Married clergy and Katrina

I hope they are, this is one are in which all clergy need to support each other.

(frannie) By remaining single they are attached ONLY to the community, their is no split loyalty between their family and those they serve. Reading the article it appears that having to support a family and the community is often part of the problem. Yes, the priests may be more detached from individual situations, but that is not necessarily a bad thing in the wake of any tragedy. (Speaking from my experience after my dad died, it was a few friends and strangers that got us through the first few months, because they were not immersed in our problems, but were reaching out from solid ground, as it were.)

This is where Catholic priests (and the southern baptists, who seem to have a lower demand for counseling services as well), can help their fellow clergy. To reach from more stable ground, to pull others back ashore.

Again, perhaps the article--a poor one in my opinion--only stops when things get interesting, but I think if the catholic diocese had shown a striking response in this way, it would be part of the story. That the diocesan spokesman only commented on celibacy/the lack of family to be concerned with suggests that neither the diocese nor bishop suggested anything else particularly supportive that they wished to highlight, or perhaps even thought such a thing as reaching out to other clergy in some organized way. So, I do hope that there was support offered on an individual basis, at least.

Remaining single can go either way for men, especially. Men's lifelong developmental issue is self-absorption vs. connection, and while we all know the argument that you are presenting, there is no clear answer on this one for catholic clergy. It can be that people can focus more on the larger community if not as involved with the more intimate (if they had enough healthy intimacy ever to begin with), but it is also true that we learn to care best by caring intimately. Detachment can work and not work. You speak to an ideal that the church would like to see happen, but we don't know whether or not was operative.

That the Southern Baptists were the other group puts something of a dent in the idea that the reason for the difference is celibacy. So, we should be asking other questions. Is it the institutional support of the clergy that is strongest for those two groups (yes, either by institution or by prominence). Perhaps the greater number of the clergy of these two churches, so perhaps the whole being greater in effect? (yes, likely). Perhaps more resources to draw from (yes, likely).

This is a very interesting issue for research.

He said one possible reason is that priests do not have wives or children to support and protect."

Does that mean that celibate priests are less tied to their community, less able to share their struggles and suffering? Do the Catholics say us and them, while the others say we?

I've been kinda puzzling through this one, and your questions are some of those floating around. I've wondered also if the idea of 'getting counseling' might also be a bigger hurdle for catholic priests, who do tend to be put in the catbird seat when it comes to getting assistance with life's problems, and may not find it as easy to access privately, or to accept the need. There is also the simpler issue of not having that extra and most intimate layer of personal concerns that family responsibilities bring to us, allowing more detachment from those needs although no support either.

I've been wondering if any of them took other clergy and family out to dinner, for instance, or had them over and just listened to their needs for awhile, just to offer support and break the tensions of having both concerns for one's family and one's church community. Seems like it would do the whole area a little good anyhow.

It's the kind of article that stops when things are important to pursue, it seems to me.