Is it really necessary to have unwed Priests,sometimes giving marital advice ? And why now women Priests who are naturally more caring and sympathetic than men? I suspect there is no good reason other than the historic one that women were somehow inferior.

I grew up in a Protestant Church. And like most Protestant Churches, we had married men and women as clergy. So, in my home church, this was considered perfectly natural. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church is free to make its own rules and adhere to whatever traditions it likes. However, I think is a certain advantage among Protestant ministers when giving out marital and childrearing advice. They've experienced first hand the trials and tribulations that a modern family has to deal with. This direct experience makes them better equipped, IMHO, to understand and aid a family in distress.

A celibate priest has never had to deal with the dreaded "seven year itch". He's never had to deal with a baby's 4 am feeding than get up for work two hours later. He's never had to wait up late, wondering what his teenager was up to when they were out past curfew. He's never had to deal with a spouse who is unsatisfied with the direction of their lives.

Breaking a vow of celibacy may be a violation of a convenent with God, but breaking a marital vow brings pain to a person with whom you made a pledge to share your life.

Perhaps celibacy makes priests more spiritual. Personally, I have my doubts on that score. But a priest will never know what it is like to wonder if that other person is betraying you or even contemplate how much giving into the temptation to commit adultery will hurt a person he loves.

I think the Protestant way has certain advantages that aren't given enough attention. A married priest has more first hand experience with the trials and tribulations that face a modern American family. And when it comes to counseling couples or families in distress, this advantage is a clincher for me.

That may be the case, but clergy are not, first and foremost, marriage counselors. For that we have...duh...marriage counselors.

Mmmmm:

That may be the case, but clergy are not, first and foremost, marriage counselors. For that we have...duh...marriage counselors.

Not always. Many people go to their clergy for marriage and family counseling before they would even consider going to a licensed therapist. That's a pretty universal thing across all religions and dominations.

I have to question the finance issue here. First, every church that has married ministers seems to find a way to support them. I would guess that the real issue is that large sums of money collected at the local parish are funneled upstream to the bishops, etc. Someone has to pay for the Pope's Prada's. <link>

Greatbear- why then does the catholic church require those wishing to be married catholic to attend classes on successful marriage that are led by...a priest? You are right that marriage counselor is not the primary purpose of the clergy, but I would argue that life counselor is right up there. And the biggest part of the average parishioner's life that may need counseling is love, marriage or otherwise. It was always absurd to me that someone under a vow of celibacy for many years would purpose to give counseling on these matters.

bfish:

Greatbear- why then does the catholic church require those wishing to be married catholic to attend classes on successful marriage that are led by...a priest? You are right that marriage counselor is not the primary purpose of the clergy, but I would argue that life counselor is right up there. And the biggest part of the average parishioner's life that may need counseling is love, marriage or otherwise. It was always absurd to me that someone under a vow of celibacy for many years would purpose to give counseling on these matters.

Umm. You do know that I was making the point many people do use the clergy as life/marriage counselors all the time, right? My only point was that a celibate priest lacks many of the life experiences that might enable him to fully comprehend the problems facing a married couple.

My wife was raised Catholic, although she now calls herself a "recovering Catholic". We went through that counselling with a priest and 17 years later, I still don't know if he gave us any real useful advice. Of course, the most laughable part was when they brought in the "natural family planning" expect who managed to talk for an hour about the rhythm method with a straight face.

sorry greatbear, my comment was intended for Mmmmm....glanced to quickly at the author where you pasted Mmmm's comment.

FWIW, our diocese has a couple different kinds of marriage prep programs. While I think there is always personal meetings with a priest, there are engaged encounter weekends, led by lay couples but with a priest and often a deacon present for more or less of the weekend, and pre-Cana program, which is led by teams of lay married couples. Usually in the bigger parishes there is a family life director, usually a lay person, who is also involved in marriage prep.

The diocese in which we were married had the same thing. And in fairness to the RCC, the couples counseling part of the Pre-Cana was actually very helpful for us.

When many couples go through the inevitable rough patches, however, they don't go for an encounter weekend with other couples, they talk to their clergy. And I'm still not convinced that a celibate priest has sufficient real world experiences to give a couple real, objective counseling.

There is one particular priest who is friends with my in-laws. We'll call him Father Larry Craig, because, well, my wife and I are about 95% sure he's deeply in the closet. Father Lary Craig was known in the diocese as being a tough sell on the annulment front. Now, granted this diocese doesn't have any Kennedys, so annulments aren't handed out every Christmas like candy canes. But even with couples who were legally divorced and one of them was already remarried, he would tell them that they should still try to "work things out".

Now, I'm a firm believer that people in this country get divorced too quickly and that most problems can be worked out. But there comes a time when you just have to be realistic and accept that this couple isn't getting back together.

Greatbear452:

Father Lary Craig was known in the diocese as being a tough sell on the annulment front. Now, granted this diocese doesn't have any Kennedys, so annulments aren't handed out every Christmas like candy canes. But even with couples who were legally divorced and one of them was already remarried, he would tell them that they should still try to "work things out".

Now, I'm a firm believer that people in this country get divorced too quickly and that most problems can be worked out. But there comes a time when you just have to be realistic and accept that this couple isn't getting back together.

"What God has joined let no man tear asunder", or something to that effect. You only get ONE marriage. If a marriage is "annulled", it means there *never was* a marriage in the first place. If the marriage was legitimate, there can be no annullment. Father Craig should counsel the woman to live with her new "husband" as a brother until the question is sorted out, then if the first marriage is found to have been invalid, she can legitimately marry her new husband. If not, she is to my understanding committing adultery.

-remember, just a layman's opinion here.

I get that.

My problem is when the woman's ex-husband is now married to someone else and she is denied a church wedding because Father Craig still believes they can work it out. Yes ideally, marriage should be a lifetime commitment. I fully believe that and take my own wedding vows very seriously. However, it takes two people to make those vows last. I see no benefit in punishing one party when the other has clearly moved on and has no intention of even trying to get back together with her. Should she be denied a second chance at a happy marriage and family on the whims of someone who has never had any first hand experience in what makes a marriage work just because she's not a Kennedy?

I say no.

Proof positive that one needn't be in a position of authority in the Church in order to have an opinion with no basis in reality.

Greatbear452:

I get that.

My problem is when the woman's ex-husband is now married to someone else and she is denied a church wedding because Father Craig still believes they can work it out. Yes ideally, marriage should be a lifetime commitment. I fully believe that and take my own wedding vows very seriously. However, it takes two people to make those vows last. I see no benefit in punishing one party when the other has clearly moved on and has no intention of even trying to get back together with her. Should she be denied a second chance at a happy marriage and family on the whims of someone who has never had any first hand experience in what makes a marriage work just because she's not a Kennedy?

I say no.

Sure, I'd agree that given the ex-husband is re"married", Father Craig should have the decision made by whoever does it whether the marriage existed or not. At this point there's not much worth waiting on. She could always go to a different priest for advice, or appeal to the Bishop. Priests are people, not God. They are as prone to normal human error as the rest of us.

OTOH, I don't know what Father Craig knows about the situation, but it's certainly more than I do. Perhaps he has already reviewed the material and found (in his head) that the marriage was indeed a valid one, and was trying to say that so gently that his remarks were misinterpretted. Stranger things have happened.

NightSwimmer:

Proof positive that one needn't be in a position of authority in the Church in order to have an opinion with no basis in reality.

If you aren't a member of a church, its inner workings, or effects on its members shouldn't concern you much.

After all, I don't care about the hardships not eating pork does to Muslims.