Greeley writes about this a lot. You cannot exalt a priest beyond others and then expect to call him to account. That is the issue and brings stuff like this. http://cityofangels3.blogspot.com/2007/09/where-do-we-go-from-here-just-keep.html
The above refers to a new book on pedophilia called “Sacrilege.” I will not read it because I cannot stomach it. So much for distinctiveness.
on September 11th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Yes, Cathy, that is what I’m getting at.
The categories don’t fit.
As for “distinct and permanent status,” it depends what you read into it. It seems to me that we understand marriage as giving one a distinct and permanent status as well.
As someone who is about to be ordained, I hope that ordination gives me a distinct and permanent status not because I’m special or above anyone else, but because it is a distinct vocation that God has called me to (and for which I’ve trained 10 years), to which I’ve permanently committed my life. Is that a particularly liberal or conservative view? I don’t think so. Could be wrong.
on September 12th, 2007 at 5:48 am
Perhaps sociology is inherently limited. No matter how one asks a question that is designed to provide statistically meaningful groupings of data, there will always be a tendency towards reductionism.
on September 12th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Mark and cathleen,
I agree that these sexuality issues don’t map very well to traditional political conservative/liberal labels.
E.g. regardless of whether I’m liberal or conservative in my political views, I don’t want my teenage children engaging in pre-marital sex. Speaking as a parent, that’s a matter of morality and prudence, not ideology or political preference.
on September 12th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Bill,
You seem to have so much venom and vitriol when it comes to priests, bishops and the church in general. I really wonder what keeps you in the church (if you actually consider yourself a practicing Catholic). Why stay Catholic?
Anthony
on September 12th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Dear Bill Mazzella,
Since you won’t be reading that book, I recommend Jose Sanchez’s Anti-clericalism: A Brief History.
You may find some of your ideas are quite spent.
on September 12th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Regarding the “conservative” and “liberal” labels, I think it is not so important (in this context) what meanings we here ascribe to those tags, but rather what the priests ascribe to them. The central point is that 97 percent of married convert priests self-identify as “conservative,” which probably means what it means–while less than 30 percent of other priests describe themselves that way. It’s a big divide. I suspect what they mean by those labels are fairly self-evident, and come down to social and political outlooks, and pastoral experience and such.
on September 12th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
It is a big divide, and undoubtedly significant no matter what.
But there might be some qualifications possible. “Conservative Episcopalian” is not exactly the same as “conservative Catholic.” Are these priests self-defining according to their previous affiliation or their current one?
I’d be interested to know how the other 70% of other priests self-identify. I’m guessing that most, if given this option, would say that they’re neither liberal nor conservative.
If there isn’t that “neither liberal nor conservative” option, the distinction between “somewhat” and “very” conservative becomes much more meaningful.
on September 12th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Anthony,
Is that why you don’t identify yourself. Don’t take it personally. Many of my friends are priests. What I am stressing is we need to get rid of the caste system in the church. Let’s have lunch. We are only a few miles apart.
RC,
Verba Volent, Veritas manet.
on September 12th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
You’re in trouble, Bill. When JC himself starts to take you on, can his Mother be far behind?
Watch it, boyo.
on September 12th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
It would be a great mistake to believe that I am alone in my opinion. I am not that original by a long shot. Read what Greeley has to say: “. I’ll never stop being Catholic, despite the fact that many of the current leaders of the institutional church are corrupt thugs, from the parish right up to the Vatican.”
For the complete essay by Greeley go here. http://www.agreeley.com/articles/why.html
The early church was quite diverse until Cyprian, Iraneus and Athanasius decided everyone had to agree with them.
The test of being a Catholic is behavior not doctrine. Augustine spent more time persecuting Christians than living the gospel. Jesus always stressed behavior. Obviously all honor and glory belong to God and Matt 25:36ff looms largest. There would have been no holocaust and other atrocities and wars if that were adhered to.
on September 12th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
David, you’ve read the entire article you summarize above, so here’s a guess on my part, and you can tell me if I’m right.
I’m guessing that a good number, if not most, of the married priests surveyed were Episcopalians, and that their notions about sexual behavior were formed in the still-roiling cauldron of unresolved sexual issues in that denomination.
I would further guess that most of those priests were drawn to Catholicism, in part, because of ftheir discomfort with the ordination of active homosexuals, women, and their concerns about sexual mores in the secular realm.
The Roman Catholic Church might look mighty appealing, since there are clear teachings on sexual morals and a hierarchy that upholds those teachings on doctrinal and traditional grounds.
Though, of course, official teaching doesn’t always adequately answer the questions of the faithful or stifle debate over these issues.
My guess is that any former Episcopal priest who had hoped to find refuge from these wrangles in the Catholic Church has been somewhat disappointed.
on September 12th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
There is an unfortunate lag time between the promulgation of a doctrine and the development of a really good theological support structure for it.
on September 13th, 2007 at 7:05 am
Bill,
Identify myself? I believe my full name is listed above my post. Since I too don’t believe in a caste mentality, why would my being a priest have anything to do with our discussion.
And you didn’t answer my question.
Peace,
Anthony
on September 13th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Anthony,
I am a practicing Catholic who believes the number one priority in the church is the reform of bishops and pastors. Specifically that they set an example by seeking the last seat instead of the first.
Otherwise cfr Greeley.
on September 13th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Bill,
I couldn’t agree with you more.
Anthony