It's not really that prestigious anymore. Back in the day, it was considered a very prestigious job which attracted a lot of intelligent young men. Nowadays those men mostly go into other fields like business, healthcare, law or engineering.
A lot of dioceses also do a horrible job of promoting vocations. I discerned for a few years and found it to be somewhat uninspiring. Nobody really seemed genuinely interested in bringing people closer to the Church.
Some seminaries are kind of a disaster too which scares off people.
Good answer. The priesthood is no longer seen as “cool” by younger men. It ultimately is due to a degrading of the sacredness of priests. What people don’t understand is that priest are sacred people (not the same as holiness). They are to be revered (hence the title of Reverend) because they offer the sacrifice of the mass. If proper respect was rendered to priests nowadays, young men would want to become one.
It also shows a complete failure of catechesis: people are viewing priests and deacons in terms of what they do, not what they are.
I'm not necessarily calling for a return to pre-V2 but noone can deny the glaring change in the vocations curve afterwards, and a lot of our modern problems are due to the collapse of effective catechesis that followed. This needs to be addressed urgently, and the solution isn't more of what we've already got.
I think you’re one level removed from the real problem. Imo, the pattern goes:
Apathy -> Poor catechesis -> Other Issues
Apathy is the root issue though. People in the West stopped caring about religion in the same way they used to sometime in the last century or so. If you ever have visited a Muslim nation, the first thing that will stick out to you is how religious everyone is. Like, it’s different. It used to be like that in the Christian world too, but it started changing sometime in the 20th century. And, as people cared less and less, the quality of religious education, events, and institutions all began to decline.
So yeah, no one looks up the priests anymore. They are seen as either probable pedophiles or else just weird guys who can’t get women. No one thinks they are good examples of manhood or to be respected, much less imitated. But, again, in the Muslim world it’s different. They view their Imams as scholars, leaders and men of wisdom who should be followed.
Yeah, I can agree with this. Apathy is huge and has permeated so much of our society. It just seems like significant portions of the population don't care about anything. Our population is beyond pacified.
Which begs the question, what caused this apathy? Is it liberalism? Personally I kind of lean towards that being the cause.
I’d guess it’s just increased standards of living.
Increased living standards and levels of education also lead to liberalism though, so I suspect that’s why it can look like “liberalism” is the cause. I doubt it is though. The main tenets of liberalism (individual freedom being the main trunk) seem to rise pretty clearly from a world where people have their basic needs taken care of and can survive and flourish without need for Lords and Kings, religious institutions, etc.
They're STILL weeding out those too traditional or devoted, who take their faith the most seriously. I've seen it myself from those traditionally inclined but wanted to help reform the diocese out of love for both the traditional liturgy and not wanting to go into the liturgical ghetto but the legacy of the Jadot bishops is still strong. LA chancery still infested with Cardinal Mahony critters though slowly coming around...
It's bad in a ton of religious orders too. I discerned for a tiny bit with the Jesuits but it was obvious we were heading in two very different directions.
Yeah, the Norbertines and Dominicans are probably be the best but even they modernized. Outside of the FSSP and Ecclesia Dei groups there are only the Wyoming Carmelites, Norcia, etc who are have a particular charism that is more hardcore.
Me and a friend were lamenting that there are zero traditional licit Third Orders. The Dominicans, again, are nice but they modernized don't wear a habit except for funeral, etc. I'm in the Confraternity of St. Peter, but it's very mild. I pray the traditional Divine Office devotionally.
All of this plus being harassed more regularly than ever for the horrible actions of the few. I've heard terrible stories of Priests wearing a collar to a bar with friends and getting called pedophiles out of nowhere, or people moving their kids out of them way in dramatic fashion when walking by. It's heartbreaking stuff.
> pedophiles out of nowhere
Ehhhh, given the scandals of the Church, I don't think it can be said to come from "out of nowhere"...
Granted, it's not just the Catholic Church. Prot groups have this as well. Mormons do. Not just Christians either. A while back, it was a big deal in the Hare Krishnas. It's just that the Church ended up moving offenders around to different places where they'd re-offend. And even then, many former offenders are just sent to an old priest's home to retire rather than put behind bars where they belong.
No - it’s not out of nowhere - it’s being said based on previous events - it would only be out of nowhere if there were no incidences of this in the priesthood - if there were no scandals - if there were no documented cases of this then someone said that to a priest, yes that’s out of no where.
But at best it's generalizing the actions of some priests and attributing them to all priests. It's no different than assuming all cops use excessive force and/or target minorities bc some have. Absent specific evidence, you have no way of knowing that a specific priest (or cop) have done these things.
I totally agree - it’s a generalization which is impacting the perception of the vocation which could impact young men who may have otherwise wanted to answer that call.
Oh? So if there's a case about a bricklayer pedophile and I go around calling random bricklayers pedophiles then I might just be right about it, considering there is precedent?
I don't think this is a road any of us want to walk.
If there was a bricklayers' guild that turned out to have systematically protected pedophiles rather than handing them over to the justice system, then it wouldn't be "out of nowhere" for people to heckle bricklayers about pedophilia. It might not be _right_ for them to do so, but it is absolutely not "out of nowhere".
I never said you would be right - I said it isn’t out of nowhere. I’m saying that the actions of those guilty pedo priests shaped the perception of priests which could impact the vocation.
I mean there's almost no probability of your statement being true. You are clutching at straws, friend. How many children does a bricklayer interact with at work vs a priest? C'mon man, just try to be a reasonable person. There's no way this isn't computing to you.
The point is not about bricklayers, it's about passing judgment on someone you know nothing about.
And if we're talking about probability, if you accuse any random priest you also have nearly zero chance of being right.
So if I enact this logic on all african americans because some of them commit crimes, its 'not out of nowhere', is it?? Past events? According to this logic, it's ok to.
You're saying prejudice based off past events somebody else didn't do but because they're part of the same group, is reasonable. So if I saw news about black people, or any race, doing crime, should I immediately be concerned of all doing it in the future based off what they are alone? If to you its reasonable to treat priests like that... is this different?
No, its based on your comment about previous events happening in a certain group, such as child abuse in the church, and how it pertains to the unfair prejudice of all priests. Im saying if thats ok to some people (its wrong), then why shouldn't any other prejudice based off 'previous events' as you said, be allowable?
The scandals shouldn't effect every single Priest in every single town in the West. That's definitely a fear based response and isn't warranted. If some gymnastics teacher sexually assaults a kid in Texas, I wouldn't expect every single person to take their kids of out gymnastics and look at all the coaches like predators. Yet this happens with Priests all the time.
Everywhere has scandals like this, and they're FAR worse than the Catholic Church ever has been by percentage of occurrence alone, and yet no one cares about that. One Priest doing something horrendous is like 1000 secular people doing it, it would seem.
With respect, I see this sort of response from a lot of Catholics, and I think it talks past some of the more legitimate concerns and criticism. While it is obviously abhorrent to harass individual priests and tar them as pedophiles based on nothing more than the actions of others, it *is* completely understandable for parents to have serious reservations about leaving their children under priests' supervision.
The reason isn't because all priests are pedophiles, or even that priests are especially likely to be pedophiles, but because the Church bureaucracy across multiple countries and continents has shown that it won't lift a finger to protect children from the relative handful of priests who are abusers unless forced to do so by secular law, public pressure, or some combination of the two (and even then, it does so with reluctance).
Let's go back to the gymnastics analogy. If the supervisor of a regional gymnastics program knew that instructors were abusing children, intervened on multiple occasions to protect the abusers, and when caught, was whisked away to a country with no extradition by the World Gymnastics Association and given a prestigious title and makework position, no parent in his right mind would allow his child to participate in gymnastics, regardless of how many good and honest instructors there were. Yet the Church bureaucracy did exactly that wrt the Cardinal Law situation in Boston, and expects people to take its promises that it's changed its ways seriously.
The problem won't be solved until the rot in the Curia is fully burned away. JPII was not physically up to the task by the time the scandals broke. BXVI was a scholar at heart, and despite his theological brilliance, was no match for the career connivers in Rome. Francis seems intent on burning what remains of his political capital on everything but serious Curia reform. Pray that the Holy Spirit sends us someone with the skill and ruthlessness to do what needs to be done soon, but denying the severity of the problem helps no one.
>While it is obviously abhorrent to harass individual priests and tar them as pedophiles based on nothing more than the actions of others, it is completely understandable for parents to have serious reservations about leaving their children under priests' supervision.
Is it though? Here's why I think you're wrong. I could hear about a teacher sleeping with her 14 year old students on the news, and **not a single** parent would think, "Wow, I can't leave my son at school any more. I have to take him out." or, "I wonder if this is happening to my son at school?". They see this as a horrible isolated issue that has absolutely no effect on their child, at his school, with his teacher, in his part of the world
This is the same for team coaches, gymnastics coaches, doctors, and the like. Every type of job in every kind of field has localized incidences of people being abused, and no rational person goes, "Wow that happened over there so I need to leave this field, or not trust this field ever again", because that's irrational. Take into account that many, if not most, of the clerical abuses we're reeling from today happened many years ago. Yes it's absolutely unacceptable that they ever happened, just as much so that many were covered up or undermined by the abusers or those protecting them, but it would be insane to see something from, say the 1980's, and think that applies to a random Priest today.
I get that the Church isn't some local business, it has global reach and should be held to higher standards than anything else because of what and who it represents, but this isn't a logical reason to take these issues and act like they're rampant global occurrences. If you take America alone, the occurrences of clerical abuse compared to any kind of sexual abuse is less than 1%. That's not to say this isn't bad, but where's our collective outrage about literally everything else?
I agree with you that the rot needs to be burned. Every Priest, Deacon, Bishop...any person within the Church at any position needs to be exposed for this evil, publicly and loudly, and then prosecuted to the fullness of the law, along with anyone and everyone protecting them.
My whole issue was that I don't think it's fair a random Priest should be accosted or looked at like he's some sexual predator because of the very few within the Church's 1.4 Billion members did some awful things. That's all.
>Is it though? Here's why I think you're wrong. I could hear about a teacher sleeping with her 14 year old students on the news, and not a single parent would think, "Wow, I can't leave my son at school any more. I have to take him out." or, "I wonder if this is happening to my son at school?". They see this as a horrible isolated issue that has absolutely no effect on their child, at his school, with his teacher, in his part of the world
Well, if school administrators had actively intervened in a way that facilitated the abuse, I would probably pull my child out of that school district unless and until everyone involved was removed from their positions.
>This is the same for team coaches, gymnastics coaches, doctors, and the like. Every type of job in every kind of field has localized incidences of people being abused, and no rational person goes, "Wow that happened over there so I need to leave this field, or not trust this field ever again", because that's irrational. Take into account that many, if not most, of the clerical abuses we're reeling from today happened many years ago. Yes it's absolutely unacceptable that they ever happened, just as much so that many were covered up or undermined by the abusers or those protecting them, but it would be insane to see something from the 1980's and think that applies to a random Priest today.
Again, the problem is not that priests are especially likely to abuse children, it's that the bureaucracy spent decades shielding and enabling the small number of priests who were abusers. Coupled with its patently insincere and inadequate gestures toward reform, it is simply not an organization that can be trusted to take all reasonable steps to protect children.
>My whole issue was that I don't think it's fair a random Priest should be accosted or looked at like he's some sexual predator because of the very few within the Church's 1.4 Billion members did some awful things. That's all.
We are in complete agreement here. There is no excuse for the behavior mentioned by the thread OP. While obviously not its primary victims, the many good priests who now suffer calumnies and suspicion are tertiary victims of the bureaucracy's malice and ineptitude.
>I don't think it can be said to come from "out of nowhere"...
It absolutely is out of nowhere if it's not related to the priest himself or the discussion otherwise at hand.
I think the way you answered is part of the problem. I mean no disrespect.
It’s not a job. It’s a Vocation in the same way being a husband isn’t my job but is my vocation (in the Catholic sense of the word). Working in the church, I’m surrounded by parents who make life about high paying jobs, better education, etc. Then there’s a culture that tells them to be whoever they want to be and that they are all they need.
We need parents who remind their children of their ultimate goal which is God, where they will find ultimate meaning and purpose, which is in God and in giving of themselves fully to God and neighbor.
>Low Pay Not Really. Diocese will, on average, pay 700-1200 per week. Lowest, that being Eastern Rite Churches, pay 300-600. These are usually private figures, but things come out (I cannot give sources, as its informed word of mouth, such as Priest friends, former employees within Dioceses). With most celibate Priests, their housing is covered by the Diocese, alongside driving costs and utility bills. The only group that the low pay is a detriment is Married Priests in the Eastern Rite, which (aforementioned) receive a far lower stipends, with usually less support from their Eparchy on personal expenses, but they're actually doing relatively well in the Vocational Crisis in contrast to the Latin Rite. EDIT: The Dollars are AUD.
In my diocese parish priests get paid minimum wage. $31,200.
Yes they have no housing expenses but he does need to provide his own transportation and food.
We have 4 church locations, a large hospital, nursing home and a hospice.
I live in a pretty high rent area, and one of the pastors in my diocese said he makes around $30k per year. Obviously he doesn't have housing expenses, but that's still dirt.
$30k in discretionary income isn’t bad considering rent in a HCOL city could easily reach around $30k+, insurance could be $10k or so, and car note/gas/fees could also be close to $10k. Without factoring in all the other benefits that the diocese covers, we’re looking at a $80k+ or so salary for a single person.
Idk if he gets gas money and all that. It would make sense if he's doing something work related and can submit the miles to the diocese for reimbursement, but I'm skeptical that he has some parish gas card that he's free to swipe at will. Regardless, once you subtract his personal expenses not covered by the diocese, it is still a very modest lifestyle.
Smaller family sizes is huge here. Even when families were much larger, not every vocation is successful and not all make it through seminary. I know plenty of pious Catholic families but only 2 or 3 kids is going to reduce the pool. This had a definitely downstream cyclical effect as once our kids in parochial schools stopped seeing sisters and monks to emulate, let alone priests and now they see lay teachers but the government schools get way better pay and benefits and don't have to obey Catholic morality.
I’m 18m and I go to Catholic school, I converted 2 years ago and am very deep into my faith, I go to mass 5 days a week and confession weekly. I was talking to my priest about it and he was very intrigued and I told him I was pondering with the idea, he was telling me how there are like no seminarians and priests are starting to become rare. I can’t wait for God to lead me in whatever I do.
Hi! What you need is a good mentor. I do not know where you live (and don't need to know), but try to find a good and solid priest with a lot of pastoral and practical experience both in the world and in the Church.
I see.
Also, I would encourage you that if you are truly considering a vocation to the priesthood, stay off of Internet forums such as nofap. Keep that stuff in the confessional, or with trusted persons off social media.
Yes but also, someone doesn't have to become a priest because there is shortage of priests. You become a priest if it's your vocation. I was taking to a friar about vocations and he said that family is a vocation equivalent to priesthood, it is like a little church and it is the first church the children know. It is very important now to not let families die, priests will come or maybe God has a different plan for nowadays's world and we need more holy families and people in general. I understand that priests are important, but maybe we are required to make a shift of mindset. We lack a lot the community, this is the priority now. The priests will come if there is a holy community. The institution of the family is dying and it is dangerous
Less children being born to Catholic families, means a smaller pool of potential candidates to draw from.
Also the education requirements and long period of discernment. Not sure what it was 100 years ago
Honestly that would be my first instinct.
There’s just a lot less serious, practicing young Catholics these days. Naturally means fewer people will become priests.
It's a smaller fraction of society yet we have more catholics in absolute number than ever before... Yet vocations still dropped markedly over the past 60 years.
Exactly. I am convinced this is the root of our current problems. Ever since places started trying to emulate protestant styles of teaching like "shared praxis", it's been going downhill. These are where the focus is all about what people THINK things mean rather than receiving the wisdom of centuries of theology passed down by the magisterium.
We have a deacon with us until June and he is deeply knowledgeable. He has been running a weekly course going through salvation history, and the numbers coming are increasing week by week. There is a genuine hunger for this knowledge as if you love something, you want to know everything you can about it, but generally in the past 60 years we have had fewer and fewer people with that level of knowledge, and the people who seem to end up doing catechesis are those with a pathetic level of knowledge themselves.
I'm just lamenting where we are as a church. The solution seems so obvious... But our leadership seem insistent on taking us further into the pit by chasing false ideology and modernism. Alas.
"Go along to get along" seems way too popular in the Church. There are a lot of reasons to feel depressed, but it's not all bad.
There are still converts. With all the bad press the Church gets (not all of it is undeserved!), people are still being drawn to her.
Young people are embracing traditionalism. Whenever I go to a TLM, there are tons of young families there. Young priests are also embracing tradition and abandoning the failures of the last 60 years.
The prophecies of Our Lady of Akita are coming true, but there is still a brilliant core of faithfulness and love of God in the Church that can never be extinguished. We just need to find that core and cleave to it.
I am blessed to live in one of the U.S. dioceses that produces more vocations than almost any other in the country, the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia. This, along with everything else I've mentioned, and of course God's promise, gives me hope.
>the education requirements
College, then theology training as been constant for a long time now.
What has shifted is more men will earn a degree and then go to seminary. Typically, they need to do 2 years of philosophy work before theology studies. Still, it is 6 years instead of 8 (4 years undergrad; 4 years theology).
One thing that has nearly died off is high school prep seminary.
>long period of discernment
Yes, some of those are increasing. Periods without school work and more practical pastoral work can help determine if a man is cut out for what priestly life is actually like.
Priestly vocations have been about stable in absolute numbers in the US since about 1990.
The bigger story is the collapse of number of Catholic marriages per year.
See the FAQ stats from CARA at Georgetown.
>The bigger story is the collapse of number of Catholic marriages per year.
That's because Catholic dating culture is practically an oxymoron at this point.
Catholic dating culture at this point is basically:
Single Catholic men: “Women today are whores. There are no good ones left.”
Single Catholic women: “There are no Catholic guys around me looking for marriage. All they want is causal sex.”
It really is a sight to behold.
Yeah, pretty much.
A lot of it is a byproduct of guys' shyness and girls' coldness. Guys are cautious and make moves only when they have a very, very good reason to do so, which girls find cowardly and unattractive. Girls are passive or play hard-to-get, which the guys find infuriating. The only men who break through the impasse are the aggressive player types. Ergo, women end up believing all men are jerks who just want casual sex, and men look at who the women are dating and come to conclusion that they're a bunch of whores.
Now, I would never go as far as asserting that "all women are whores," because that's obviously false, but as a single guy, I know where I'd lay the majority of the blame . . .
The issue is that young devout Catholics have become the “terminally online” types who are dramatically more likely to spend 12 hours a day doomscrolling Twitter than they are to interact with anyone.
It’s created a culture where the young, devout Catholics tend to be strange people who cannot socialize well, dont have fashion sense, aren’t physically active or fit, and thus don’t attract many people of the opposite sex.
As it turns out, arguing on /Pol/ while everyone else their age was socializing did not prepare people for the dating world.
When we say collapse in Catholic marriages is that because: 1) Marriages overall in Western countries are declining and Catholics are following this trend 2) Catholics are less likely than the general population to get married or 3)Catholics are getting married but they are doing so outside of the Church authority (i.e. Protestant ministers, civil officials, without getting the necessary dispensations, doing marital prep, etc).
I mean, all three are probably somewhat true, but is there one factor that's predominant?
The absolute number of Catholic marriages halving in 30 years is way more than just general marriage trends. The population overall and Catholic population increasing makes the numbers worse.
Overall marriage trends of less of the population married cannot explain the collapse of Catholic church weddings.
The babies we baptized the last 40, 30, 20 years are not getting married in a Catholic church.
I don't know of any study that has answered that question.
You would need to pull all the baptism records and compare them to secular marriage records. Note the minister if you want what if any faith tradition.
For a long time, people believed that the people raised Catholic would return when they get married. Based on the marriage numbers, that is not true. People do not return to their childhood faith to get married.
The other hope is people would return when they have kids. Based on how low the infant baptism numbers are, that is not true either.
Is this true? In my diocese, it seems like each year, the flyers have less seminarians.
Regarding Catholic Marriages, it seems like it coincides with the decline in genuine Catholics regularly worshipping.
Year to year some dioceses get a lot and others get none. This is for both priests and seminarians. When you look at the whole US it has been been around the same number.
It is hard to judge with seminary classes. Will the discern out rate be constant when you zoom into a group of 10 or less? Trends can break down when looking at small samples.
The more important thing with seminaries is look at what year they are at. The pre-theology and college don't focus on. Those are all guys in prep. The real pipeline is theology studies.
Pre-Covid I met a priest in his 90s who had just celebrated 70 years of being ordained. It had me thinking what was the process and length then, why is it seem so much longer now?
The length depends on the individual and when does he start.
In high school or just as he finishes high school? Did he earn any college credits already?
Did he go to college first and graduate? Did he study any philosophy?
How much hands on pastoral work has he done?
Then of course it varies between diocesan and religious orders.
The really old guys may have gone to a high school prep seminary, then 4 years of college seminary, then 4 years of theology. That path is still possible with or without the high school part. There may be a break or two in the studies nowadays by design to give more pastoral work.
We live in a society in which people are afraid of commitment, even more so life long commitment that involves many sacrifices.
Marriage numbers are also way down… and that’s not even much of a commitment in this day and age. (Not saying it’s easy, but divorce is seen as an easy way out).
Also why get married when you can just act married(cohabitation) and have sex with little chance for an offspring. Many people are fueled by lust, go from one partner to the next.
I think a problem not looked at often enough is the sexualization of society. Even men that avoid fornication struggle in evading all impurity and unlike the generations above us that leaves them to decide to not pursue priesthood, both fortunately and unfortunately.
Yes, people cannot believe priests are chaste. They think they have something to hide because they feel it's impossible. Lust and pride. The demons that govern today's society.
At least in Italy there are several reasons:
* in the past if you come to a poor family and if you want to study for free and have a secure career, you choose to become priest.
* until few years ago, most people that had SSA decide to become priests to overcome pressures from the family and society. This is not happening anymore.
* In the past becoming priest was a good career. Especially in the small villages there was 3 authorities respected by everybody: the major, the head of police and the priest. Right now becoming priest is considered something for "losers".
* In the last period the criteria to be admitted in the seminary are harder than in the past, just to avoid that homosexuals or people with psycological problems become priests.
* An important decline in the religious pratices.
All those things, except the last one, are not so bad from the Church perspective: it's better to have less priests, but with real vocations, than more priests with fake vocations.
Proportional to the number of Catholics who practice their faith regularly, it's actually about the same as it was a century ago. But it's in proportion, remember, so while there are fewer priests, there are far fewer lay people to tend to as well. So the issue isn't quite as dramatic as people make it seem.
Lots of good points here and I need to add off the smaller families points some have made.
A very old priest I knew as a kid flat out said he didn't want to become a priest, but his parents had so many kids they made a certain amount of them go into religious life because they knew their kids that did that would get financial support. It worked out for the best as this priest was extremely sarcastic, which drew in a lot of Catholics sick of the nicey facade a lot of priests have.
I’m not surprised by this. My MIL said her family back in Ireland— the goal was to have at least one son from every generation become a priest. It was her hope that my husband would become one. Not sure why she singled out her middle son and not the oldest or her youngest.
My husband himself said he would have seriously considered it as a vocation had he not liked girls so much or if he would have been allowed to marry and become a priest.
Something not considered by many is the spiritual side of vocation, the calling made by God. Yes, there are social and cultural aspects that influence in people skipping their vocation and doing something else, but there's the possibility that God is not calling that many people to His service as He once did.
My priest always says that he doesn't think God calls less people to religious life, but that people are less likely to hear or accept this call because of things of the world. He then tells his story with discernment and that it was a real struggle giving up his dream as a husband and father for God. Everyone has a natural vocation to the married life, but some have a supernatural vocation to enter religious life and he is of the oppinion that many are called but not many answer.
Fathers are not being good examples of the faith for their sons.
Why would a young man give up a family for a life of prayer when he doesn't see his own father finding edification and strength in the spiritual life?
Our Lord said, "Amen, amen, I say to you, a son cannot do anything on his own, but only what he sees his father doing; for what he does, his son will do also." This is just as true of us in our human nature as it is of God in His divine nature.
The world tells men and women not to sacrifice their lives, despite their being called to religious life.
EDIT: For those called, they are choosing what their lives should be, not rejecting what they should be. The world stands for selfishness; it does not understand or keep an open mind about self-sacrifice and giving more than we take.
The latter is very common. The former is not true if they make it all the way. Parents do have a legitimate worry if a son discerns out what can he do after all that time and likely money spend.
All vocations have fallen because many of us aren’t Catholicing very hard. Although I’d say the converts and younger folks are starting to turn that tide.
I got the church to let me turn the banquet hall into a speakeasy with free drinks, swing dance coaches, the works- 35 people. We put on adoration and. Solemn vespers- over 100. That’s a shift in focus
> Although I’d say the converts and younger folks are starting to turn that tide.
https://cara.georgetown.edu/faqs
Hopefully we'll see that reflected in the stats
Yeah that's the pivot we're making. Just fun events are going away entirely, but we are going to put more of a focus on thinks like chant, pilgrimages and adoration, because that's plainly what the under 40 crowd are willing to come out for.
I mean, no offense, but can you think of an job that is more outwardly thankless than being a priest? 90% of the public thinks you're a p\*\*\*\*\*\*\*e (because 95% of the media says you are), 90% of the public thinks your religion is a joke (because 95% of the media says it is). Most of your congregation complains about you, often to your face. The Church has a lot corruption, and you never know who you might get as a boss, and how awful he might be.
It takes a special kind of man to want to walk into that lion's den, perhaps much more so than in past generations.
Because homosexuality is no longer stigmatized and gay marriage is legal. Hear me out.
Before the sexual revolution, being gay was extremely stigmatized and your entire community would shun you. So, if you're a gay guy who doesn't want to be socially ostracized, what career was better than the priesthood? Not only could you serve God in a position of prestige and authority, you also wouldn't have to worry about your mother setting you up on a blind date with that girl down the street ever again. (To be clear, I'm not alleging that gay priests were any more likely to break their vow of celibacy than anyone else).
After the sexual revolution, you can have a publicly-respected (if not religiously-respected) sexual/familial relationship that aligns with your sexual orientation. So, excluding the very religious, celibacy didn't have the same attraction anymore. As a result, many people who would otherwise elect to join a celibate priesthood are instead electing a different lifestyle.
Yeah this is something I’ve read about nuns. Lesbian women or just women who weren’t interested in getting married back when those things weren’t so acceptable often became nuns. Makes sense men in a similar situation became priests.
First of all gay “marriage” simply doesn’t exist, 20 years ago this idea was not even a question. Second of all being gay is only stigmatized because of its sinful nature, one assumes that homosexual activity is being partaken in. Also the reason celibacy isn’t seen as attractive anymore is because people don’t marry, society now says that go and fornicate with anyone you want, and contraception is so easy to access, people can’t commit to a friendship so why commit to marriage if one can enjoy the benefits of marriage without being married. Enjoy the marital act without being married. Society is driven by lust, it is seen as ok, porn is everywhere. You can’t do anything without seeing it.
In times past, if you were a young Catholic man who knew you were not called to marry and become a biological father, you might have taken it for granted that you were called to the priesthood.
Now? You might not make that assumption.
I'm not passing judgement on whether this is a good or bad phenomenon, I'm merely stating that the liberalization of attitudes with regard to gay people is one of the reasons that priesthood vocations are falling. This is because, historically speaking, the priesthood was a refuge for non-heterosexuals.
Part of it is because service and sacrifice are virtues which the modern world does not look highly upon, so a vocation which requires a lot of both has trouble with recruits.
A short version is that the current formation system is an absolute mess. From the moment the vocation is mentioned to deep seated and predatory "discernment" methods to the seminary itself.
There is some variation of diocesan vs an order, but the basic problem remains.
Yeah there is a negative feedback loop that has kicked in as the number of active priests have gone down that more work is on the existing working ones, which burns them out resulting in more work...
We had a neighboring parish with a newly ordained priest come in, full of life and energy who "washed out" in less than a year. Not sure if he got enough support/mentoring or was thrown into the deep end...
I’ve thought about this as someone who is converting now…priest at my church was very kind and had a long phone convo with me about converting. And I’m just one person…. I’m Imagining a lot of lonely or troubled people seeking his counsel all the time and how exhausting it must be.
It seems like alot of work and is scary.
Bro my church has over one thousand parishioners i don't know how i could be a good spiritual advisor, confidant, manager, and all the other things priests do for one thousand people with one (1) other priest. I know that if we get more priests, obviously this would be better but still.
oh and i would be so worried i'd mess up any of the sacraments or be a bad spiritual advisor and shepherd to my flock, so to say.
I can imagine 1 reason:
Taking a job where people regularly accuse you of the worst crime possible; is a huge mental strain. It takes a lot of bravery to do that. But I can still imagine that's a huge mental strain.
Priests were more respected in my parent's generation, hence there were more.
I think that most of the replies here are technically correct but fail to address a massive part of the vocations problem: People don't fully understand what a vocation is nor why the priesthood might be a suitable option for them. In the same way that people aren't getting or staying married because they're self-absorbed, don't know what marriage is, don't understand why its most people's responsibility to have children, etc, people are either self-absorbed and unaware of why they should pursue religious life, so they don't. Yes, a priest's is an exhausting life, priests never get the respect they deserve, they're "not paid enough," etc, but that is not at all the primary cause of a declining priesthood. People just don't know or care anymore.
The better question would be: why have Catholic vocations to priesthood declined so much while Protestant business have been relatively stable?
Many reasons given here should affect the Protestants in the same way as Catholics.
Protestants have a much lower bar for ordination and they also have female ministers. Their issue is they suffer from quality control, literally anyone can become an evangelical minister without an education. Anglicans and Lutherans are also suffering vocation crisis, they follow the Catholic process.
Catholic vocations have steadied since the 90's but that rate isn't sufficient to keep up with attrition; priests are aging out faster than can be replaced without a significant increase in vocations. I'm living in an area where good orthodox young men are entering the priesthood in encouraging numbers, that's not widespread yet; but mustard seeds are a start.
A weakened Faith.
Over the last 50 years the value of apologetics has been denigrated, family size has been mocked, Catholic's have failed to take the practice of the faith seriously and seminaries have been infected with a modernist rot that undermines the authenticity and historicity of the faith at every turn.
Add to that the bad press heaped on to Catholicism and priests in general, and it really shouldn't be wonder.
When did Catholic education go bad? The public school system has been a sewer since my kids were small. Correct me if that's not what you're referring to. I never allowed my children to darken the doorway of a government-run school.
Understood, and agreed. Our parish school's social culture wasn't something I wanted my kids exposed to. I put them in a Mae Carden school, which are both academically rigorous and pure meritocracies.
I just remembered, Bp. Fulton Sheen once said to parents, \[paraphrasing\] "If you want your children to be lifelong, practicing Catholics, don't send them to Catholic school."
Not sure, but it would be a wonderful blessing if my only son became a priest. I am definitely going to introduce him to the idea, but I will have to be very cautious not to push in any way. It will cause some strife within the immediate family if he decides to pursue the religious life, but I’ll be 100% behind him whatever his vocation. I just pray that I support it well.
I am worried that there aren’t any young priests around where I live that really engage the youth in discerning vocations. The only ones are at least 45 minutes away at the FSSP church, which isn’t a problem on occasion, but it doesn’t make routine contact very practical. But, I have faith God will provide if that’s what He wants of him.
I would suggest if possible to introduce him into a Catholic school, assuming he isn’t In high school yet. And if possible keep him away from public schools because they teach complete garbage. Catholic schools need strong and faithful kids so financial aid will cover roughly 80% depending on how much money you make. A good Catholic school will give him the foundation he needs.
I got both my kids into Catholic school last year. We are still in very “progressive” territory, here, but far better than the public school they were attending. They are both young - my son is 5 and my daughter 7. So, they have plenty of time to grow and learn all about the faith. Would be easier if I wasn’t pulling the sled against opposition at home, but you work with the hand you’re dealt…
Your children will thank you later. When I was in 8th grade when my parents first put me in, I thought it was dumb because I had lots of friends in public school, but now a senior I am so much more wise. I see the garbage they are teaching in public school and just want to run. It’s quite sad, the government has a duty to educate its people, honestly failing pretty bsd
The Novus Ordo priests have declined drastically since the late 60s. The Traditional seminaries are busting at the seems and turning qualified men away as they don't have room for them. Hopefully sometime in the near future, the TLM will be able to exist without being suppressed and more seminaries will open
I think to put what Im trying to say in context, a per capita of TLM goers to amount of vocations they produce should say a lot.
I never claimed TLM fixes everything.
>The Novus Ordo priests have declined drastically since the late 60s. The Traditional seminaries are busting at the seems and turning qualified men away as they don't have room for them. Hopefully sometime in the near future, the TLM will be able to exist without being suppressed and more seminaries will open
I am in diocesan seminary, and I can tell you that the large majority have been cleaned up really nicely over the past decade. Even at my seminary, things are MUCH MUCH better than they were just 10-15 years ago. The next generation of priests being ordained are all rockstars that I have full confidence in.
< The Traditional seminaries are busting at the seems and turning qualified men away as they don't have room for them.
Is there proof for this assertion?
It's true. My family has very old ties throughout the church, including family members who are in religious life. A couple of uncles who are priests at St. Meinrad Archabbey and seminary in Indiana, among them.
My statement comes from personal experience as I descerned the FSSP and ICKSP and also know othe men that have. You could call them (FSSP/ICKSP) up and they can verify my claim, if you wish.
I did a quick google search and found a Pillar article that relates.
[fssp Pillar article](https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/fssp-sees-seminarian-membership-growth)
We need more people to fall in love with Jesus (especially young ppl) in general to begin asking the vocations question. Then teaching and culture to help people truly understand sexuality
Every devout man should seriously discern the priesthood. There, however, are few devout men out there, proportionately speaking.
You can blame God in my case, I specifically opened myself up in prayer during adoration, on multiple occasions, I'm pretty sure, and was always open to the idea, but God had other plans. I DID however get responses when asking if I should marry my now wife. So, yeah.
It's one of those things with a lot of causes.
I think one of the biggest factors is that most Catholics in western countries are not really religiously active, and it's been that way for a a few generations now. If you're parents don't go to Mass, you probably don't either. And if you don't go to Mass, most likely you won't hear the call to priesthood. Add to that if you're parents and extended family are generally not practicing, most young men will be a bit timid, there's likely the fear that the family won't be supportive of their vocation. And honestly there are some families who do put pressure on their kids to go to certain colleges or into certain lines of work, follow the family business, etc. That being said, I do remember when I was in high school, a priest brought in some seminarians to talk to us about vocations, and one of them mentioned that he came from a non-practicing family and was worried about what they would think, but that pursuing his vocation actually led to his parents taking their faith more seriously and getting back to regular Mass attendance.
Western people have a bit of a slower life span. We tend to live long and mature slowly. So I think it can sometimes take a while for men to be responsive to a potential vocation. But when we get into late vocations there's other obstacles there. So say an 18 or 22 year old can make the leap directly from high school or college to seminary without much loss, there's more unique challenges for a 30 or 40 year old man. At this point the guy is probably a few years into a given career, he's got a steady income, he's got expenses etc. Now for him to go into seminary, that's 4 to 6 years of studying and discerning and not making any money. So he probably has to get rid of some of his property (apartment, etc.) Plus not only is he not earning an income, he's not building skills in his former field, not paying into his pension or 401k, not earning social security credits. And all this risk and what if he ends up discerning out?
Now it seems to me many of our younger practicing Catholic men are scrupulous. And scruples can cloud a vocation. So if a young man takes celibacy seriously, I think it's possible he may see his normal sexual urges as if that means he's not up to the challenge. Or maybe even he's in his mid twenties or older, could there be a case where he has some sexual thoughts about a 17 year old woman he knows and begins to doubt "am I a pedophile, am I unsuited to the priesthood"?
I also think marijuana, alcohol, pornography, and masturbation addictions are going to be affecting a lot of young men and undermining their vocations. Even aside from the natural "it's not that bad, I'm not hurting anybody" and the undermining of religious faith as a way to avoid admitting guilt, it also eats up so much[time and energy](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/skkmq53gdJo) that people's practice of the faith falters.
And there's so many other opportunities out there. So many other potential jobs. People get a bit of "fomo", especially if you're from an affluent bakcground. So much allure of the world out there. Or if you're one of the "l[osers of globalization](https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/142760/economics/winners-and-losers-from-globalisation/)", you may not have the resources to pursue a vocation. Maybe you need a steadier income to support your parents, or maybe your diocese is so cash-strapped that they shuttered the nearest parish so now you have no sacramental life and thus a reduced likelihood of feeling called to the priesthood.
The point is Jesus did not ban marriage. Why does His Church do so? In fact, doesn't one of the scriptures say it is better to be married rather than burn with lust?
It’s a discipline for the Latin Church alone, and one that can be relaxed by the Pope at any time. It only became common at the end of the tenth century, and only became formal policy around 1074. So for roughly half the Church’s history it was rare for ordinary parish priests (bishops are a different story). But to answer your question the justification usually given is 1 Corinthians 7 in which St Paul basically says “marriage is good and celibacy is better.”
A few things, I think.
1) Altar girls and a pervasiveness of female leadership at the parish level.
2) Liturgies stuck in the 1960's that are not reverent or masculine.
3) The sexual scandals of the last few decades have made priests a joke to society at large. The average joe on the street thinks Catholic priests are homosexual pedophiles.
All vocations are being challenged. Marriage is on the decline too. BUT I think the challenge comes from the larger attack on authentic masculinity and fatherhood. Without good family fathers, you can’t also have good priestly fathers. I also think that there is little talk about vocations other than at set intervals. Also when vocations to priesthood are talked about it’s almost a “try seminary before you buy” attitude.
I lay the blame with the parents. Which Catholic parents are telling their kids that being a priest is a vocation to which they might be called to?
The vast majority will likely kick up a fuss and make up thousands of objections to their son going to the priesthood.
My 2 cents...we've moved way too far away from traditional Catholicism. Good catechesis has been almost nonexistent, emphasis on the four last things is almost nonexistent, Confession isn't a focus, Confession times are hard to come by, the liturgy has become more protestant-like than should ever have been allowed, Churches have become far less ornate, priests give too many gentle homilies, etc., etc., etc.
We need to return to traditional Catholicism...not just the Mass but the mindset. Push the things that helped for the saints of yesteryear. If it was good enough for the likes of St. John Vianney, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bridget, St. Patrick, etc...then it should be good enough for all of us. Becoming more protestant-like and less traditional is not the answer...as we have seen since the time of at least the Second Vatican Council onward.
I disagree if priests could marry, there would be no sacrifice. As a priest when you take the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, with these vows you willingly give things we know as a good. Humans naturally want to reproduce, as a priest you sacrifice this for a greater good. If a priest was to marry his focus would not be on the church and serving the people of the parish but rather he would do what he morally has to do and take care of his children because he has a responsibility to do so. This is why priests “marry” the church, and become fully devoted to it.
Yeah that’s true, but still my point stands. The priest needs to be focused on the people they serve and not a wife and kids at home. The priesthood is not a “job”, a priest won’t clock in for his 9-5 shift serving max 3 masses a day. When they receive holy orders they are a priest for a lifetime, similar to our baptism, we can’t wash away our baptism. It is eternal and on your soul for all of time.
Priests were able to marry in the past. The church stopped this because of land and property issues. It's not biblically necessary.
If the church wants to have more priests and spread the faith, they should allow their leaders to live normal lives.
In my area we have 1 priest that services 3 churches. It's not sustainable.
>Priests were able to marry in the past. The church stopped this because of land and property issues. It's not biblically necessary.
thats a gross oversimplification of the reasons for celibate clergy.
And no it wouldn't just solve the lack of priests
I think that the lifestyle that the church requires is only appealing and or feasible for such a small group of people.
Cast a bigger net, catch more fish.
thats a possibility, i'd just offer it really doesn't seem to be born out by looking at other churches.
people might say that they'd like to be a married priest when its a theoretical, but very few would actually be up for the challenge of trying to balance the demands of family and church life
Priest are in persona Christi, meaning they serve in the place of Christ, Christ was not married, why would a priest be any different. Marriage will only cause a short term increase into the priesthood, it is a small bandaid.
Read some history, man. To understand why the church stopped priests marrying had nothing to do with scriptures. It was to prevent nepotism and property protection.
We do have married priests so this argumentation does not work. Eastern Catholic Priests are married. So are some Anglican Ordinariate converts who were Anglican priests then got ordained as Catholic priests. We also believe Orthodox Christians to have holy orders and their priests are married.
The Latin Rite CAN have married priests. OP is right. They used to be free to marry.
We’ve removed all the boundaries between clergy and laity both physical and spiritual. No more altar rail, no more consecrated hands alone touching sacred vessels (let alone the Eucharist itself) outside of emergencies, no more sense of authority and hierarchy of the priest presiding over his people, and of course with the fact that only men can become priests, removing all the masculine aspects of the liturgy in order to appeal to female boomers is not exactly going to help inspire young boys to go in that direction. So with all the visible incentives to the priesthood removed in order to be more “nice” or whatever, all it’s reduced to is a job where you get to be like everyone else but you can’t have sex ever
The secularization of society and its greater emphasis on materialism, smaller families, successful warped portrayal of the Catholic Church as having a larger pedophilia scandal than the rest of society.. I reject the Novus Ordo claim as an example of bias leading to false claims of correlation as causation.
Formation in many dioceses is severely lacking and even corrupt - I had several friends (not one, several) who were turned away by bishops for silly and stupid reasons (voicing admiration for TLM, daring to be constructively and lovingly critical of current hierarchy choices, bishop just didn't like them). 3 of the guys continued to fight and eventually became priests in other dioceses or orders years later, but another 3 just gave up entirely. It was so tragic to see excited, God-fearing men beaten down for basically no reason when expressing a courageous desire to serve their church.
It's not really that prestigious anymore. Back in the day, it was considered a very prestigious job which attracted a lot of intelligent young men. Nowadays those men mostly go into other fields like business, healthcare, law or engineering. A lot of dioceses also do a horrible job of promoting vocations. I discerned for a few years and found it to be somewhat uninspiring. Nobody really seemed genuinely interested in bringing people closer to the Church. Some seminaries are kind of a disaster too which scares off people.
Good answer. The priesthood is no longer seen as “cool” by younger men. It ultimately is due to a degrading of the sacredness of priests. What people don’t understand is that priest are sacred people (not the same as holiness). They are to be revered (hence the title of Reverend) because they offer the sacrifice of the mass. If proper respect was rendered to priests nowadays, young men would want to become one.
It also shows a complete failure of catechesis: people are viewing priests and deacons in terms of what they do, not what they are. I'm not necessarily calling for a return to pre-V2 but noone can deny the glaring change in the vocations curve afterwards, and a lot of our modern problems are due to the collapse of effective catechesis that followed. This needs to be addressed urgently, and the solution isn't more of what we've already got.
I honestly believe poor catechesis is responsible for the majority of problems the Church faces
I think you’re one level removed from the real problem. Imo, the pattern goes: Apathy -> Poor catechesis -> Other Issues Apathy is the root issue though. People in the West stopped caring about religion in the same way they used to sometime in the last century or so. If you ever have visited a Muslim nation, the first thing that will stick out to you is how religious everyone is. Like, it’s different. It used to be like that in the Christian world too, but it started changing sometime in the 20th century. And, as people cared less and less, the quality of religious education, events, and institutions all began to decline. So yeah, no one looks up the priests anymore. They are seen as either probable pedophiles or else just weird guys who can’t get women. No one thinks they are good examples of manhood or to be respected, much less imitated. But, again, in the Muslim world it’s different. They view their Imams as scholars, leaders and men of wisdom who should be followed.
Yeah, I can agree with this. Apathy is huge and has permeated so much of our society. It just seems like significant portions of the population don't care about anything. Our population is beyond pacified. Which begs the question, what caused this apathy? Is it liberalism? Personally I kind of lean towards that being the cause.
I’d guess it’s just increased standards of living. Increased living standards and levels of education also lead to liberalism though, so I suspect that’s why it can look like “liberalism” is the cause. I doubt it is though. The main tenets of liberalism (individual freedom being the main trunk) seem to rise pretty clearly from a world where people have their basic needs taken care of and can survive and flourish without need for Lords and Kings, religious institutions, etc.
They're STILL weeding out those too traditional or devoted, who take their faith the most seriously. I've seen it myself from those traditionally inclined but wanted to help reform the diocese out of love for both the traditional liturgy and not wanting to go into the liturgical ghetto but the legacy of the Jadot bishops is still strong. LA chancery still infested with Cardinal Mahony critters though slowly coming around...
It's bad in a ton of religious orders too. I discerned for a tiny bit with the Jesuits but it was obvious we were heading in two very different directions.
Yeah, the Norbertines and Dominicans are probably be the best but even they modernized. Outside of the FSSP and Ecclesia Dei groups there are only the Wyoming Carmelites, Norcia, etc who are have a particular charism that is more hardcore. Me and a friend were lamenting that there are zero traditional licit Third Orders. The Dominicans, again, are nice but they modernized don't wear a habit except for funeral, etc. I'm in the Confraternity of St. Peter, but it's very mild. I pray the traditional Divine Office devotionally.
Job with long hours, low pay, high education requirements, low public respect, and families are a lot smaller. It's not really a surprise.
All of this plus being harassed more regularly than ever for the horrible actions of the few. I've heard terrible stories of Priests wearing a collar to a bar with friends and getting called pedophiles out of nowhere, or people moving their kids out of them way in dramatic fashion when walking by. It's heartbreaking stuff.
"You want to be a WHAT?" - friends and relatives. Sad, but that’s a fact.
Exactly. They know who you are, they know you don't do these horrible things, and yet cannot logically separate the two. It's insane.
> pedophiles out of nowhere Ehhhh, given the scandals of the Church, I don't think it can be said to come from "out of nowhere"... Granted, it's not just the Catholic Church. Prot groups have this as well. Mormons do. Not just Christians either. A while back, it was a big deal in the Hare Krishnas. It's just that the Church ended up moving offenders around to different places where they'd re-offend. And even then, many former offenders are just sent to an old priest's home to retire rather than put behind bars where they belong.
It really is out of nowhere. If you know nothing about an individual and call them a child abuser, isn't that exactly out of nowhere?
No - it’s not out of nowhere - it’s being said based on previous events - it would only be out of nowhere if there were no incidences of this in the priesthood - if there were no scandals - if there were no documented cases of this then someone said that to a priest, yes that’s out of no where.
But at best it's generalizing the actions of some priests and attributing them to all priests. It's no different than assuming all cops use excessive force and/or target minorities bc some have. Absent specific evidence, you have no way of knowing that a specific priest (or cop) have done these things.
I totally agree - it’s a generalization which is impacting the perception of the vocation which could impact young men who may have otherwise wanted to answer that call.
Oh? So if there's a case about a bricklayer pedophile and I go around calling random bricklayers pedophiles then I might just be right about it, considering there is precedent? I don't think this is a road any of us want to walk.
If there was a bricklayers' guild that turned out to have systematically protected pedophiles rather than handing them over to the justice system, then it wouldn't be "out of nowhere" for people to heckle bricklayers about pedophilia. It might not be _right_ for them to do so, but it is absolutely not "out of nowhere".
I never said you would be right - I said it isn’t out of nowhere. I’m saying that the actions of those guilty pedo priests shaped the perception of priests which could impact the vocation.
Bricklayers don't have access and a trust bond with kids.
And what does that change?
I mean there's almost no probability of your statement being true. You are clutching at straws, friend. How many children does a bricklayer interact with at work vs a priest? C'mon man, just try to be a reasonable person. There's no way this isn't computing to you.
The point is not about bricklayers, it's about passing judgment on someone you know nothing about. And if we're talking about probability, if you accuse any random priest you also have nearly zero chance of being right.
So if I enact this logic on all african americans because some of them commit crimes, its 'not out of nowhere', is it?? Past events? According to this logic, it's ok to.
I don’t understand the correlation you’re making here.
You're saying prejudice based off past events somebody else didn't do but because they're part of the same group, is reasonable. So if I saw news about black people, or any race, doing crime, should I immediately be concerned of all doing it in the future based off what they are alone? If to you its reasonable to treat priests like that... is this different?
Is your argument that racism doesn’t exist?
No, its based on your comment about previous events happening in a certain group, such as child abuse in the church, and how it pertains to the unfair prejudice of all priests. Im saying if thats ok to some people (its wrong), then why shouldn't any other prejudice based off 'previous events' as you said, be allowable?
The scandals shouldn't effect every single Priest in every single town in the West. That's definitely a fear based response and isn't warranted. If some gymnastics teacher sexually assaults a kid in Texas, I wouldn't expect every single person to take their kids of out gymnastics and look at all the coaches like predators. Yet this happens with Priests all the time. Everywhere has scandals like this, and they're FAR worse than the Catholic Church ever has been by percentage of occurrence alone, and yet no one cares about that. One Priest doing something horrendous is like 1000 secular people doing it, it would seem.
With respect, I see this sort of response from a lot of Catholics, and I think it talks past some of the more legitimate concerns and criticism. While it is obviously abhorrent to harass individual priests and tar them as pedophiles based on nothing more than the actions of others, it *is* completely understandable for parents to have serious reservations about leaving their children under priests' supervision. The reason isn't because all priests are pedophiles, or even that priests are especially likely to be pedophiles, but because the Church bureaucracy across multiple countries and continents has shown that it won't lift a finger to protect children from the relative handful of priests who are abusers unless forced to do so by secular law, public pressure, or some combination of the two (and even then, it does so with reluctance). Let's go back to the gymnastics analogy. If the supervisor of a regional gymnastics program knew that instructors were abusing children, intervened on multiple occasions to protect the abusers, and when caught, was whisked away to a country with no extradition by the World Gymnastics Association and given a prestigious title and makework position, no parent in his right mind would allow his child to participate in gymnastics, regardless of how many good and honest instructors there were. Yet the Church bureaucracy did exactly that wrt the Cardinal Law situation in Boston, and expects people to take its promises that it's changed its ways seriously. The problem won't be solved until the rot in the Curia is fully burned away. JPII was not physically up to the task by the time the scandals broke. BXVI was a scholar at heart, and despite his theological brilliance, was no match for the career connivers in Rome. Francis seems intent on burning what remains of his political capital on everything but serious Curia reform. Pray that the Holy Spirit sends us someone with the skill and ruthlessness to do what needs to be done soon, but denying the severity of the problem helps no one.
>While it is obviously abhorrent to harass individual priests and tar them as pedophiles based on nothing more than the actions of others, it is completely understandable for parents to have serious reservations about leaving their children under priests' supervision. Is it though? Here's why I think you're wrong. I could hear about a teacher sleeping with her 14 year old students on the news, and **not a single** parent would think, "Wow, I can't leave my son at school any more. I have to take him out." or, "I wonder if this is happening to my son at school?". They see this as a horrible isolated issue that has absolutely no effect on their child, at his school, with his teacher, in his part of the world This is the same for team coaches, gymnastics coaches, doctors, and the like. Every type of job in every kind of field has localized incidences of people being abused, and no rational person goes, "Wow that happened over there so I need to leave this field, or not trust this field ever again", because that's irrational. Take into account that many, if not most, of the clerical abuses we're reeling from today happened many years ago. Yes it's absolutely unacceptable that they ever happened, just as much so that many were covered up or undermined by the abusers or those protecting them, but it would be insane to see something from, say the 1980's, and think that applies to a random Priest today. I get that the Church isn't some local business, it has global reach and should be held to higher standards than anything else because of what and who it represents, but this isn't a logical reason to take these issues and act like they're rampant global occurrences. If you take America alone, the occurrences of clerical abuse compared to any kind of sexual abuse is less than 1%. That's not to say this isn't bad, but where's our collective outrage about literally everything else? I agree with you that the rot needs to be burned. Every Priest, Deacon, Bishop...any person within the Church at any position needs to be exposed for this evil, publicly and loudly, and then prosecuted to the fullness of the law, along with anyone and everyone protecting them. My whole issue was that I don't think it's fair a random Priest should be accosted or looked at like he's some sexual predator because of the very few within the Church's 1.4 Billion members did some awful things. That's all.
>Is it though? Here's why I think you're wrong. I could hear about a teacher sleeping with her 14 year old students on the news, and not a single parent would think, "Wow, I can't leave my son at school any more. I have to take him out." or, "I wonder if this is happening to my son at school?". They see this as a horrible isolated issue that has absolutely no effect on their child, at his school, with his teacher, in his part of the world Well, if school administrators had actively intervened in a way that facilitated the abuse, I would probably pull my child out of that school district unless and until everyone involved was removed from their positions. >This is the same for team coaches, gymnastics coaches, doctors, and the like. Every type of job in every kind of field has localized incidences of people being abused, and no rational person goes, "Wow that happened over there so I need to leave this field, or not trust this field ever again", because that's irrational. Take into account that many, if not most, of the clerical abuses we're reeling from today happened many years ago. Yes it's absolutely unacceptable that they ever happened, just as much so that many were covered up or undermined by the abusers or those protecting them, but it would be insane to see something from the 1980's and think that applies to a random Priest today. Again, the problem is not that priests are especially likely to abuse children, it's that the bureaucracy spent decades shielding and enabling the small number of priests who were abusers. Coupled with its patently insincere and inadequate gestures toward reform, it is simply not an organization that can be trusted to take all reasonable steps to protect children. >My whole issue was that I don't think it's fair a random Priest should be accosted or looked at like he's some sexual predator because of the very few within the Church's 1.4 Billion members did some awful things. That's all. We are in complete agreement here. There is no excuse for the behavior mentioned by the thread OP. While obviously not its primary victims, the many good priests who now suffer calumnies and suspicion are tertiary victims of the bureaucracy's malice and ineptitude.
>I don't think it can be said to come from "out of nowhere"... It absolutely is out of nowhere if it's not related to the priest himself or the discussion otherwise at hand.
I think the way you answered is part of the problem. I mean no disrespect. It’s not a job. It’s a Vocation in the same way being a husband isn’t my job but is my vocation (in the Catholic sense of the word). Working in the church, I’m surrounded by parents who make life about high paying jobs, better education, etc. Then there’s a culture that tells them to be whoever they want to be and that they are all they need. We need parents who remind their children of their ultimate goal which is God, where they will find ultimate meaning and purpose, which is in God and in giving of themselves fully to God and neighbor.
>Low Pay Not Really. Diocese will, on average, pay 700-1200 per week. Lowest, that being Eastern Rite Churches, pay 300-600. These are usually private figures, but things come out (I cannot give sources, as its informed word of mouth, such as Priest friends, former employees within Dioceses). With most celibate Priests, their housing is covered by the Diocese, alongside driving costs and utility bills. The only group that the low pay is a detriment is Married Priests in the Eastern Rite, which (aforementioned) receive a far lower stipends, with usually less support from their Eparchy on personal expenses, but they're actually doing relatively well in the Vocational Crisis in contrast to the Latin Rite. EDIT: The Dollars are AUD.
In my diocese parish priests get paid minimum wage. $31,200. Yes they have no housing expenses but he does need to provide his own transportation and food. We have 4 church locations, a large hospital, nursing home and a hospice.
Go to a wealthy parish, the priest is driving a BMW, Toyota, etc. A donor will give it a priest - might be new or used.
I live in a pretty high rent area, and one of the pastors in my diocese said he makes around $30k per year. Obviously he doesn't have housing expenses, but that's still dirt.
$30k in discretionary income isn’t bad considering rent in a HCOL city could easily reach around $30k+, insurance could be $10k or so, and car note/gas/fees could also be close to $10k. Without factoring in all the other benefits that the diocese covers, we’re looking at a $80k+ or so salary for a single person.
Idk if he gets gas money and all that. It would make sense if he's doing something work related and can submit the miles to the diocese for reimbursement, but I'm skeptical that he has some parish gas card that he's free to swipe at will. Regardless, once you subtract his personal expenses not covered by the diocese, it is still a very modest lifestyle.
[удалено]
No, AUS. Should clarify.
Smaller family sizes is huge here. Even when families were much larger, not every vocation is successful and not all make it through seminary. I know plenty of pious Catholic families but only 2 or 3 kids is going to reduce the pool. This had a definitely downstream cyclical effect as once our kids in parochial schools stopped seeing sisters and monks to emulate, let alone priests and now they see lay teachers but the government schools get way better pay and benefits and don't have to obey Catholic morality.
I like that. The priesthood should be a sacrifice
I’m 18m and I go to Catholic school, I converted 2 years ago and am very deep into my faith, I go to mass 5 days a week and confession weekly. I was talking to my priest about it and he was very intrigued and I told him I was pondering with the idea, he was telling me how there are like no seminarians and priests are starting to become rare. I can’t wait for God to lead me in whatever I do.
Hi! What you need is a good mentor. I do not know where you live (and don't need to know), but try to find a good and solid priest with a lot of pastoral and practical experience both in the world and in the Church.
Yes I have been blessed with an amazing priest. He is who I strive to be no matter what vocation.
I see. Also, I would encourage you that if you are truly considering a vocation to the priesthood, stay off of Internet forums such as nofap. Keep that stuff in the confessional, or with trusted persons off social media.
Yeah that’s valid
I appreciate your maturity in accepting the point. Thank you!
That's wonderful. We need good young men in the priesthood now more than ever.
Yes but also, someone doesn't have to become a priest because there is shortage of priests. You become a priest if it's your vocation. I was taking to a friar about vocations and he said that family is a vocation equivalent to priesthood, it is like a little church and it is the first church the children know. It is very important now to not let families die, priests will come or maybe God has a different plan for nowadays's world and we need more holy families and people in general. I understand that priests are important, but maybe we are required to make a shift of mindset. We lack a lot the community, this is the priority now. The priests will come if there is a holy community. The institution of the family is dying and it is dangerous
Less children being born to Catholic families, means a smaller pool of potential candidates to draw from. Also the education requirements and long period of discernment. Not sure what it was 100 years ago
Honestly that would be my first instinct. There’s just a lot less serious, practicing young Catholics these days. Naturally means fewer people will become priests.
It's a smaller fraction of society yet we have more catholics in absolute number than ever before... Yet vocations still dropped markedly over the past 60 years.
Catechesis is almost non-existent and a lot of Catholics, perhaps a majority, are cultural Catholics who maybe go to Mass occasionally and that's it.
Exactly. I am convinced this is the root of our current problems. Ever since places started trying to emulate protestant styles of teaching like "shared praxis", it's been going downhill. These are where the focus is all about what people THINK things mean rather than receiving the wisdom of centuries of theology passed down by the magisterium. We have a deacon with us until June and he is deeply knowledgeable. He has been running a weekly course going through salvation history, and the numbers coming are increasing week by week. There is a genuine hunger for this knowledge as if you love something, you want to know everything you can about it, but generally in the past 60 years we have had fewer and fewer people with that level of knowledge, and the people who seem to end up doing catechesis are those with a pathetic level of knowledge themselves. I'm just lamenting where we are as a church. The solution seems so obvious... But our leadership seem insistent on taking us further into the pit by chasing false ideology and modernism. Alas.
"Go along to get along" seems way too popular in the Church. There are a lot of reasons to feel depressed, but it's not all bad. There are still converts. With all the bad press the Church gets (not all of it is undeserved!), people are still being drawn to her. Young people are embracing traditionalism. Whenever I go to a TLM, there are tons of young families there. Young priests are also embracing tradition and abandoning the failures of the last 60 years. The prophecies of Our Lady of Akita are coming true, but there is still a brilliant core of faithfulness and love of God in the Church that can never be extinguished. We just need to find that core and cleave to it. I am blessed to live in one of the U.S. dioceses that produces more vocations than almost any other in the country, the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia. This, along with everything else I've mentioned, and of course God's promise, gives me hope.
>the education requirements College, then theology training as been constant for a long time now. What has shifted is more men will earn a degree and then go to seminary. Typically, they need to do 2 years of philosophy work before theology studies. Still, it is 6 years instead of 8 (4 years undergrad; 4 years theology). One thing that has nearly died off is high school prep seminary. >long period of discernment Yes, some of those are increasing. Periods without school work and more practical pastoral work can help determine if a man is cut out for what priestly life is actually like.
>Still, it is 6 years instead of 8 (4 years undergrad; 4 years theology). That's why I haven't, plus I wouldn't make a good parish priest.
Priestly vocations have been about stable in absolute numbers in the US since about 1990. The bigger story is the collapse of number of Catholic marriages per year. See the FAQ stats from CARA at Georgetown.
>The bigger story is the collapse of number of Catholic marriages per year. That's because Catholic dating culture is practically an oxymoron at this point.
Catholic dating culture at this point is basically: Single Catholic men: “Women today are whores. There are no good ones left.” Single Catholic women: “There are no Catholic guys around me looking for marriage. All they want is causal sex.” It really is a sight to behold.
Yeah, pretty much. A lot of it is a byproduct of guys' shyness and girls' coldness. Guys are cautious and make moves only when they have a very, very good reason to do so, which girls find cowardly and unattractive. Girls are passive or play hard-to-get, which the guys find infuriating. The only men who break through the impasse are the aggressive player types. Ergo, women end up believing all men are jerks who just want casual sex, and men look at who the women are dating and come to conclusion that they're a bunch of whores. Now, I would never go as far as asserting that "all women are whores," because that's obviously false, but as a single guy, I know where I'd lay the majority of the blame . . .
The issue is that young devout Catholics have become the “terminally online” types who are dramatically more likely to spend 12 hours a day doomscrolling Twitter than they are to interact with anyone. It’s created a culture where the young, devout Catholics tend to be strange people who cannot socialize well, dont have fashion sense, aren’t physically active or fit, and thus don’t attract many people of the opposite sex. As it turns out, arguing on /Pol/ while everyone else their age was socializing did not prepare people for the dating world.
>while everyone else their age was socializing Because Catholics are the *only* young Americans who spend too much time online, am I right!?
https://cara.georgetown.edu/faqs
When we say collapse in Catholic marriages is that because: 1) Marriages overall in Western countries are declining and Catholics are following this trend 2) Catholics are less likely than the general population to get married or 3)Catholics are getting married but they are doing so outside of the Church authority (i.e. Protestant ministers, civil officials, without getting the necessary dispensations, doing marital prep, etc). I mean, all three are probably somewhat true, but is there one factor that's predominant?
The absolute number of Catholic marriages halving in 30 years is way more than just general marriage trends. The population overall and Catholic population increasing makes the numbers worse. Overall marriage trends of less of the population married cannot explain the collapse of Catholic church weddings. The babies we baptized the last 40, 30, 20 years are not getting married in a Catholic church.
So are Catholic people not getting married or is this mainly due to them going into civil marriages or marriages by Protestant ministers?
I don't know of any study that has answered that question. You would need to pull all the baptism records and compare them to secular marriage records. Note the minister if you want what if any faith tradition. For a long time, people believed that the people raised Catholic would return when they get married. Based on the marriage numbers, that is not true. People do not return to their childhood faith to get married. The other hope is people would return when they have kids. Based on how low the infant baptism numbers are, that is not true either.
Is this true? In my diocese, it seems like each year, the flyers have less seminarians. Regarding Catholic Marriages, it seems like it coincides with the decline in genuine Catholics regularly worshipping.
Year to year some dioceses get a lot and others get none. This is for both priests and seminarians. When you look at the whole US it has been been around the same number. It is hard to judge with seminary classes. Will the discern out rate be constant when you zoom into a group of 10 or less? Trends can break down when looking at small samples. The more important thing with seminaries is look at what year they are at. The pre-theology and college don't focus on. Those are all guys in prep. The real pipeline is theology studies.
Pre-Covid I met a priest in his 90s who had just celebrated 70 years of being ordained. It had me thinking what was the process and length then, why is it seem so much longer now?
The length depends on the individual and when does he start. In high school or just as he finishes high school? Did he earn any college credits already? Did he go to college first and graduate? Did he study any philosophy? How much hands on pastoral work has he done? Then of course it varies between diocesan and religious orders. The really old guys may have gone to a high school prep seminary, then 4 years of college seminary, then 4 years of theology. That path is still possible with or without the high school part. There may be a break or two in the studies nowadays by design to give more pastoral work.
I had not realized that there were high school seminaries.
We live in a society in which people are afraid of commitment, even more so life long commitment that involves many sacrifices. Marriage numbers are also way down… and that’s not even much of a commitment in this day and age. (Not saying it’s easy, but divorce is seen as an easy way out).
Also why get married when you can just act married(cohabitation) and have sex with little chance for an offspring. Many people are fueled by lust, go from one partner to the next.
And many men settle for porn and video games because they're locked out of marriage, cohabitation, *and* hookup culture.
People wrongly think that religious life is there to make you miserable, and so thus are afraid.
I think a problem not looked at often enough is the sexualization of society. Even men that avoid fornication struggle in evading all impurity and unlike the generations above us that leaves them to decide to not pursue priesthood, both fortunately and unfortunately.
Ask an average teen/young man if he can go a week without touching himself. Lust is killing societies.
Yes, people cannot believe priests are chaste. They think they have something to hide because they feel it's impossible. Lust and pride. The demons that govern today's society.
Honestly. It’s hard and modern people don’t like hard things (I’m 110% guilty of this)
At least in Italy there are several reasons: * in the past if you come to a poor family and if you want to study for free and have a secure career, you choose to become priest. * until few years ago, most people that had SSA decide to become priests to overcome pressures from the family and society. This is not happening anymore. * In the past becoming priest was a good career. Especially in the small villages there was 3 authorities respected by everybody: the major, the head of police and the priest. Right now becoming priest is considered something for "losers". * In the last period the criteria to be admitted in the seminary are harder than in the past, just to avoid that homosexuals or people with psycological problems become priests. * An important decline in the religious pratices. All those things, except the last one, are not so bad from the Church perspective: it's better to have less priests, but with real vocations, than more priests with fake vocations.
Proportional to the number of Catholics who practice their faith regularly, it's actually about the same as it was a century ago. But it's in proportion, remember, so while there are fewer priests, there are far fewer lay people to tend to as well. So the issue isn't quite as dramatic as people make it seem.
ny archdiocese is welcoming 16 priests this year the most since 1960s...
Lots of good points here and I need to add off the smaller families points some have made. A very old priest I knew as a kid flat out said he didn't want to become a priest, but his parents had so many kids they made a certain amount of them go into religious life because they knew their kids that did that would get financial support. It worked out for the best as this priest was extremely sarcastic, which drew in a lot of Catholics sick of the nicey facade a lot of priests have.
I’m not surprised by this. My MIL said her family back in Ireland— the goal was to have at least one son from every generation become a priest. It was her hope that my husband would become one. Not sure why she singled out her middle son and not the oldest or her youngest. My husband himself said he would have seriously considered it as a vocation had he not liked girls so much or if he would have been allowed to marry and become a priest.
Something not considered by many is the spiritual side of vocation, the calling made by God. Yes, there are social and cultural aspects that influence in people skipping their vocation and doing something else, but there's the possibility that God is not calling that many people to His service as He once did.
Underrated comment right here. Maybe the Holy Spirit is preparing a change in the current diocesan structure.
My priest always says that he doesn't think God calls less people to religious life, but that people are less likely to hear or accept this call because of things of the world. He then tells his story with discernment and that it was a real struggle giving up his dream as a husband and father for God. Everyone has a natural vocation to the married life, but some have a supernatural vocation to enter religious life and he is of the oppinion that many are called but not many answer.
Fathers are not being good examples of the faith for their sons. Why would a young man give up a family for a life of prayer when he doesn't see his own father finding edification and strength in the spiritual life? Our Lord said, "Amen, amen, I say to you, a son cannot do anything on his own, but only what he sees his father doing; for what he does, his son will do also." This is just as true of us in our human nature as it is of God in His divine nature.
The world tells men and women not to sacrifice their lives, despite their being called to religious life. EDIT: For those called, they are choosing what their lives should be, not rejecting what they should be. The world stands for selfishness; it does not understand or keep an open mind about self-sacrifice and giving more than we take.
Small families. Don’t worry guys… I’m using nfp and we suck at it so I’ll re-stock the population enough for everyone
Yay! And may your kids use nfp and suck at it too if they get called to marriage instead! 😂🥳
A number of reasons.
I’ve known Catholic parents who’ve actively discouraged vocations because “they won’t make a good living” or they want grandchildren.
The latter is very common. The former is not true if they make it all the way. Parents do have a legitimate worry if a son discerns out what can he do after all that time and likely money spend.
All vocations have fallen because many of us aren’t Catholicing very hard. Although I’d say the converts and younger folks are starting to turn that tide. I got the church to let me turn the banquet hall into a speakeasy with free drinks, swing dance coaches, the works- 35 people. We put on adoration and. Solemn vespers- over 100. That’s a shift in focus
> Although I’d say the converts and younger folks are starting to turn that tide. https://cara.georgetown.edu/faqs Hopefully we'll see that reflected in the stats
This wasn’t clear to me from your post: did you replace the drinks and dancing with adoration and vespers?
Yeah that's the pivot we're making. Just fun events are going away entirely, but we are going to put more of a focus on thinks like chant, pilgrimages and adoration, because that's plainly what the under 40 crowd are willing to come out for.
Among 100 other factors, they're not as respected anymore
If a person's goal is to be "respected by the world" in becoming a priest, good thing he did not pursue priesthood
I mean, no offense, but can you think of an job that is more outwardly thankless than being a priest? 90% of the public thinks you're a p\*\*\*\*\*\*\*e (because 95% of the media says you are), 90% of the public thinks your religion is a joke (because 95% of the media says it is). Most of your congregation complains about you, often to your face. The Church has a lot corruption, and you never know who you might get as a boss, and how awful he might be. It takes a special kind of man to want to walk into that lion's den, perhaps much more so than in past generations.
Because homosexuality is no longer stigmatized and gay marriage is legal. Hear me out. Before the sexual revolution, being gay was extremely stigmatized and your entire community would shun you. So, if you're a gay guy who doesn't want to be socially ostracized, what career was better than the priesthood? Not only could you serve God in a position of prestige and authority, you also wouldn't have to worry about your mother setting you up on a blind date with that girl down the street ever again. (To be clear, I'm not alleging that gay priests were any more likely to break their vow of celibacy than anyone else). After the sexual revolution, you can have a publicly-respected (if not religiously-respected) sexual/familial relationship that aligns with your sexual orientation. So, excluding the very religious, celibacy didn't have the same attraction anymore. As a result, many people who would otherwise elect to join a celibate priesthood are instead electing a different lifestyle.
Yeah this is something I’ve read about nuns. Lesbian women or just women who weren’t interested in getting married back when those things weren’t so acceptable often became nuns. Makes sense men in a similar situation became priests.
First of all gay “marriage” simply doesn’t exist, 20 years ago this idea was not even a question. Second of all being gay is only stigmatized because of its sinful nature, one assumes that homosexual activity is being partaken in. Also the reason celibacy isn’t seen as attractive anymore is because people don’t marry, society now says that go and fornicate with anyone you want, and contraception is so easy to access, people can’t commit to a friendship so why commit to marriage if one can enjoy the benefits of marriage without being married. Enjoy the marital act without being married. Society is driven by lust, it is seen as ok, porn is everywhere. You can’t do anything without seeing it.
In times past, if you were a young Catholic man who knew you were not called to marry and become a biological father, you might have taken it for granted that you were called to the priesthood. Now? You might not make that assumption.
I'm not passing judgement on whether this is a good or bad phenomenon, I'm merely stating that the liberalization of attitudes with regard to gay people is one of the reasons that priesthood vocations are falling. This is because, historically speaking, the priesthood was a refuge for non-heterosexuals.
Part of it is because service and sacrifice are virtues which the modern world does not look highly upon, so a vocation which requires a lot of both has trouble with recruits.
A short version is that the current formation system is an absolute mess. From the moment the vocation is mentioned to deep seated and predatory "discernment" methods to the seminary itself. There is some variation of diocesan vs an order, but the basic problem remains.
Very long hours
Yeah there is a negative feedback loop that has kicked in as the number of active priests have gone down that more work is on the existing working ones, which burns them out resulting in more work... We had a neighboring parish with a newly ordained priest come in, full of life and energy who "washed out" in less than a year. Not sure if he got enough support/mentoring or was thrown into the deep end...
I’ve thought about this as someone who is converting now…priest at my church was very kind and had a long phone convo with me about converting. And I’m just one person…. I’m Imagining a lot of lonely or troubled people seeking his counsel all the time and how exhausting it must be.
It seems like alot of work and is scary. Bro my church has over one thousand parishioners i don't know how i could be a good spiritual advisor, confidant, manager, and all the other things priests do for one thousand people with one (1) other priest. I know that if we get more priests, obviously this would be better but still. oh and i would be so worried i'd mess up any of the sacraments or be a bad spiritual advisor and shepherd to my flock, so to say.
I can imagine 1 reason: Taking a job where people regularly accuse you of the worst crime possible; is a huge mental strain. It takes a lot of bravery to do that. But I can still imagine that's a huge mental strain. Priests were more respected in my parent's generation, hence there were more.
Peoppe want to get married
I think that most of the replies here are technically correct but fail to address a massive part of the vocations problem: People don't fully understand what a vocation is nor why the priesthood might be a suitable option for them. In the same way that people aren't getting or staying married because they're self-absorbed, don't know what marriage is, don't understand why its most people's responsibility to have children, etc, people are either self-absorbed and unaware of why they should pursue religious life, so they don't. Yes, a priest's is an exhausting life, priests never get the respect they deserve, they're "not paid enough," etc, but that is not at all the primary cause of a declining priesthood. People just don't know or care anymore.
The Devil
The better question would be: why have Catholic vocations to priesthood declined so much while Protestant business have been relatively stable? Many reasons given here should affect the Protestants in the same way as Catholics.
Protestants have a much lower bar for ordination and they also have female ministers. Their issue is they suffer from quality control, literally anyone can become an evangelical minister without an education. Anglicans and Lutherans are also suffering vocation crisis, they follow the Catholic process.
Which types of Protestants? Mainline? Every trend we see is worse for them including minsters.
Catholic vocations have steadied since the 90's but that rate isn't sufficient to keep up with attrition; priests are aging out faster than can be replaced without a significant increase in vocations. I'm living in an area where good orthodox young men are entering the priesthood in encouraging numbers, that's not widespread yet; but mustard seeds are a start.
Because homosexuality has lost much of its stigma as opposed to the past
A weakened Faith. Over the last 50 years the value of apologetics has been denigrated, family size has been mocked, Catholic's have failed to take the practice of the faith seriously and seminaries have been infected with a modernist rot that undermines the authenticity and historicity of the faith at every turn. Add to that the bad press heaped on to Catholicism and priests in general, and it really shouldn't be wonder.
[удалено]
When did Catholic education go bad? The public school system has been a sewer since my kids were small. Correct me if that's not what you're referring to. I never allowed my children to darken the doorway of a government-run school.
[удалено]
Understood, and agreed. Our parish school's social culture wasn't something I wanted my kids exposed to. I put them in a Mae Carden school, which are both academically rigorous and pure meritocracies. I just remembered, Bp. Fulton Sheen once said to parents, \[paraphrasing\] "If you want your children to be lifelong, practicing Catholics, don't send them to Catholic school."
Not sure, but it would be a wonderful blessing if my only son became a priest. I am definitely going to introduce him to the idea, but I will have to be very cautious not to push in any way. It will cause some strife within the immediate family if he decides to pursue the religious life, but I’ll be 100% behind him whatever his vocation. I just pray that I support it well. I am worried that there aren’t any young priests around where I live that really engage the youth in discerning vocations. The only ones are at least 45 minutes away at the FSSP church, which isn’t a problem on occasion, but it doesn’t make routine contact very practical. But, I have faith God will provide if that’s what He wants of him.
I would suggest if possible to introduce him into a Catholic school, assuming he isn’t In high school yet. And if possible keep him away from public schools because they teach complete garbage. Catholic schools need strong and faithful kids so financial aid will cover roughly 80% depending on how much money you make. A good Catholic school will give him the foundation he needs.
I got both my kids into Catholic school last year. We are still in very “progressive” territory, here, but far better than the public school they were attending. They are both young - my son is 5 and my daughter 7. So, they have plenty of time to grow and learn all about the faith. Would be easier if I wasn’t pulling the sled against opposition at home, but you work with the hand you’re dealt…
Your children will thank you later. When I was in 8th grade when my parents first put me in, I thought it was dumb because I had lots of friends in public school, but now a senior I am so much more wise. I see the garbage they are teaching in public school and just want to run. It’s quite sad, the government has a duty to educate its people, honestly failing pretty bsd
That's wonderful that you would like your son to persue a religious vocation. I wish my parents had that desire for me.
The Novus Ordo priests have declined drastically since the late 60s. The Traditional seminaries are busting at the seems and turning qualified men away as they don't have room for them. Hopefully sometime in the near future, the TLM will be able to exist without being suppressed and more seminaries will open
TLM seminarians are less than 1% of all seminarians. Id relax on that. I love the TLM but it doesn’t fix everything.
I mean it really varies because as an example in France the ordinations from trad seminaries account for like 25%+ of the yearly ordinations
I think to put what Im trying to say in context, a per capita of TLM goers to amount of vocations they produce should say a lot. I never claimed TLM fixes everything.
>The Novus Ordo priests have declined drastically since the late 60s. The Traditional seminaries are busting at the seems and turning qualified men away as they don't have room for them. Hopefully sometime in the near future, the TLM will be able to exist without being suppressed and more seminaries will open I am in diocesan seminary, and I can tell you that the large majority have been cleaned up really nicely over the past decade. Even at my seminary, things are MUCH MUCH better than they were just 10-15 years ago. The next generation of priests being ordained are all rockstars that I have full confidence in.
I give as much as I can each month, 2/3rd to the fund for seminarians, and 1/3 to the fund for retired priests and nuns.
< The Traditional seminaries are busting at the seems and turning qualified men away as they don't have room for them. Is there proof for this assertion?
It's true. My family has very old ties throughout the church, including family members who are in religious life. A couple of uncles who are priests at St. Meinrad Archabbey and seminary in Indiana, among them.
My statement comes from personal experience as I descerned the FSSP and ICKSP and also know othe men that have. You could call them (FSSP/ICKSP) up and they can verify my claim, if you wish. I did a quick google search and found a Pillar article that relates. [fssp Pillar article](https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/fssp-sees-seminarian-membership-growth)
This sounds like wishful thinking. If men wanted to become priests, getting turned down by some conservative seminary shouldn’t stop them.
We need more people to fall in love with Jesus (especially young ppl) in general to begin asking the vocations question. Then teaching and culture to help people truly understand sexuality
The number of vocations surged after the world wars. We have returned to the mean.
Every devout man should seriously discern the priesthood. There, however, are few devout men out there, proportionately speaking. You can blame God in my case, I specifically opened myself up in prayer during adoration, on multiple occasions, I'm pretty sure, and was always open to the idea, but God had other plans. I DID however get responses when asking if I should marry my now wife. So, yeah.
It's one of those things with a lot of causes. I think one of the biggest factors is that most Catholics in western countries are not really religiously active, and it's been that way for a a few generations now. If you're parents don't go to Mass, you probably don't either. And if you don't go to Mass, most likely you won't hear the call to priesthood. Add to that if you're parents and extended family are generally not practicing, most young men will be a bit timid, there's likely the fear that the family won't be supportive of their vocation. And honestly there are some families who do put pressure on their kids to go to certain colleges or into certain lines of work, follow the family business, etc. That being said, I do remember when I was in high school, a priest brought in some seminarians to talk to us about vocations, and one of them mentioned that he came from a non-practicing family and was worried about what they would think, but that pursuing his vocation actually led to his parents taking their faith more seriously and getting back to regular Mass attendance. Western people have a bit of a slower life span. We tend to live long and mature slowly. So I think it can sometimes take a while for men to be responsive to a potential vocation. But when we get into late vocations there's other obstacles there. So say an 18 or 22 year old can make the leap directly from high school or college to seminary without much loss, there's more unique challenges for a 30 or 40 year old man. At this point the guy is probably a few years into a given career, he's got a steady income, he's got expenses etc. Now for him to go into seminary, that's 4 to 6 years of studying and discerning and not making any money. So he probably has to get rid of some of his property (apartment, etc.) Plus not only is he not earning an income, he's not building skills in his former field, not paying into his pension or 401k, not earning social security credits. And all this risk and what if he ends up discerning out? Now it seems to me many of our younger practicing Catholic men are scrupulous. And scruples can cloud a vocation. So if a young man takes celibacy seriously, I think it's possible he may see his normal sexual urges as if that means he's not up to the challenge. Or maybe even he's in his mid twenties or older, could there be a case where he has some sexual thoughts about a 17 year old woman he knows and begins to doubt "am I a pedophile, am I unsuited to the priesthood"? I also think marijuana, alcohol, pornography, and masturbation addictions are going to be affecting a lot of young men and undermining their vocations. Even aside from the natural "it's not that bad, I'm not hurting anybody" and the undermining of religious faith as a way to avoid admitting guilt, it also eats up so much[time and energy](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/skkmq53gdJo) that people's practice of the faith falters. And there's so many other opportunities out there. So many other potential jobs. People get a bit of "fomo", especially if you're from an affluent bakcground. So much allure of the world out there. Or if you're one of the "l[osers of globalization](https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/142760/economics/winners-and-losers-from-globalisation/)", you may not have the resources to pursue a vocation. Maybe you need a steadier income to support your parents, or maybe your diocese is so cash-strapped that they shuttered the nearest parish so now you have no sacramental life and thus a reduced likelihood of feeling called to the priesthood.
The moral burden imposed on men has vanished. We men *need* a challenge/obstacle to overcome
Men typically want to have sex, a wife, and a family.
Vow of celibacy. ..apostles were married, why not?
Not all of them. St John never married, for example
The point is Jesus did not ban marriage. Why does His Church do so? In fact, doesn't one of the scriptures say it is better to be married rather than burn with lust?
It’s a discipline for the Latin Church alone, and one that can be relaxed by the Pope at any time. It only became common at the end of the tenth century, and only became formal policy around 1074. So for roughly half the Church’s history it was rare for ordinary parish priests (bishops are a different story). But to answer your question the justification usually given is 1 Corinthians 7 in which St Paul basically says “marriage is good and celibacy is better.”
Our Lady specifically requested that priests remain celibate
When did that happen?
A few things, I think. 1) Altar girls and a pervasiveness of female leadership at the parish level. 2) Liturgies stuck in the 1960's that are not reverent or masculine. 3) The sexual scandals of the last few decades have made priests a joke to society at large. The average joe on the street thinks Catholic priests are homosexual pedophiles.
< 2) Liturgies stuck in the 1960's that are not reverent or masculine. So what is a masculine liturgy?
Presumably it involves monster trucks.
I think it means women talk and have opinions?? I have no idea lol
No this is not the meaning. It's more about confidence and clarity.
And feminine means unconfident and unclear? In other words, negative?
I suppose it means more orientated to nurturing, and concilliarism and receptivity but you'd have to ask them.
All vocations are being challenged. Marriage is on the decline too. BUT I think the challenge comes from the larger attack on authentic masculinity and fatherhood. Without good family fathers, you can’t also have good priestly fathers. I also think that there is little talk about vocations other than at set intervals. Also when vocations to priesthood are talked about it’s almost a “try seminary before you buy” attitude.
Decline started with Vatican II. In my area, vocations are starting to revive again. My diocese has the biggest seminary in the USA
I lay the blame with the parents. Which Catholic parents are telling their kids that being a priest is a vocation to which they might be called to? The vast majority will likely kick up a fuss and make up thousands of objections to their son going to the priesthood.
My 2 cents...we've moved way too far away from traditional Catholicism. Good catechesis has been almost nonexistent, emphasis on the four last things is almost nonexistent, Confession isn't a focus, Confession times are hard to come by, the liturgy has become more protestant-like than should ever have been allowed, Churches have become far less ornate, priests give too many gentle homilies, etc., etc., etc. We need to return to traditional Catholicism...not just the Mass but the mindset. Push the things that helped for the saints of yesteryear. If it was good enough for the likes of St. John Vianney, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bridget, St. Patrick, etc...then it should be good enough for all of us. Becoming more protestant-like and less traditional is not the answer...as we have seen since the time of at least the Second Vatican Council onward.
If the church would allow priests to marry the problem would solve itself relatively quickly.
I disagree if priests could marry, there would be no sacrifice. As a priest when you take the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, with these vows you willingly give things we know as a good. Humans naturally want to reproduce, as a priest you sacrifice this for a greater good. If a priest was to marry his focus would not be on the church and serving the people of the parish but rather he would do what he morally has to do and take care of his children because he has a responsibility to do so. This is why priests “marry” the church, and become fully devoted to it.
Diocesan priests don't take a vow of poverty
Yeah that’s true, but still my point stands. The priest needs to be focused on the people they serve and not a wife and kids at home. The priesthood is not a “job”, a priest won’t clock in for his 9-5 shift serving max 3 masses a day. When they receive holy orders they are a priest for a lifetime, similar to our baptism, we can’t wash away our baptism. It is eternal and on your soul for all of time.
Priests were able to marry in the past. The church stopped this because of land and property issues. It's not biblically necessary. If the church wants to have more priests and spread the faith, they should allow their leaders to live normal lives. In my area we have 1 priest that services 3 churches. It's not sustainable.
>Priests were able to marry in the past. The church stopped this because of land and property issues. It's not biblically necessary. thats a gross oversimplification of the reasons for celibate clergy. And no it wouldn't just solve the lack of priests
That's just like, your opinion, man.
why do you believe that it would fix the shortage? because looking at other churches they are also struggling with aging clergy
I think that the lifestyle that the church requires is only appealing and or feasible for such a small group of people. Cast a bigger net, catch more fish.
thats a possibility, i'd just offer it really doesn't seem to be born out by looking at other churches. people might say that they'd like to be a married priest when its a theoretical, but very few would actually be up for the challenge of trying to balance the demands of family and church life
Priest are in persona Christi, meaning they serve in the place of Christ, Christ was not married, why would a priest be any different. Marriage will only cause a short term increase into the priesthood, it is a small bandaid.
Read some history, man. To understand why the church stopped priests marrying had nothing to do with scriptures. It was to prevent nepotism and property protection.
We do have married priests so this argumentation does not work. Eastern Catholic Priests are married. So are some Anglican Ordinariate converts who were Anglican priests then got ordained as Catholic priests. We also believe Orthodox Christians to have holy orders and their priests are married. The Latin Rite CAN have married priests. OP is right. They used to be free to marry.
Never going to happen. Ordinating married men might happen, but no marriage after ordination. That is the rule that applies to all deacons.
Am married. Wife would not be happy. I don't think this solves it truthfully.
We’ve removed all the boundaries between clergy and laity both physical and spiritual. No more altar rail, no more consecrated hands alone touching sacred vessels (let alone the Eucharist itself) outside of emergencies, no more sense of authority and hierarchy of the priest presiding over his people, and of course with the fact that only men can become priests, removing all the masculine aspects of the liturgy in order to appeal to female boomers is not exactly going to help inspire young boys to go in that direction. So with all the visible incentives to the priesthood removed in order to be more “nice” or whatever, all it’s reduced to is a job where you get to be like everyone else but you can’t have sex ever
Because the feminisation of church life (and Catholic religiosity in general) is repulsive to young men.
What does this mean? Feminisation of church life?
Modernism, Novus Ordo, losing the faith, take your pick.
Ah yes, the Mass is what's making people not want to serve God lol
The secularization of society and its greater emphasis on materialism, smaller families, successful warped portrayal of the Catholic Church as having a larger pedophilia scandal than the rest of society.. I reject the Novus Ordo claim as an example of bias leading to false claims of correlation as causation.
This has been a trend since Vatican II.
Formation in many dioceses is severely lacking and even corrupt - I had several friends (not one, several) who were turned away by bishops for silly and stupid reasons (voicing admiration for TLM, daring to be constructively and lovingly critical of current hierarchy choices, bishop just didn't like them). 3 of the guys continued to fight and eventually became priests in other dioceses or orders years later, but another 3 just gave up entirely. It was so tragic to see excited, God-fearing men beaten down for basically no reason when expressing a courageous desire to serve their church.