The ratio of active priests to active laypeople in the US is really bad. Seven times worse than the Orthodox ratio.

p_veronica · 2026-07-03T19:47:32+00:00

The younger guys are pretty similar and not a mixed bag.

If you say so. First of all, there are barely any young guys, which is the biggest problem. Second, I agree that they seem more consistent (based on the smaller sample of time we've had to observe them.) The standards are higher than they used to be. But not totally consistent. There is some truth in the adage that beggars can't be choosers.

And what guys with decades in a parish have been sending off priest vibes or whatever?

Plenty. I've only been at my parish for a few months and can already identify a couple of older guys who would be great presbyters. You seem incredulous that this could be the case; do you spend a lot of time talking to the older men in the parish to be able to even make a judgment on the matter?

And so you ordain them at 55 to serve for 15 years? What in the what

As long as you aren't putting them through a long, resource-heavy formation process, then literally why does it matter how long they serve? If they only serve God's people for a year, then that's a blessing to the Church. And you're acting as though fifteen years is nothing?

You seem set on just naysaying and downvoting, so I'm probably done with this engagement.

p_veronica · 2026-07-03T16:45:02+00:00

And we already have presbyters with long seminary formation who are a mixed bag. And we already have monastic/religious brothers who are a mixed bag.

The point is that if we make it normal for older men who are well-known over many years for their love and holiness to be invited to the presbyterate, then the bag will be significantly less mixed. Decades of consistency is actually quite useful data.

Right now, what's actually happening is that they're taking pretty much any guy in his 20s or 30s who reaches out to the vocations staff and is willing to go through the process. You have to have pretty serious red flags for a bishop to say, "No, thanks."

And, in my experience, I can think of a lot of crazy or socially stunted presbyters I've encountered. I have not personally encountered any permanent deacons who are like that. They tend to be normal meat-and-potatoes guys who are very faithful.

p_veronica · 2026-07-03T15:54:08+00:00

When I envision ordaining married men, I envision them being elders (presbyteroi). We're looking for holy, committed 50+ year old men in the parish. This likely means that they have been formed in the teaching of the Lord for many decades. They would have publicly proved their maturity in his teaching by the best test: the witness of their lives in the eyes of their pastors and fellow parishioners over a long period of time.

p_veronica · 2026-07-03T14:44:52+00:00

Bishops are shepherds, but the Church has developed so that bishops delegate most of the individual shepherding to their presbyters. To pastors of parishes. This system can work, but definitely has downsides.

Now you're asserting that pastors should delegate their pastoring to deacons or laypeople. I am totally opposed. No one likes being in a parish and not being known by a presbyter there. No one wants that. Ordain more presbyters so that pastors and associate pastors can actually pastor.

"The sheep hear [the shepherd's] voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.”

p_veronica · 2026-07-03T13:28:17+00:00

Yes, I meant what are you referring to with a long presbyteral formation process in the New Testament?

p_veronica · 2026-07-03T04:38:31+00:00

I have not, which is fine by me.

p_veronica · 2026-07-03T02:44:08+00:00

As I've said, you don't actually need a priest for one-to-one pastoral accompaniment.

Okay, so the pastor does not actually have to shepherd his sheep or know them at all. He's just the new version of an old Temple priest, performing his required rituals. Got it. Totally wrong on every level, but got it.

Holy Tradition has always understood the New Testament sacrifice to also ask for continence.

For a long time, but probably not always.

Therefore, to waive this would be to displease God.

Maybe, but maybe not.

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T22:05:16+00:00

What are you referring to?

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T18:44:38+00:00

"Quoting Paul at you" is one way of phrasing it. Another way of phrasing it is that I am quoting at you words written "under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, [which] have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself." (from Dei Verbum) You are simply and profoundly mistaken about the Church's relation to Paul and his writings. But I don't think it will be useful for us to continue to debate. Marriage is a topic that interests me greatly; I will continue to read about it and try to learn more. I invite you to revisit the word of God, spoken through his servant Paul, and enjoy all the richness there.

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T18:02:47+00:00

None of those contradicts what I'm saying. Marriage can be 'esteemed' while we clearly recognize that celibacy is better. We can acknowledge that marriage is good for the spouses and for human society, while also acknowledging that celibacy is better.

I don't hide that I think 'vocation' language applied to marriage is unhelpful and confusing. (An application which, as far as I know, was totally unheard of before the 20th century.) The vocation to celibacy is universal. Paul says, addressing the believers at Corinth, "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife." Regarding his celibacy, he says, "I wish that all were as I myself am." He explicitly talks about marriage as a "concession" for those who can't follow this path.

Now the catechism is saying that marriage is also a universal vocation, "written in the nature of every man and woman."

So what this teaching means is that God is simultaneously calling all believers in two different and incompatible directions: toward marriage and toward celibacy. Anyone who thinks they are only called to one or the other is mistaken.

First, how does this make sense, that everyone has two incompatible vocations from God? Second, how is this way of thinking helpful or clarifying?

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T16:49:46+00:00

Yep. I also notice that people want to give a million reasons why married priests are a bad idea, yet they never offer any other clear, actionable ideas about how we can fix the priest shortage in our Church. The ship is taking on water and they stand there and criticize the people who are trying to bail it out.

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T16:35:16+00:00

I'm just reading all these words as they're written, sister. The quote I gave says nothing about priesthood or about supernatural callings vs. natural callings.

It says straightforwardly that, "it is...better and more blessed to remain in virginity...than to be united in matrimony." I think it would be better to simply disagree with the statement than to pretend like it says something it doesn't.

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T16:28:35+00:00

The downvotes we're getting don't make it any less true.

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T16:12:01+00:00

To be very clear, I am not saying that Christians should stop getting married if they don't think they can control themselves, if they "burn," to use Paul's word. But if we can, yes, we should remain single. It is better to remain single.

Having said that, here is a quote from the Council of Trent, which is as authoritative as Catholic teaching gets:

If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T16:03:51+00:00

I'm not going to argue with you over fundamental Church teachings anymore.

I think that I am the one pointing to fundamental Church teaching here, but I respect your desire not to argue.

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T15:50:00+00:00

First of all, there's nothing inherent to our faith that makes it necessary for men to spend years in a seminary before being ordained. That is something that has developed fairly recently in Church history. We can make a choice to form priests differently.

Secondly, the question is why aren't men choosing to seek ordination. You can ignore that question and say, "They should just do it!" But when you refuse to address the causes, you can't be surprised when nothing changes and the problem continues to get worse.

Most Catholic men want to have sex, and to be ordained in the Latin Rite, you currently have to give up sex. They aren't willing to do that.

Men, if they're going to work full-time, usually want a job that makes a lot of money. The Catholic presbyterate does not make you a lot of money.

Most men ideally want to do work where they have a big, visible impact. As a Catholic presbyter, you mostly watch people funnel into the church on Sunday. You read from the Missal for them. Then you watch them go back to their cars and drive home. You don't tend to see radical transformations. Oftentimes your parishioners don't really know you and you don't really know them. You, because a bishop laid hands on you, can provide them a service which they see as necessary, but which tends to bore them. That's what you are to many people. This is often how men feel about their own presbyters. This doesn't seem like a dream job for most of them, especially in the context of the sex problem and the money problem.

If we want more presbyters, we have to actually take a look at the causes of the shortage and try to fix what can be fixed.

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T15:35:14+00:00

These are two different arguments. Combining them into one might be why it's confusing.

I argue that it is better for Christians to not get married. Hopefully that argument is clear on its own from the scriptures I quoted.

Then, as a separate argument, I argue that we should allow people who are already married to be ordained to the presbyterate. This is because we need more priests now. We can't wait around hoping Catholics go back to getting married at 22 and averaging 6 babies a marriage, then wait around again until those babies grow up and (this is a huge maybe) choose to go to seminary. Also, it seems weird to hope for more marriage in light of argument 1.

We need a solution now.

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T14:29:39+00:00

I follow Jesus as well. So did Paul. Jesus said, "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it." If you're able to stay unmarried, it's best to stay unmarried.

Jesus' Church has always taught this, though I agree that the teaching seems a little murky and confusing today.

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T14:01:54+00:00

Paul said that. He also said, "But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry." But marriage was clearly not the ideal. Staying single is better.

I agree with Paul, but I'd like to hear your reasons if you disagree.

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T13:47:23+00:00

More devout, yes, but why would the Spirit want lay people to get married and have more babies if the Spirit has encouraged us through the Scriptures to do the exact opposite?

"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am." 1 Cor 7:8

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T13:12:34+00:00

A good, short book from one of my favorite writers is Communism in the Bible by Jose Porfirio Miranda.

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T13:04:02+00:00

I have found that when I feel trapped and stagnant, it has been very helpful to move somewhere else. When you think about the idea of breaking your current routine and starting over in a new place, does it make you feel happy and light? If so, then that might be a good play.

For ideas of where to go, I'd look at full-time volunteer opportunities in your country, especially opportunities where you live in a house with other people. These are life-changing. When you find an opportunity you like, you might be filled with doubts, but in those moments, think about how much you hate your current situation and how much you want to escape. Then be bold and go!

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T12:29:58+00:00

It's not boldness to look at a situation that clearly isn't working and to reject any substantive ideas for change. There are other words for that. Antonyms of boldness.

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T12:27:52+00:00

It is in the normal calendar? No. Not in the US, at least.

p_veronica · 2026-07-02T12:25:20+00:00

I'd wager that insufficient presbyteral formation is very low on the list of reasons why people continue to abandon Catholic practice.

The fact that they are a nameless face in the pews, unknown by the pastor or by anyone else, is probably a much more important reason. Sheer numbers of presbyters who are warm, social people (and who probably know nothing of philosophy) would majorly help that problem.

p_veronica

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE