An argument in defense of clerical celibacy

[jennstall]

AlanFromWichita:

Actually I’d be curious to even know what that position is, in terms of why converted married are OK but not Catholics.
Alan

Aren’t all of the married convert priests in the Latin rite formerly ordained by their previous affiliation? And also aren’t they all from mainline Protestant denominations with apostolic succession? Apostolic succession has always struck me as the primary reason for allowing married convert priests in the Latin rite. The Church recognizes that these are validly ordained ministers who also happen to be validly married and that they remain both ordained and married once they come Home to the fullness of truth in Catholicism. That is my understanding anyway.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

jennstall:

Aren’t all of the married convert priests in the Latin rite formerly ordained by their previous affiliation? And also aren’t they all from mainline Protestant denominations with apostolic succession? Apostolic succession has always struck me as the primary reason for allowing married convert priests in the Latin rite. The Church recognizes that these are validly ordained ministers who also happen to be validly married and that they remain both ordained and married once they come Home to the fullness of truth in Catholicism. That is my understanding anyway.

They must be ordained in the Catholic Church. Their first “ordination” is not valid.

 

[jennstall]

Sarah Jane:

They must be ordained in the Catholic Church. Their first “ordination” is not valid.

Boy is my face red! (or pink?)

 

[csr]

“in harness”?

The perfection of celibacy for the religious is incredibly beautiful. It is an overwhelming certainty that ecclesiastical tradition favors this condition. Moving closer and closer to the world has not helped Holy Mother Church in the past 40 years, or past 300 years. The religious (including, loosely speaking, secular priests) need to withdraw from the world. The salt doesn’t say ‘I want to be the basil’.

 

[Riley259]

Celibacy in the priesthood is beatiful reflection of Christ and his love for his Bride, the Church. It is done for the sake of the kingdom and is a foretaste of the way things will be in heaven. Granted, because of our fallen nature and tendency towards concupicience, it is a difficult thing to do especially in this secular, modern age. However, it is a wonderful reflection of self-sacrifice and love for God and His Church.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

It may be beautiful and all that, but none of this explains why the Church differentially allows non-celibacy. If non-celibacy is OK, then why is it limited only to converts? If non-celibacy is not OK, then why is it allowed at all? It would seem the Church herself is undecided on this issue. Nothing wrong with being undecided, or experimenting, but if that’s what she is doing perhaps we can quit trying to justify it one way or the other.

Alan

 

[Carl]

FIX

It (celibacy) is the exception, not the rule. Let’s not make the exception the rule and the rule the exeption.

Why does there have to be a rule and an exception? Why not just let married an unmarried come in as they like. Why should one be the rule and the other the exception?

You continue to insist that people say MOST priests were married in the early Church. I’ve never heard anyone say that. You’re making it up. What I’ve heard is that married priests were in plentiful supply. The Church grew by leaps and bounds through the first four centuries, very possibly due in no small part to the presence of sufficient married and celibate clergy to do the job of spreading the Good News.

Now we have insufficient clergy, priests are overworked, burnt-out cases are leaving the priesthood in droves, retired priests are hauled back into service, and the faithful are not fully attended to. Likewise, evangelization of the world is endangered by the lack of young men going into the priesthood. Indian priests who should be evangelizing India are coming to the U.S. as missionaries. We have some in our diocese. That is absurd. If we had more married priests …

This is the great Catholic Moment dawning on us in America, and we are letting the moment pass because of stubborn loyalty to an institutional practice that worked when priests were plentiful, but sure isn’t working today.

The only thing that will save this Moment is the radical upsurge of seminarians. Whether you’re for married and/or celibate priests, please everyone support your local Serra Club and pray for priests everywhere!

 

[csr]

Carl:

Why should one be the rule and the other the exception?

Because one is better than the other.

Carl:

Now we have insufficient clergy, priests are overworked, burnt-out cases are leaving the priesthood in droves,… If we had more married priests

Where the Church returns to tradition, there are too many applicants to the seminaries. For example, the SSPX seminary in the mid-west has to turn applicants away. They do things traditionally there: weak males are turned away, seminarians are asked to make the traditional sacrifices and are presumably not driven to homosexual bars at night. The shortage of priests is artificial: read Michael Rose’s books and articles about this subject.

AlanFromWichita:

If non-celibacy is OK, then why is it limited only to converts? If non-celibacy is not OK, then why is it allowed at all?

Why ask so many questions? The Church is complex, and yet while there is some diversity, some principles are clearly superior to others. *Lord, my heart is not exalted: nor are my eyes lofty. Neither have I walked in great matters, nor in wonderful things above me. *(*)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

csr:

Why ask so many questions? The Church is complex, and yet while there is some diversity, some principles are clearly superior to others. Lord, my heart is not exalted: nor are my eyes lofty. Neither have I walked in great matters, nor in wonderful things above me. (*)

One reason I ask so many questions is that we, as lay Catholics, are asked to work on encouraging young people to go into vocations and even to pray for our own children to discover vocations. My wife was president of our parish vocations committee. Anybody working on a vocations committee that doesn’t have to answer these questions probably hasn’t done much. How can we answer the questions if we ourselves have no clue why the Church is the way it is?

At Mass we repeatedly pray for relief from the priest shortage, and in our diocese we are blessed with many more priests than in some dioceses where several churches share one priest. There they may have Mass once every five weeks and the other times they just have a Communion service.

With a situation like that and the Church reaching out to lay people for help, does it not behoove the lay people to look at this painfully obvious issue of seemingly arbitrary screening that is done? Working on a vocations committee is one job where if you’re lucky one out of fifty young people listening actually want to hear what you have to say, due in part to the celibacy requirement. When married priests come in from other religions, they are welcomed because they are great people, but it is a slap in the face to those who work and pray for Catholics to go into vocations, when their biggest obstacle seems to be arbitrarily imposed by the one asking them to do the work. If the Church wants us to do work for her and then stands in the way, maybe it would help the workers if they better understood why our hands are thus tied.

Another reason for asking is that the question is so obvious, and the answer so elusive, that it simply must be asked.

Alan

 

[workinprogress]

You know how we can solve the lack of priests? Bring back traditional teachings and practices, arts and music–you know, the stuff that praised God and not modern sensibilities of man that’s supposed to pass off as what God would want to make us feel better about dumbing us down spiritually, theologically and such.

We did not have a shortage of priests before Vatican 2 (not that I’m blaming it). Let’s go back and reinstate what worked. Maybe it wasn’t pastoral. I bet it was communism/freemasonry because those two systems’ direct origins seemed to come from the mid-1800s (that’s when these peoples’ rebellions–more like peoples’ barbarism replacing the barbarism of the elite–seemed to really begin) though the atheism predated it, of course. They worked to weaken the faith of the people, but the culture was not to blame. I only see blame in the current culture dreamed up and executed by freemasons and their sympathizers from within the Church (not necessarily implicating the hierarchy). Let’s bring back authentic Catholic culture and all its beliefs and practices. Vernacular masses, in my opinion, can only connect a sense of Catholicism to national borders of certain countries and become something of the countr’s and not the Church’s.

 

[chrisg93]

I was always tought that Catholic priests are so well able to understand family and children is that they have heard thousands of sins and problems, from every angle in the confessional. In one year they can get a lifetime of experience with peoples deepest feelings.

Priestly Celibacy is of course Biblical and should never and will never be changed by the Church.

 

[jennstall]

AlanFromWichita:

Working on a vocations committee is one job where if you’re lucky one out of fifty young people listening actually want to hear what you have to say, due in part to the celibacy requirement.

Alan

Alan, you have a difficult task, that is for sure. But I have to wonder what these young people are being taught at home and my guess is that they are being taught that celibacy is a way to waste their lives. I’ve been looking at a lot, A LOT, of Orders’ websites the past several weeks as I try and sort out which sorts of Orders’ speak to me and I do believe that those who claim that the more traditional Orders, some of them very new, have young people falling all over themselves to join are correct. It’s very evidently the case when you look at photographs of members and note all the young smiling faces of seminarians and novices.

 

[jennstall]

chrisg93:

I was always tought that Catholic priests are so well able to understand family and children is that they have heard thousands of sins and problems, from every angle in the confessional. In one year they can get a lifetime of experience with peoples deepest feelings.

Priestly Celibacy is of course Biblical and should never and will never be changed by the Church.

Priestly celibacy is certainly not biblical, with Peter being married and all. If you’re going to argue the case for retaining the discipline of celibacy, and I think it is an argument worth making, then please make it on a much stronger case – one that is true, preferably.

 

[Carl]

CSR

The shortage of priests is artificial.

Right now our diocese three years from now will not be able to ordain ONE priest. That isn’t an ominous sign?

 

[chrisg93]

gennstall,

You need to take a teaspoon of humility, please.

Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

As Jesus has said, some men (priests) have made themselves celibate for the kingdom of God.

Luk 18:29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

Jesus says celibate priests will be greatly rewarded.

1 Cor 7:32 An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
and he is divided.

Jesus says thru Paul that a married man cannot devote his life completely to God.

Seems pretty clear, does it not?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

chrisg93:

I was always tought that Catholic priests are so well able to understand family and children is that they have heard thousands of sins and problems, from every angle in the confessional. In one year they can get a lifetime of experience with peoples deepest feelings.

Dear chrisg93,

That is an excellent point. The confessional is undoubtedly a way to get very close to issues – perhaps closer to them than some of the more aloof married men, and certainly more plentiful.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

chrisg93:

Luk 18:29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

Jesus says celibate priests will be greatly rewarded.

Or he’s saying we should walk out on our families, or maybe die.

Alan

 

[jennstall]

chrisg93:

Seems pretty clear, does it not?

Not if it doesn’t explain Peter.

Feel free to take your own advice about that teaspoon.

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

So it is a “relative” teaching. Since it is relative, I wonder why it applies to categories of married men rather than on a case-by-case basis. I wonder if there is something about being a married cradle Catholic that is more undesirable than being a married convert.

Those raised in the faith have been raised with the mind of the Church. Those who convert have not and cannot be held to the same standard.

So what percentage of married priests do you think would be appropriate to keep them in their place as being the exception?

I think the Vatican is doing a good job. I will leave it up to them and not substitute by limited understanding.

Perhaps, but that’s not what this discussion is about. It’s about how to defend part of the Church’s ostensible method of deciding.

It may be about cheerful obedience.

Actually I’d be curious to even know what that position is, in terms of why converted married are OK but not Catholics.

see above.

I didn’t see where Carl even addressed the “why” in the post you quoted. A careful reading of his post might show that he was taking the Church’s preference for celibacy as axiomatic and wondering why the Church behaves as it does given that preference.

Here is Carl’s quote:

It was so in the early Church, wasn’t it? And since Vatican II haven’t we been trying to revive the traditions of the early Church?

I pointed out that is a false notion. Why you and he keep acting as if I am addressing some other point is beyond me.

 

[fix]

Carl:

FIX

It (celibacy) is the exception, not the rule. Let’s not make the exception the rule and the rule the exeption.

Why does there have to be a rule and an exception? Why not just let married an unmarried come in as they like. Why should one be the rule and the other the exception?

Because Christ is the example and the Church is headed by Christ. Can married men be good priests? Yes. Is celibacy the tradition and what the Church thinks is the desire of Christ in most cases? Yes.

You continue to insist that people say MOST priests were married in the early Church. I’ve never heard anyone say that. You’re making it up.

You implied the early Church had many married preists and that was not unusal. I pointed out the celibacy was the norm from the start and married priests were a concession is many ways.

What I’ve heard is that married priests were in plentiful supply. The Church grew by leaps and bounds through the first four centuries, very possibly due in no small part to the presence of sufficient married and celibate clergy to do the job of spreading the Good News.

The fact you have heard such things does not make it true or authentic.

Now we have insufficient clergy, priests are overworked, burnt-out cases are leaving the priesthood in droves, retired priests are hauled back into service, and the faithful are not fully attended to.

How many vocations have these men fostered? In dioceses with faithful priests who love the Church, vocations are growing. I do not want to villify all priests, but in my diocese we pray for vocations during the intentions in mass, but the rest of the time there is plenty of talk that Rome is out of touch, or some teaching should change. No man with a true vocation is attracted to that. They are attracted to authentic men who authentically want to serve Christ. They want a sacrifice, not a compromise to the world.

Likewise, evangelization of the world is endangered by the lack of young men going into the priesthood. Indian priests who should be evangelizing India are coming to the U.S. as missionaries. We have some in our diocese. That is absurd. If we had more married priests …

We get the number and quality of priests we deserve. If we all reformed our lives and lived as we should, we would have more vocations. Let us stop the contraception, let’s stop embracing the secular world’s notion of how to live and embrace Christ’s way. In many areas we have folks who think the Church is incorrect about this teaching or that teaching and only if the Church would adopted my way it would be better. I think it is the exact opposite. If we adopted the way of Christ, as Mother Theresa said, we would have more authentic vocations. A married clergy is not the answer. Reformation of our lives is the answer.

This is the great Catholic Moment dawning on us in America, and we are letting the moment pass because of stubborn loyalty to an institutional practice that worked when priests were plentiful, but sure isn’t working today.

I trust Christ.

The only thing that will save this Moment is the radical upsurge of seminarians. Whether you’re for married and/or celibate priests, please everyone support your local Serra Club and pray for priests everywhere!

Yes, we all should pray for vocations. Let us pray for greater obedience, that is the measure of humility.