Priest psychology: why do men become Priests?

By definition, becoming a priest means giving up intimate relations, i.e. wife. Seems to me there are many ways of “serving God” besides becoming a priest.

I’vfe often wondered about the psychology of those who join the priesthood: for expl, do they have low need for intimate relations with a woman? By “intimate” don’t mean sex, specifically, but “relationship”.

Appreciate any thoughts readers have.

I am not a Priest, so my thoughts on this are pretty meaningless, but I would answer in this way. Being a Priest is a calling. I believe there are some men who desire to become Priests for the wrong reasons (i.e. a sense of self-importance or to be front and center of everyone’s attention). However, I would bet that a good majority of Priest do so with a sense of humility.

Being a Priest is sacrifice. If it were easy, we would have no shortage of Priests and I would argue an even greater number of scandals plaguing the Church.

If you are focusing on the discipline of celibacy, then chances are you are not being called to become a Priest, but if you are focusing on Christ Jesus, our Blessed Mother, and the bride of Christ, then true intimacy you will find.

My cousin dated a guy who later became ordained a Priest (and a very good young Priest). His name is Fr. Phil if you would like to Pray for him.

I also have a cousin who had a great job with the United States Pentagon when he heard God’s call to join the Franciscans. He was ordained a couple years ago as a Deacon I believe.

Neither of these young men lacked an attraction to females if this is what you are asking. I do think we have a homosęxuąl Priest problem in the Church (from back in the 60’s & 70’s), but most Priests today are doing it for the right reasons.

I have a childhood friend who was on that A&E show God or the Girl, where they followed around four young men who were discerning the Priesthood. My friend lived in a home (a sort of fraternity for young Catholic men) with one of the guys, Dan, who was discerning the Priesthood. So, you would see my friend in the background doing the dishes, or participating in one of the challenges Dan’s vocations director or spiritual director would give to the young man (like building a wooden cross that Dan would walk for miles with).

In this show, which I have on DVD, some of the men would have made great Priests. But, two of the young men were being pressured by others in their lives and not being lead by our Lord. And as the saying goes, “Jesus leads, Satan pushes.”

One of the young men were being pressured by his mother, who wanted nothing more than to have a Priest for a son. Another young man was being pressured by his Parish Priest.

Dan, whom I thought would make a great Priest, ultimately chose not to, but rather to become a Youth minister and speaker at Conventions.

By the end of the show, only one of the young men decided to continue onto Seminary, but none of them were ever ordained Priests.

My Wife and I watch “Married at First Sight” (not a recommendation). Every once in a while, a couples will remain Married successfully. Our Friend’s maid of honor was on this show and she and her Husband are still Married, have children, and are living a good life. They were on one of the earlier Seasons. The last few Season’s we’ve watched, the success rate is extremely low. There have been seasons where none of the couple remain Married!

In the beginning there was little pressure to do anything, but build a relationship with the one the “experts” matched them with. But, as the show went on, the individuals would interact more with the others on the show. The bros would get together and hang out. And the gals would get together and gossip. It would add more to the drama of the show, but it also introduces more feelings of doubt among many going through the process.

They would begin comparing their relationship to that of the other couples (something I would advise any Married person to not do).

Likewise, it would be a bad idea for a Priest to start comparing his relationship with Christ and His Church to those who are living another vocation.

This being said, I do think it is very good for Priests to get together with other Priest friends and do fun things. Our young Priest often invites other Priest friends or Seminarians to come sit around a fire on his patio or go catch a baseball game.

Not sure if anything I have said here helps or takes away from the conversation, but I think good relationships are what make any vocation successful. And the most important relationship is our relationship with Jesus Christ.

As Cade said, it’s a vocation, and (normally and currently) the vocations to priesthood and marriage are exclusive of each other, though I have met a couple of married Catholic priests (former Episcopalians who wanted to become Catholic priests and were accepted). Men who are called to the priesthood do have to make sacrifices, though marriage is not always one of them (that is, not all of these men would have gotten married if they hadn’t become priests). One thing their sacrificial celibacy gives us all is an example that sexual desire is not something that always must be followed, and this is opposite to the prevailing attitude in society, which says that sexual desires must be gratified. So I thank God for our priests, and a few years ago I was a hospital volunteer along with a Franciscan brother (and many other volunteers, some ordained but mostly not), and I thanked God that He had called some men to be brothers to the rest of us.

1 Like

It seems clear to me that people vary in the strengths of their need for companionship, for serving God, etc. Some people have strong needs to be with others, others minimal needs; same for serving God.

IThe idea of “God”, after all, is totally man-made. There is no evidence for any of the key aspects of any religion–god, soul, afterlife, etc.

So you have to wonder why some individuals are drawn to “serve God”. when actually, all the evidence is that the idea of god’s existence is totally man-made.

Consider as well that there a single text–the New Testament–has given birth to literally hundreds of sects, with may different ideas, all calling themselves “Christian”.

Seems to me that the Catholic church, in particular, is an organization that seeks power over all human beings (or anyway, has, until very recently) and that has never formally and honestly acknowledged its many failings.

I can’t remember if it was Fulton J. Sheen or someone else who said, all other religions is an example of man seeking God. Christianity, however, is God’s search for man. Jesus (God incarnate) came to earth to show us love, not just to be loved.

Jesus was very real. He has a soul. He is life-after.

Jesus did not come to hand out Bibles. He came to start a church in the Apostles. Jesus breathed on them and game them authority. The problem is not the New Testament. The problem is when individuals reject the authority gifted to the Apostles and their successors, and instead make their own interpretation of the Sacred Texts their authority. Notice here that I did not say that they make the Bible their authority, but rather their interpretation of the Bible their authority. This is why there are so many Christian denominations. It is not Scripture’s fault.

We admit our failing at every Sacred Liturgy. Countless Popes have formally and honestly admitted where the Church has done sinful things throughout history.

As far as the Catholic Christian Church seeking power over all human beings, I’m not sure what you mean by this. The Church speaks with a sense of authority, because God, who is almighty, gifted His bridegroom certain authority.

I’m a Libertarian, so I get your rejection of human power over another. No one is forcing me to be Catholic. Being Catholic is voluntary. And the authority of Christ’s bride is not the power of men, but rather stewards of the power given them by Jesus Christ. Men who misuse their authority will answer to God when it is all said and done.

I have a few questions for you @MrCurious:

  1. Do you believe in aliens?
  2. Do you believe in objective morality?
  3. Do you believe we are here by accident?
  4. If we are here by accident (nothing matters), and there is no such thing as objective morality, then can you really say that anything the Catholic Church has done ever is evil (which I define as being not of God) or even morally wrong? For if morality is subjective, then who are you to say that anything anyone does is wrong? Anything goes, everything just is, and nothing matters.
  5. What brought you to this forum? (I’m glad you are here and I hope we can better understand where each of us is coming from. Looking forward to your responses : )

Partial answer, more later.

I am enjoying this discussion and I hope it continues, and in a respectful manner.

— Do you believe in aliens?

If by aliens you mean, creatures or beings of any sort who are not from earth, I am aware of no evidence supporting that idea, so I guess you could answer that “no”.

Do you believe in objective morality?

You do not define the term “objective morality”, but here are my ideas about morality. These are not ALL my ideas, but the basics:

  1. To the best of my knowledge, “the golden rule” is timeless and is found in all religions and philosophies. I believe in it.

  2. I don’t care what others believe. I care about others’ behavior, and for the most part if their behavior does not affect me (e.g. sexual behavior), I don’t care what that behavior is.

OBVIOUS EXCEPTION: harming others, e.g. theft, physical harm, etc. These things should be dealt with, and ideally, by civil law.

— Do you believe we are here by accident?

I am not aware of any data that explain how or why there is life on earth, though I’m pretty sure that ALL religions believe their deity created life.

—If we are here by accident (nothing matters),

I gather that you believe that "if we are here by accident, ‘nothing’ matters’ ". I do not see how the first idea implies the second one; and I do not know what you mean by “nothing matters”.

—If we are here by accident (nothing matters), and there is no such thing as objective morality, then can you really say that anything the Catholic Church has done ever is evil (which I define as being not of God) or even morally wrong?

I do not understand this question.

It is undenible that the history of the Catholoic church, as an organization, includes lots of bad stuff. Obvious examples: wars against Muslims, contempt for women, murder of Joan of Arc, anti-semitism by popes and Catholic organizations (e.g. by jesuits–acknowledged by some Jesuits, but not by the SJ); etc. /

For if morality is subjective, then who are you to say that anything anyone does is wrong? Anything goes, everything just is, and nothing matters.

Ask these questions again in a more precise, well-defined way.

What aRE your thoughts about the fact that the Gold Rule seens to be a fundamental part of human behavior and belief?

What brought you to this forum? (I’m glad you are here and I hope we can better understand where each of us is coming from. Looking forward to your responses : )

Iam always interested in learning more about the beliefs and behavior of others.

Apologies for poor quoting etc, I am still learning how to use this site.

1 Like

Your basis for this statement? Bible citations, please.

Oh. Really?

Please tell me where the church apologized for burning Joan of Arc.

Please show me where the Society of Jesus apologized for publishing the most idiotic anti-Semitism for 100 years in its periodical LaCivilta Cattolica. The SJ apologized for slave trading, but not for anti-Semitism–and several jesuits agree. See, flor example, the book Jesuit Kaddish by BC professor (emeritus) Fr Bernauer.

Show me where the church apologized for the wars against Muslims.

Of course, I want CITATIONS.

If we are nothing more than a bunch of atoms bumping into one another, then what we do to one another is also nothing more than atoms bumping into other atoms. Human beings have value, because of who we are in God’s image.

My point is that if we are not created by God, but simply a result of particles evolving over time then we are more like jewelry, which are just shiny rocks.

It seems to me that you believe morality is a consensus. If the majority believe something to be true, then it is more likely to be true. Whereas I believe that truth is objective, in spite of how many individuals believe something to be true or not. If 99% of individuals believed something to be moral, it does not make it so. And maybe you agree.

The problem with The Golden Rule is that it is kind of subjective in of itself. Do unto others as you would want done unto you. It is by this rule that I tend to mind my own business and leave people alone when they are dealing with things. It is why I dislike that show, “What Would You Do,” where they put people in certain situations and then tell you that you are wrong for not intervening, when I don’t think it is any of my business to intervene. Apparently the producers of the show do believe it is more moral to intervene.

I once asked a moral relativist a question about a topic that I thought everyone agreed upon, namely that rąpe is evil. I used this extreme example, because I thought pretty much every human being agreed that this act against another human being is morally wrong. But, he argued that it depends on the circumstances. In some cases, rąpe is not only morally acceptable, but even good. He said that in the case that the human species was not procreating at a sustainable rate, then it is okay. I disagree. Even in these circumstances, it would be wrong to commit such an evil act.

You brought up the Society of Jesus (better known as The Jesuits). They have been known to teach a thing known as situational ethics, which is where you pit two immoral things to one another and force one to choose which is the right choice, based on the outcome of said choice. Don’t get me wrong, I find the thought experiment fun, like playing the “Trial by Trolley” board game, but it does not make a wrong choice right, but rather necessary.

If my family is starving and I go to a market and steal bread, it does not make my actions morally good. It simply makes my actions necessary. Does this make sense?

Yes, as any human organization does. Governments, government schools, corporations, etc. Anywhere you have fallen human nature, you have corruption. It also does not make it right.

Let me recommend a few boobs by Steve Weidenkopf. He gives context to some of these dark times in the Church’s History.

The Catholic Church did actually exonerate her through a retrial and has canonized her as a Saint. The Church ruled that the original trial was biased and did not follow proper procedure.

I don’t really know much about this. What I do know is that the Jesuits are sometimes referred to as “the Jews of the Catholic Church” (a derogatory term), which is ironic, since you claim that they are anti-Semitic. Rather than paint everyone of a particular order with a wide brush, I like to look at the behavior of individuals. Who authored the articles that you are offended by? Was this individual(s) anti-Semitic? Maybe so. The publication you are referring to was long before my lifetime, and I am not a fan of the Jesuits, so it is not a publication that I would read today. America Magazine is a Jesuit publication that I do not read today.

Same. You are in good company : )

No worries. You’ll get there. Did you know that there is a training you can take to better understand how to use this site?

Once again,l your response is interesting and reveals a lot about you.

You could have asked me a question; instead, you are in effect guessing at what I meant.


  • Thank you for the clarification re Joan of Arc, though you did not address my request for a CITATION re the church and its war against Muslims.

More later

Once again, your response to my comments tells me something important about you. You wrote:

What I do know is that the Jesuits are sometimes referred to as “the Jews of the Catholic Church” (a derogatory term), which is ironic, since you claim that they are anti-Semitic.

Please show me where I said that.

I have no idea if the SJ today, or a significant number of its members, is anti-Semitic. I know for sure that there are several Jebbies who’ve pointed out anti-Semitism in Jesuit history. I do know that the SJ has a well-documented history of anti-Semitism–and that
despite considerable research, I have been unable to find any apology for it, much less an admission of such.

I don’t really know much about this. What I do know is that the Jesuits are sometimes referred to as “the Jews of the Catholic Church” (a derogatory term), which is ironic, since you claim that they are anti-Semitic. Rather than paint everyone of a particular order with a wide brush, I like to look at the behavior of individuals. Who authored the articles that you are offended by? Was this individual(s) anti-Semitic? Maybe so. The publication you are referring to was long before my lifetime, and I am not a fan of the Jesuits, so it is not a publication that I would read today. America Magazine is a Jesuit publication that I do not read today.

Above is a quote by you. And once again, you have misread and misunderstood what I wrote. Interesting how often you do that.

When I learned about the Jesuit history of anti-Semitism, and in particular the stuff written in AN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION of the SJ, I was not at all offended.

On the contrary, I was pleased!–not by the horrible, anti-Christian content, but by the fact that Jesuit history confirmed something I suspected about the jesuits (at least, of that era, if not today): that they (at least some, if not many) started out with lots of ridiculous assumptions about the world, and did nothing to investigate–confirm or refute–those assumptions.

You’re right. I should have asked you what you believe makes something moral/immoral. I will rephrase my questions.

  1. What do you believe makes something moral/immoral? Consensus? Each Individual? God? or something/someone else?
  2. Am I correct that you believe holding anti-Semitic views is immoral? I do believe hating an entire group based on the actions of individuals is wrong.
  3. Do you believe Muslims did anything wrong in the beef between Catholics and Muslims long ago or are they only victims?
  4. Do you hold Catholic Christians today responsible for the actions of Catholics in the past?
  5. What is your story? Were you brought up in a particular Faith tradition?

Thanks : )

Cade said that the Church has many times apologized for things it did wrong. He didn’t say that it had officially apologized for every thing it had ever done wrong. I read a biography of Joan of Arc. It said that both the British and the French were Catholics back then, and the British didn’t dare admit that she might have been divinely inspired. Not very good Catholics, eh?

Trial by Trolley, Cade? I ride a trolley several times per week. I rode one twice today to get groceries. It’s the closest public transportation to our apartment. I shudder to think that it might have unethical aspects!

1 Like

Regarding ethics, “situational morality”, and so on"

I am by no means a religion expert, but I’d guess that all major religions teach that adultery is wrong.

I read of a situation in which a happily-married woman told her husband that it would be fine with her if he had sex with another woman.

The woman was in the last months of life from some fatal disease. Her husband was her caregiver. She wanted her husband to have a good life after her death, so she was encouraging him to find a new partner.

OK, all you folks who believe in simple rules for life given by god, speak up if you think this was wrong

Uhh…seems to me that jesus endorsed the Golden rule in at least 2 places, one of which that comes to mind immediately is Luke 6:31.

I do believe in clear-cut rules given by God. One of the Ten Commandments says, “You shall not commit adultery.” It doesn’t say you may do it if your wife gives you permission. It’s still wrong. Committing adultery would not give someone a good life. As Jesus said, happy are those who hear the word of God and keep it.

1 Like

My best guess is that the church does not apologize bec. if it did, then smart-asses like me would say “Oh. You mean, you misread or misunderstood the words of Jesus? Maybe you’re still doing so in some of your current views. Say, like abortion?”

I believe tough, challenging questions posed to any individual or organization help that individual or organization to think more clearly and honestly about its beliefs, so I thank you for asking them.

I have not given sufficient thought to the definition and implications of the term “moral”, so on that score my response may be a bit vague. Hatred by a large number of individuals is damaging to the target, and just plain wrong. And says something about the haters.

In general, behaviors or ststements that harm or disparage another person in any way are wrong. However, i can imagine behaviors etc that are wrong in themselves, but which are done for a greater good. And in fact US law often recognizes that certain illegal behaviors can be ignored if done for the greater good.

On some matters of “morality”, the Catholic position differs from the Unitarian position, which differs from the Jewish position, which differs from the Lutheran position, and so on. What makes the Lutheran god smarter or more moral or superior in any way to the Muslim god?

Of course, there is no objective evidence of any sort for the existence of “god” (however you define it). My strong suspicion is that people invent the concept of god for a variety of reasons, one of which is to justify their own beliefs and behaviors, and to try to influence the behavior of others.

I believe that hatred of any group based on its ethnic or geographical (etc.) origin is wrong. It damages the hater and often the target. And it reveals a lot about the character and thinking abilities of the hater

As to responsibility for past actions of the Catholic Church or "organization ",–indeed, any organization-- clearly no lay Catholic or clerical person is responsible for past actions by others. However, that does not mean that officials of the Church, as an organization–pope, cardinals, etc-- bear no responsibility for past views or actions of that organization. That is especially true when those beliefs allegedly come from “god”.

IOW, I believe that current officials of any organization have a respionsibility to be honest about the history of the organization, and to admit if it has done wrong in the past–and make up for that wrong. That is the nature of holding power in an organization.

Enough for one day.