D
Archbishop Pietro Parolin: Priest Celibacy is Open to Discussion
- Status
D
Daphnexyz
Guest
Archbishop Pietro Parolin, the new Secretary of State of the Vatican, made some surprisingly frank remarks about priestly celibacy that may indicate a new openness to “the democratic spirit of the times.” Pope Francis’ plans to reform the Vatican and “shake up the church” have received a lot of attention, but he has not yet publicly addressed the issue of mandatory celibacy for priests.
Parolin said in an interview with Venezuelan newspaper El Universal that the tradition of priestly celibacy is not dogma, or a law of divine origin, and is therefore open to discussion. He went on to note that while the church is not a democratic institution, it needs to “reflect the democratic spirit of the times and adopt a collegial way of governing.”
While previous popes have declared some topics closed off from discussion, Parolin’s remarks may be indicative of the possibility of a greater conversation about an ancient Church tradition.
Though it’s not clear exactly when celibacy became mandatory for priests, the first written mandate for chastity dates back to 304 C.E., when Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira stated that all “bishops, presbyters, and deacons and all other clerics” should “abstain completely from their wives and not to have children.” A definitive ruling was handed down at the Second Lateran Council of 1139, which ruled that priests were forbidden to marry.
Parolin said, "it is possible to discuss and reflect on these topics that are not defined faith, and consider some modifications, but always in the service of unity and according to God’s will.”
Canon 277 of the Vatican legal code states, “Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.”
Pope Francis frankly discussed the celibacy issue when he was still Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina, speaking candidly about his own struggles and recognizing the fact that there are good priests in other denominations that are not celibate. Regarding celibacy, he said in a 2012 interview, “It is a matter of discipline, not of faith. It can change.”
Removing the celibacy requirement could possibly breathe new life into a church that is already suffering a shortage of priests. However, Rev. Robert Gahl, an Opus Dei moral theologian at the Pontifical Holy Cross University in Rome, thinks that Pope Francis is unlikely to allow married priests during his pontificate. He noted that advocates for option celibacy claim “priesthood is too hard; why don’t we make it easier? But what the pope is saying is, ‘If you make this sacrifice, it would bring you pure joy.’”
Parolin said in an interview with Venezuelan newspaper El Universal that the tradition of priestly celibacy is not dogma, or a law of divine origin, and is therefore open to discussion. He went on to note that while the church is not a democratic institution, it needs to “reflect the democratic spirit of the times and adopt a collegial way of governing.”
While previous popes have declared some topics closed off from discussion, Parolin’s remarks may be indicative of the possibility of a greater conversation about an ancient Church tradition.
Though it’s not clear exactly when celibacy became mandatory for priests, the first written mandate for chastity dates back to 304 C.E., when Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira stated that all “bishops, presbyters, and deacons and all other clerics” should “abstain completely from their wives and not to have children.” A definitive ruling was handed down at the Second Lateran Council of 1139, which ruled that priests were forbidden to marry.
Parolin said, "it is possible to discuss and reflect on these topics that are not defined faith, and consider some modifications, but always in the service of unity and according to God’s will.”
Canon 277 of the Vatican legal code states, “Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.”
Pope Francis frankly discussed the celibacy issue when he was still Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina, speaking candidly about his own struggles and recognizing the fact that there are good priests in other denominations that are not celibate. Regarding celibacy, he said in a 2012 interview, “It is a matter of discipline, not of faith. It can change.”
Removing the celibacy requirement could possibly breathe new life into a church that is already suffering a shortage of priests. However, Rev. Robert Gahl, an Opus Dei moral theologian at the Pontifical Holy Cross University in Rome, thinks that Pope Francis is unlikely to allow married priests during his pontificate. He noted that advocates for option celibacy claim “priesthood is too hard; why don’t we make it easier? But what the pope is saying is, ‘If you make this sacrifice, it would bring you pure joy.’”
E
EphelDuath
Guest
This is correct. That being said, considering its clear and enormous practical benefits and its longstanding tradition in the Church, the anti-celibacy side really has very little going for it.
I would like to believe that this was taken wildly out of context, or mistranslated, or something. Because that statement taken at face value is rubbish. The “democratic spirit of the times” has made killing babies a privilege. The “democratic spirit of the times” chanted “free Barabbas, not Jesus of Nazareth”.
There’s been open discussion over it for centuries. Frankly anybody who believes what the Church needs is a tidal wave of worldly clergy, that will be less focused on their pastoral duties, less educated, and more open to freely dissenting against the Church’s teachings is deluded. Or worse.
I will pray for the Archbishop.
M
manualman
Guest
Nobody has ever asserted that priestly celibacy is dogma or rooted in moral theology that mitigates against married priests. It is a disciplinary decision that has plentifully good reasons to exist. IMO (just me, mind you) one of the greatest reasons is that seminary candidates need to discern whether they are called by God to become a priest. One of the best ways to do that is to honestly assess whether one has the ability to achieve lifelong celibacy as a gift to God. No small task, eh?
I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if in my lifetime we see a decision to allow longtime deacons whose children have grown and whose service and faithfulness is unquestioned to be ordained priests. But I’m not pushing for it, nor am I going to hold my breath. God doesn’t need my help to make his moves.
I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if in my lifetime we see a decision to allow longtime deacons whose children have grown and whose service and faithfulness is unquestioned to be ordained priests. But I’m not pushing for it, nor am I going to hold my breath. God doesn’t need my help to make his moves.
C
catholictiger
Guest
I doubt it changes for latin rite of the Catholic Church.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
The Huffington Post is not the best source for Catholic news (to put it mildly 
).
The secular press loves to ask about priestly celibacy. And the honest answer (that it’s a discipline that could theoretically be changed) leads them to write misleading headlines such as this. This same exact scenario has played out over and over again.
My guess is that he was commenting on Pope Francis’ decision to convene the Group of Eight Cardinals and seek (name removed by moderator)ut. When bishops speak of “collegial”, they’re pretty much always speaking of the collegiality of bishops. Archbishop Parolin was probably just affirming the collegiality of bishops as articulated in the documents of Vatican II. I very much doubt he was intending to imply anything about some sort of democratic structure for the Church involving everyone.
).The secular press loves to ask about priestly celibacy. And the honest answer (that it’s a discipline that could theoretically be changed) leads them to write misleading headlines such as this. This same exact scenario has played out over and over again.
Yes, I would assume the quote is wildly out of context. Notice the portion of the quote that they choose to paraphrase: his qualification that the Church is not a democratic institution. Quoting that part would probably have taken away from the “bite” of the rest of the quote.
My guess is that he was commenting on Pope Francis’ decision to convene the Group of Eight Cardinals and seek (name removed by moderator)ut. When bishops speak of “collegial”, they’re pretty much always speaking of the collegiality of bishops. Archbishop Parolin was probably just affirming the collegiality of bishops as articulated in the documents of Vatican II. I very much doubt he was intending to imply anything about some sort of democratic structure for the Church involving everyone.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma. And the Catholic Church already has some priests who are married. All through Church history to today there have always been some married men who become priests and some men who are single and take a vow of celibacy when they become a priest. But there’s never been a time when a priest was able to get married after being ordained. And the priests who are married because they were married before becoming a priest have always been expected to live the rest of their life celibate after their wife dies. This goes for deacons as well.
M
McCall1981
Guest
ThisThe Huffington Post is not the best source for Catholic news (to put it mildly
**The secular press loves to ask about priestly celibacy. And the honest answer (that it’s a discipline that could theoretically be changed) leads them to write misleading headlines such as this. This same exact scenario has played out over and over again.
**
Yes, I would assume the quote is wildly out of context. Notice the portion of the quote that they choose to paraphrase: his qualification that the Church is not a democratic institution. Quoting that part would probably have taken aways from the “bite” of the rest of the quote.
My guess is that he was commenting on Pope Francis’ decision to convene the Group of Eight Cardinals and seek (name removed by moderator)ut. When bishops speak of “collegial”, they’re pretty much always speaking of the collegiality of bishops. Archbishop Parolin was probably just affirming the collegiality of bishops as articulated in the documents of Vatican II. I very much doubt he was intending to imply anything about some sort of democratic structure for the Church involving everyone.
Virtually this exact same article appears every time someone in the hierarchy mentions the distinction between disciplines like celibacy, which are man made and are technically open to change, verses doctrine which is not open to change.
It’s always priestly celibacy that gets mentioned in this context because priestly celibacy is the only one of the “hot button” issues that is a discipline.
L
LittleFlower378
Guest
ahh the Huffington Posts spins again…
If priesthood is hard without a family, imagine how much harder it would be with the demands of a family!
Bl.John Paul II on priestly celibacy
zenit.org/en/articles/john-paul-ii-hails-inestimable-value-of-priestly-celibacy
If priesthood is hard without a family, imagine how much harder it would be with the demands of a family!
Bl.John Paul II on priestly celibacy
zenit.org/en/articles/john-paul-ii-hails-inestimable-value-of-priestly-celibacy
E
edwest2
Guest
Same old. Same old. The Huffington Post is definitely not a good source of information about the Church. The anti-celibacy crowd (in their most recent incarnation) have been around since the 1960s.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
C
coachdennis
Guest
To pick up on this, this is why I believe we won’t see married priests for the forseeable future…
A pragmatic point of view – if a priest comes to your parish with a wife and family, who is paying the housing? the insurance? the other parts of a priest’s salary? is the wife expected to be at church functions?
Think back to some of the comments in previous threads about “Father drives this kind of car”…“Father went on this type of vacation”…“Father gets a day off?”, etc.
If you think there is criticism, gossip, and nastiness at the parish level now (and please don’t say your parish is immune because wherever two or three are gathered two or three opiniosn are expressed
) think of what will happen when the new priest shows up with the Mrs!Sure it can all be worked out, but think of the “cultural shift” it will be for many
J
Joe_5859
Guest
You know, that’s a very good point about the “cultural shift” that I hadn’t thought of in that way before. All else aside, that would be a huge adjustment for a great number of Catholics. Yes, there are certain segments that are clamoring for married priests, but a large number of Catholics really would be thrown by it.To pick up on this, this is why I believe we won’t see married priests for the forseeable future…
A pragmatic point of view – if a priest comes to your parish with a wife and family, who is paying the housing? the insurance? the other parts of a priest’s salary? is the wife expected to be at church functions?
Think back to some of the comments in previous threads about “Father drives this kind of car”…“Father went on this type of vacation”…“Father gets a day off?”, etc.
If you think there is criticism, gossip, and nastiness at the parish level now (and please don’t say your parish is immune because wherever two or three are gathered two or three opiniosn are expressed
Sure it can all be worked out, but think of the “cultural shift” it will be for many
G
GEddie
Guest
The Church can change, but normally at a geological pace.
And when something works, why change it?
Although there are fewer priests than there have been before, the married-priesthood advocates have never shown that ending celibacy would “fix” the “problem”. After all, celibacy while not Biblical in origin, has a very long history, including times where there was no shortage of priests.
The only thing that has changed is the sexual revolution; something the Church CANNOT and MUST NOT try to adjust to.
ICXC NIKA
And when something works, why change it?
Although there are fewer priests than there have been before, the married-priesthood advocates have never shown that ending celibacy would “fix” the “problem”. After all, celibacy while not Biblical in origin, has a very long history, including times where there was no shortage of priests.
The only thing that has changed is the sexual revolution; something the Church CANNOT and MUST NOT try to adjust to.
ICXC NIKA
C
Country_Gal
Guest
I think it might be a healthy change. The Church would have to consider the huge expense of maintaining a wife and many offspring in rectories. Insurance, food, education. Catholics are typically not big tithers compared to many other Christian groups. Priest salaries would need to grow.
G
GEddie
Guest
Which is roughly contemporaneous with the sexual revolution. It is the reverse of the same coin.
ICXC NIKA
C
Country_Gal
Guest
Let’s face it, there have been some sexual problems in the Catholic Priesthood. Young men have been drawn to it with unresolved sexual problems. It’s not totally farfetched for the modern mind to think maybe celibacy may not be without it’s problems.
Going a lifetime without sexual release is a tall order, even for a very devout soul. It does narrow down the field of potential priests. And, it’s hardly a Biblical edict, but rather a tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.
Going a lifetime without sexual release is a tall order, even for a very devout soul. It does narrow down the field of potential priests. And, it’s hardly a Biblical edict, but rather a tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.
B
Brandon_Cal
Guest
I’m not even Catholic and I hate how many in the popular press twist and contort the words of Catholic clerics.
What this cleric likely meant: “Since celibacy is a matter of discipline and not doctrine, it is certainly open for discussion, but just as priestly vestments, the use of Holy Water, and the date for Christmas are also disciplines and open for discussion, I wouldn’t hold my breath in there being a change.”
What this cleric likely meant: “It may be beneficial for the Church to lay the responsibility and prerogative of decisions such as these at the feet of the entire College of Bishops rather than simply with the Pope.”
I’m not even Catholic and I know that “collegial way of governing” refers to the Bishops and not the laity.
Sheesh!
What Huffington Post is trying to imply: “The Vatican is considering removing the requirement of priestly celibacy.”
What this cleric likely meant: “Since celibacy is a matter of discipline and not doctrine, it is certainly open for discussion, but just as priestly vestments, the use of Holy Water, and the date for Christmas are also disciplines and open for discussion, I wouldn’t hold my breath in there being a change.”
What Huffington Post is trying to imply: “Vatican Secretary of State says lay Catholics should have a say in Church discipline!”
What this cleric likely meant: “It may be beneficial for the Church to lay the responsibility and prerogative of decisions such as these at the feet of the entire College of Bishops rather than simply with the Pope.”
I’m not even Catholic and I know that “collegial way of governing” refers to the Bishops and not the laity.
Sheesh!
B
Brandon_Cal
Guest
Would removing the requirement of celibacy relieve these “unresolved sexual problems” in those particular men? I don’t think so, anymore than marriage has stopped school teachers, baseball coaches, and Boy Scout troop leaders from taking advantage of their authority and victimizing those under their care. If there’s a problem with the type of individuals joining the Catholic priesthood, then the answer to the problem is how these individuals are selected and screened.
I don’t buy this one bit. Celibacy would not drive an otherwise psychologically normal individual to molest children and teenagers, rather (if anything) it would drive them to have an illicit affair with an adult, or succumb to pornography and masturbation. These things of course do also happen, yet I don’t ever hear advocates of priestly marriage use “Fr. Joe who ran off with Sr. Marie Clare” as a reason to open up marriage for priests. Instead they always go for the Sex Abuse Scandal as a reason. Well here’s your time to shine! Show me with reason that heterosexual, adult marriage would’ve seriously attenuated the numbers of children and teenagers molested by priests.
B
Brandon_Cal
Guest
What!?
“Catholics are typically not big tithers” therefore increasing the number of mouths a Catholic priest has to feed would be a “healthy change”?
I’m sorry, but I don’t follow.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Baloney. Celibacy has been a fine tradition for a thousand years. Blaming it for the sexual abuse scandals, in an era where teachers and babysitters all over the world are guilty of the exact same thing, is nonsense; especially considering that the Church has almost completely wrapped up the matter.
“Unresolved sexual problems” are mostly the fruit of this hedonistic age.
Good. I don’t want to lower the standards for priests because there’s not enough of them.
A good one, at that. The amount of abuses that came about because of clergy owning property, and expecting to use the Church to enrich their families, is almost countless. Pope St. Gregory VII was just as on the money in his era as the Church is today.
- Status