2 Belgian bishops question celibacy discipline [CWN]

[CWN_News]

Two Belgian bishops are questioning the value of the discipline of mandatory priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite. "I think the Church must ask itself the question of whether it is …

More…

 

[wisdomseeker]

May be if they were faithfull to the Church and uphold the teachings of our Lord, this would not have happened. that is the problem they continue to try to run things their way instead of God’s way. this is the big problem.

child molestation and killing of children is done by many married man.

these bishops need to repent and ask God for Mercy. instead they remain arrogant and just want to go with the world. what do these bishop think? obviously they dont believe in repentance or the devil. if they did, they would be praying so they dont fall into temptation instead of speaking against the Church publicly. they are up to cause more trouble for the Church. they are looking for attention for themselves.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Mandatory celibacy was introduced as a dicipline for, what was at the time, practical reasons. Positions in the Church, namely bishoprics, had become hereditary with Church property being seized and bequethed to the heirs of a bishop. It was the only sure method by which the Church could both maintain ownership of property and control over the naming of bishops. These reasons are no longer valid and the dicipline of mandatory celibacy is no longer necessary.

 

[cyb]

May be if they were faithfull to the Church and uphold the teachings of our Lord, this would not have happened. that is the problem they continue to try to run things their way instead of God’s way. this is the big problem.

child molestation and killing of children is done by many married man.

these bishops need to repent and ask God for Mercy. instead they remain arrogant and just want to go with the world. what do these bishop think? obviously they dont believe in repentance or the devil. if they did, they would be praying so they dont fall into temptation instead of speaking against the Church publicly. they are up to cause more trouble for the Church. they are looking for attention for themselves.

So true.

 

[Kearney]

I see nothing wrong or heretical in the questioning of these bishops regarding the state of clerical celibacy in the Latin rite of the Church. Some may consider it imprudent for bishops to question Vatican policy, but if they don’t then who in a position of practical authority will?

I understand the reasons behind Rome’s insistence on continued celibacy of RC priest, but I also believe that the model of married clergy that we see in the Eastern Churches (Both Orthodox and Catholic) is far more practical and necessary for the whole Church to embrace in this troubled day and age. The current Vatican arguments against a married clergy just seem too platonic for the modern Church with her emphasis on the human person and the new understanding of married love and the divine nature of sex to uphold. Marriage is a wonderful gift from God for we human beings and it should not be seen a as second fiddle action to the supposed glories of the celibate lifestyle.

 

[sidbrown]

Two Belgian bishops are questioning the value of the discipline of mandatory priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite.

here is an article entitled: 39 Popes Were Married!
johnshuster.com/thirtynine_popes.htm
Questions have been raised as to whether or not the RC priesthood is a safe haven for a marginalized homosexual subculture. Making marriage mandatory for RC priests might have an impact on this problem.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I see nothing wrong or heretical in the questioning of these bishops regarding the state of clerical celibacy in the Latin rite of the Church. Some may consider it imprudent for bishops to question Vatican policy, but if they don’t then who in a position of practical authority will?

I understand the reasons behind Rome’s insistence on continued celibacy of RC priest, but I also believe that the model of married clergy that we see in the Eastern Churches (Both Orthodox and Catholic) is far more practical and necessary for the whole Church to embrace in this troubled day and age. The current Vatican arguments against a married clergy just seem too platonic for the modern Church with her emphasis on the human person and the new understanding of married love and the divine nature of sex to uphold. Marriage is a wonderful gift from God for we human beings and it should not be seen a as second fiddle action to the supposed glories of the celibate lifestyle.

then, when a married priest abuses a child, then what is the world going to say?

why is it that we never hear anything about married ministers who have abused children. yes, these man are married. what is their explanation for this?

one would have to be very blind not to see that the reason celibate priest has been so attacked is because the devil does not want us to do any sacrifice for God. destroying celibacy of priest would be a great victory for the devil. i am sure that it would be great celebration in hell for this.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I see nothing wrong or heretical in the questioning of these bishops regarding the state of clerical celibacy in the Latin rite of the Church. Some may consider it imprudent for bishops to question Vatican policy, but if they don’t then who in a position of practical authority will?

I understand the reasons behind Rome’s insistence on continued celibacy of RC priest, but I also believe that the model of married clergy that we see in the Eastern Churches (Both Orthodox and Catholic) is far more practical and necessary for the whole Church to embrace in this troubled day and age. The current Vatican arguments against a married clergy just seem too platonic for the modern Church with her emphasis on the human person and the new understanding of married love and the divine nature of sex to uphold. Marriage is a wonderful gift from God for we human beings and it should not be seen a as second fiddle action to the supposed glories of the celibate lifestyle.

i am not surprised that those who call the Church, “modern Church” wants the Church to get with the time.
there is no modern Church, that is what the modernists wants you to believe that we have a new Church.
you know, California found a new way to solve their financial troubles. they came up with teh idea that if they legalize marijuana this would solve their financial troubles. do you see, people no longer wants to repent from their sins and return to God, they just want to continue on their path of distraction as long as they look good to the world.

the modern world could careless about teh Church, they just want to see her destroyed. what a better way to do it, than find Catholics to support their views. than to turn naive Catholics against the Church. i have been seeing this more and more as days go by. more and more Catholics joying the world to change the Church. whatever happened to repentance and return to God and let God do the work? “Be still know that i am God.”
we will stand before God and give account for ever idle word we say. Jesus also says, those who are not for me, are agaisnt me. the world has always been against God.

 

[JackVk]

Married clergy, in essence, is bigamy. The Church is personified as a “she”, because she is the Bride of Christ. The priesthood is not a cop-out of marriage, but another way of using fatherly and husbandly duties. As Jason Evert put it, “a Catholic man has to be a father, be that a dad or a priest”.

 

[sidbrown]

Married clergy, in essence, is bigamy. .

I think that this is heresy since there are married clergy in the RCC, the Greek CC, and the Eastern OC, and they are not regarded as guilty of bigamy.

 

[manygift1spirit]

Questions have been raised as to whether or not the RC priesthood is a safe haven for a marginalized homosexual subculture.

Some parts have been in the past, unfortunately, so there are some sad answers to some of those questions. Fortunately, that is becoming less and less the case quite quickly.

Making marriage mandatory for RC priests might have an impact on this problem.

Perhaps, although it would also be extraordinarily ungracious to reject such charisms, as well as opening the door to many practical drawbacks.

The 500 pound gorilla is, of course, that making the discernment process to the call to the priesthood frank and comprehensive would have a good impact on the problem. In fact, it already has. Praise God.

 

[Kearney]

Oh me, oh my. It’s hard to talk intelligently with people about a subject like this when the start hurling denunciations and repeating stock propaganda phrases on the value of celibate clergy. IThis type of rhetoric shows that some people do not have a very good grasp of Church history outside of twhat they learned from the Baltimore Catechism in their youth. For the first millenium, priest in the Western branch of the Church were permitted to marry (They have always been in the East). The imposition of celibacy on clergy in the West during the 11th century had more to do with property inheritance then it did with promoting a culture of self sacrifice.

Those who talk about such sacrifices being made for God ought to consider that the tremendous amount of service required by priest in his daily life whichis a sacrifice enough. Married Eastern clergy ave never seemed to have any trouble serving God and having a family, why should it be such a burden for our Roman rite clergy? Why must the Church still hold onto the antiquated platonic morality which holds that mariage is an unecessary burden which only exist to control passions and that celibacy is some kind of ideal state and gateway into the transcendent? Why can’t the Church really start seeing the beauty of married love and family as a way of serving God and not just some type of second banana, almost a venial sin type of existance? If only such a development would be made by the stubborn hierarchs of the Roman rite then the Church could move foreward in her mission and faith towards healing the problems and divcisions which plague her internally.

 

[Wardiea]

Oh me, oh my. It’s hard to talk intelligently with people about a subject like this when the start hurling denunciations and repeating stock propaganda phrases on the value of celibate clergy. IThis type of rhetoric shows that some people do not have a very good grasp of Church history outside of twhat they learned from the Baltimore Catechism in their youth. For the first millenium, priest in the Western branch of the Church were permitted to marry (They have always been in the East). The imposition of celibacy on clergy in the West during the 11th century had more to do with property inheritance then it did with promoting a culture of self sacrifice.

I also used to hold these views that imposition of celibacy on the clergy as we view it today was imposed due to the Gregorian reforms of Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) in order to prevent married clergy handing down Church property to their sons (simony) and this resulted in the Second Lateran Council (1139) decree that a marriage attempted by a bishop, priest, or deacon was not only gravely illicit but also invalid. It was my limited understanding of celibacy and how we view in today as dealing with an exclusively unmarried clergy that led me to ask myself why do we need that today since history shows the Catholic Church has had married priests in the past. It was when I did some research on this that I was amazed to find that the subject of celibacy in Church is much more complex and involved than simply as we view it today.

I began my research by reading a book by Cardinal Alfons Stickler (former prefect of the Vatican Library) The Case for Clerical Celibacy : Its Historical Development & Theological Foundations. At first I found the book hard to believe because it throughly refuted my belief that the view of celibacy for higher clerics as we know it today was introduced at the Second Lateran Council (1139). In fact the book stated the new sanction (canon 7) actually confirmed an obligation that had existed for centuries. I am not one who readily admits when I am wrong, however the book is well documented so I looked into some of the other current scholars referenced in the book and yes I was wrong.

Any complete and knowledgeable discussion on celibacy in the Church needs first to include: The Law of Continence. Nowhere in the previous 11 posts do I see mention of this. An understanding of this helps us see how we could have married and unmarried men in the priesthood and how the abuse of this led us to where we are today. Canon Law dealing exclusively with an unmarried clergy as we know it today existed only after The Council of Trent (1521-1545). Before the Council of Trent the unmarried state of the clergy played a secondary role. " Only someone who is not married can live in the unmarried state. Anyone, though, can live in sexual continence, even a married man. This is the decisive approach to early Christian clerical discipline." ( Stephan Heid, Celibacy In The Early Church).

Lastly it is important to know although married men were allowed to become ordained, the Church has never allowed a man once he has become ordained to marry. This is what canon 7 in the Second Lateran Council (1139) was in reference to. So before anyone decides to reply and tell me I am wrong, let me assure you that theses are not “my” personal opinions. I am not that intelligent. Instead I would suggest reading any or all of these references on celibacy and decide for yourself:

1. Cholij, Roman, Clerical Celibacy In The East And West. Herefordshire, 1989.
2. Cochini, Christian S.J. The Apostolic Origins Of Priestly Celibacy. San Francisco. 1990
3. Heid, Stefan, Celibacy In The Early Church. San Francisco, 2000.
4. Stickler, Alfons Maria, Cardinal, The Case For Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations. San Francisco, 1995

 

[sidbrown]

Lastly it is important to know although married men were allowed to become ordained, the Church has never allowed a man once he has become ordained to marry.

I thought that according to canon x from the Council of Ancyra in Galatia in 314 AD that if a priest were to protest that a celibate life was above his strength, he could marry with the permission of the bishop.,

 

[Wardiea]

I thought that according to canon x from the Council of Ancyra in Galatia in 314 AD that if a priest were to protest that a celibate life was above his strength, he could marry with the permission of the bishop.,

Canon 10 from the Council of Ancyra was written specifically for deacons not priests. However that is still a very good question sidbrown because deacons and priests at that time were both considered higher clerics and therefore deacons would also be held to the clerical discipline that if you were a single man at the time of your ordination you could not then marry after you were ordained.

Between 12 and 18 bishops from Asia Minor and Syria attended the Council of Ancyra (314) which today is Ankara. I believe the translation of Canon 10 you are referring to read thus:

“Those who are promoted to deacons, if, at the time of their promotion, they protested and said that they had to marry and could not live in this way and then married later, can remain in the ministry because the bishop permitted them to do so. But those who have kept silence and were admitted to ordination ( on the condition) that they persevere in this state (of celibacy), if they marry subsequently, they will be deprived of ( the functions of) the diaconate.”

Christian Cochini, S.J. (The Apostolic Origins Of Priestly Celibacy) spends a great deal of time and references on this. In one of his footnotes it tells us that the canons of the Council of Ancyra are known principally through the Greek texts and through three Latin translations. The one presented above is the translation of Denys the Minor. This is an important point to Cochini because he then presents another Latin translation from a Martin of Duma archbishop of Braga who sent to his colleague Nitigisius of Lugo his Latin translation of 84 Greek canons which included canon 10 that we are discussing. It reads thus:

" If someone is chosen for the ministry of the diaconate but does raise a protest beforehand ( to claim the right of ) taking a wife, declaring that he cannot persevere in chastity, let him not be ordained. If at the time of ordination he kept silent and was (actually) ordained and later seeks to marry, let him be rejected from the ministry and eliminated from the clergy."

Cochini also makes this statement about the Denys the Minor translation: " At first sight this text contrasts sharply with the 3rd canon of the Council of Elvira, the 29th canon of the 1st Council of Arles, the Carthaginian synods-in other words, it contrasts with the Western Laws". I again would encourage you to read his book as there is much more in there about this Council.

I would also encourage you read the other book I recommended by Roman Cholij (* Clerical Celibacy In East And West* )in regard to the Council of Ancyra. Cholij was ordained to the priesthood for the Apostolic Exarchate for Ukrainian Catholics. He is of the Byzantine and Eastern Rite. The Council of Ancyra would today be considered an Eastern Rite Church although at that time (314) the Church was one. Cholij makes mention that even if it were the exception to the general law it was abrogated by different Councils of the Eastern Rite that he lists and that the Byzantine Church of the first 7 centuries never made mention of any such possible concession.

sidbrown thanks for a very good question. I hope this was of some help.