Archbishop Pietro Parolin: Priest Celibacy is Open to Discussion

[Country_Gal]

I seriously doubt that child molestation is a modern phenomenon within the Catholic, or other Christian churches. I’m sure it went on unreported throughout Church history, along with Priests taking mistresses or having illicit relationships with other men.

Because of the nature of society in past times, people didn’t kiss and tell. Children did not report molestation, but these things did occur.

 

[EphelDuath]

There’s some truth to that. Though there are recorded accusations of child molestation in the history, meaning it wasn’t an utterly taboo subject.

Yet that innately means you are even less justified in blaming clergical celibacy, considering you wouldn’t have known who was a sexual abuser then. Nowadays the priestly scandals have decreased significantly, while teacher, babysitter, parental, and other abuse scandals have vastly increased. Yet no change has been made to the policy of clerical celibacy. So there’s not even a correlation here, even if that did imply causation.

 

[gus]

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.’”

It ending of celibacy requirement would be counterproductive.
First of all existing priests will never be allowed to marry.
Eastern Rite Churches allow married priests but do not priests to marry or Bishops to be married. Would it be prudent to become more liberal than the East.
What effect would this have on the current priesthood who have taken the vow of celibacy. Would many leave?
Finally it is dubious that allowing marriage would create enough vocations to offset the priests inability to give his undivided attention to his parish.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m not even Catholic and I hate how many in the popular press twist and contort the words of Catholic clerics.

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!

Your level of understanding here exceeds that of many Catholics. Well put.

 

[shawnbm]

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

Furthermore, the rise of the ancient order of the diaconate as a permanent order (consisting largely of married men) has greatly assisted the Church in USA (in particular) relieve priests of certain duties that deacons can do to allow themselves to devote more time to those things only priests can do; i.e., anointing the sick, confession, mass and other tasks. It is good that priests, more than ever, can turn to deacons to help out with baptisms and funerals, marriages where no mass is celebrated and other pastoral duties such as counseling those to be married, etc.

 

[Country_Gal]

I don’t think celibacy itself causes sexual deviancy, but I do think it has attracted, in the past, young men with pre-existing sexual identity problems into the priesthood. Also, in some seminaries, I’ve heard there was a homosexual culture. I think the Church has begun to screen out potential priest much better with psychological tests. Haven’t they also taken a look at the homosexual element in some areas?

One positive, I think, is that more older men are entering the priesthood as a second career. They are more mature and experienced and I think that’s good.

As far as allowing married men to seek the priesthood, I would be in favor. The Eastern Orthodox are very traditional and disciplined, and manage quite well, I believe.

 

[EphelDuath]

The East didn’t face the same sociological problems that the West did. Thus only their bishops were required to be celibate for most of their history.

Celibacy is a good policy and there’s plenty of priests in the Church. Vocations are increasing. There is no crisis that requires drastic changes to be solved.

 

[Country_Gal]

The East didn’t face the same sociological problems that the West did. Thus only their bishops were required to be celibate for most of their history.

Celibacy is a good policy and there’s plenty of priests in the Church. Vocations are increasing. There is no crisis that requires drastic changes to be solved.

What sociological problems do you refer to?

 

[manualman]

I don’t think celibacy itself causes sexual deviancy, but I do think it has attracted, in the past, young men with pre-existing sexual identity problems into the priesthood. Also, in some seminaries, I’ve heard there was a homosexual culture. I think the Church has begun to screen out potential priest much better with psychological tests. Haven’t they also taken a look at the homosexual element in some areas?

One positive, I think, is that more older men are entering the priesthood as a second career. They are more mature and experienced and I think that’s good.

As far as allowing married men to seek the priesthood, I would be in favor. The Eastern Orthodox are very traditional and disciplined, and manage quite well, I believe.

Close on one count. There does appear to have been a period from the late 40’s through the early 80’s when seminaries failed to appreciate the major benefit of celibacy I mentioned above as a discernment tool. The church historically prohibited homosexual men from the priesthood, but got very loose on the subject. The problem is not that homosexual men are more likely to abuse children, but that homosexual men do not benefit from the discernment barrier that celibacy poses for heterosexual men. Hetero seminarians need to view the enormous blessing of sexual union with a spouse as a offering to give back to God in love in order to accept a calling to the priesthood. Homosexual men (assuming they are actual believers) already face a moral imperitive to be celibate for life. The celibacy of the priesthood can seem to be a refuge from the isolation and rumors that used to be commonplace about men who never marry and never date. Simply speaking, it’s too easy for a gay man to become a priest for the wrong reason. Too many men who were both sexually traumatized and at least partially homosexually inclined were admitted to seminary without scrutiny of those areas of life. And we all paid the price.

If anything the requirement of celibacy as a sacrifice is a protection against men who should not be priests being ordained. It just needs to be implemented as it once was: rigorously, faithfully and with the view of willing sacrifice.

Has sexual abuse been with the church always? I’d say it’s been with HUMANITY always, and as the church is made up of humans, it has been here too. But apart from times when seminaries were run poorly, I’d expect the church to be better in that regard than society as a whole. The John Jay data suggests that this is probably the case today.

In short, the sex abuse crisis had nothing to do with mandatory priestly celibacy and neither can it be blamed on homosexuals. Rather, it had to do with a widespread faithlessness on the part of clergy in regard to catholic sexual moral teaching in general that bore its ill fruit in the fullness of time. License masquerading as tolerance leads to misery. The church learned it the hard way. Society as a whole still hasn’t learned (in spite of widespread and miserable evidence).

 

[EphelDuath]

The East since the time of Christianity has mostly been ruled by powerful monarchs such as the Byzantine emperor and Ottoman sultan that were able to curtail aristocratic corruption. The same wasn’t true of the West, which turned into what is called “feudalism” (although that term is now widely derided among historians of the middle ages). Aristocratic families would expect their children to become bishops and tie the land to their family’s inheritance to increase their power. Pope Gregory VII introduced clerical celibacy in order to end temporal interference in the Church, which was a great success after his death.

 

[Married39]

This is controversial, the traditionalist Catholics want the priests to be celibate (which is not realistic anymore) while the forward thinking Catholics who want the church to survive long term want celibacy as an option not a vow.

Let’s face it, way too many priests have sinned against the church and against young boys mostly. These priests have permanently ruined the reputation of the good priests. This is mostly thanks to the bishops for re-locating them from diocese to diocese instead of prosecuting them.

Alot of us had our churches closed due to the priests sex scandal pay-offs and alot of people have left the Church altogether due to the cover ups and many of us don’t attend regular mass.

If we had married priests, they could relate better to married couples that need counselling (which is alot, myself included). Not many females talk to someone about their marriage when they aren’t married themselves.

Priests get lonely like the rest of us, get horny like the rest of us and if they could be married, young people who now look at the church as goofy and assume most priests are gay, would change their tune and could relate better to life as we know it in 2013.

It sounds harsh but I think it’s the best way to get people in the priesthood. Our seminary college in our diocese had like 1 graduate last year, none this year and maybe 1 or 2 next year. We cannot be paying for a seminary college to teach to a handful of young men. It makes no economic sense.

 

[TMC]

I seriously doubt that child molestation is a modern phenomenon within the Catholic, or other Christian churches. I’m sure it went on unreported throughout Church history, along with Priests taking mistresses or having illicit relationships with other men.

Because of the nature of society in past times, people didn’t kiss and tell. Children did not report molestation, but these things did occur.

It has been a problem in the Church for at least a thousand years, read about Saint Peter Damian and his efforts to combat it. I agree that the difference today is that people are willing to report and to stand up for what is right, even against Church officials. We should not blame the victims for coming forward, or the press for reporting the truth. We should be thankful that we appear to be at least beginning to deal with a very long standing and very grave problem.

 

[EphelDuath]

This is controversial, the traditionalist Catholics want the priests to be celibate (which is not realistic anymore)

It’s been going on for a millennium and doesn’t look to be stopping anytime soon.

Let’s face it, way too many priests have sinned against the church and against young boys mostly. These priests have permanently ruined the reputation of the good priests. This is mostly thanks to the bishops for re-locating them from diocese to diocese instead of prosecuting them.

It has been a problem in the Church for at least a thousand years, read about Saint Peter Damian and his efforts to combat it. I agree that the difference today is that people are willing to report and to stand up for what is right, even against Church officials. We should not blame the victims for coming forward, or the press for reporting the truth. We should be thankful that we appear to be at least beginning to deal with a very long standing and very grave problem.

And that mess was cleaned up, thank God. So what does this even have to do with priestly celibacy? There’s cover-ups of sexual abuse from teachers, parents, babysitters and so on still happening every day. None of them are vowed celibates. Meanwhile the priestly abusers have pretty much been cleaned up because of a change of policy and attitude in the Church.

If we had married priests, they could relate better to married couples that need counselling (which is alot, myself included). Not many females talk to someone about their marriage when they aren’t married themselves.

The Sacrament of Marriage has been doing fine the past thousand years, thanks. Instead of changing what we’re doing, which works, perhaps we should be more firm in disparaging what the secular world is telling us what SHOULD work, but evidently does not.

Priests get lonely like the rest of us, get horny like the rest of us and if they could be married, young people who now look at the church as goofy and assume most priests are gay, would change their tune and could relate better to life as we know it in 2013.

Give it a rest already. The Church that outlived the Pharisees, the Romans, the Huns, the Arians, the Muslims, the Protestant Reformation, the “Enlightenment”, the fascists, and the Marxists isn’t going to go down anytime soon because some teenagers are misinformed.

History has shown that the Church changing itself to be “more relevant” leads to maybe a temporary tiny bump in attendance for a few years before declining thereafter. People don’t want a church that’s pandering to their mutable desires, because then they just leave the moment they grow up. No, what people want is a hungering for ancient traditions and the eternal truths of God. That’s why the “hootenanny Mass” is dying while reverence in the Ordinary Form and Tridentine Latin Mass are blossoming.

It sounds harsh but I think it’s the best way to get people in the priesthood. Our seminary college in our diocese had like 1 graduate last year, none this year and maybe 1 or 2 next year. We cannot be paying for a seminary college to teach to a handful of young men. It makes no economic sense.

Look at the statistics for the whole priesthood. Vocations are going UP.

 

[Joe_5859]

It really bugs me when people bring up priestly celibacy as some sort of “solution” to the sex abuse crisis.

If the only thing stopping a man from molesting young boys is the fact that he has a wife to be his “sexual outlet”, he shouldn’t be a priest whether he’s married or not.

 

[TMC]

It has been a problem in the Church for at least a thousand years, read about Saint Peter Damian and his efforts to combat it. I agree that the difference today is that people are willing to report and to stand up for what is right, even against Church officials. We should not blame the victims for coming forward, or the press for reporting the truth. We should be thankful that we appear to be at least beginning to deal with a very long standing and very grave problem.

And that mess was cleaned up, thank God. So what does this even have to do with priestly celibacy? There’s cover-ups of sexual abuse from teachers, parents, babysitters and so on still happening every day. None of them are vowed celibates. Meanwhile the priestly abusers have pretty much been cleaned up because of a change of policy and attitude in the Church.

Seriously?!? The “mess” is beginning to be addressed, but it is far from “cleaned up.” As to a link between celibacy and sexual abuse - I am not the one that drew that connection. That said, I think there may be some connection, but I agree that celibacy is not the only contributing cause (or even necessarily the main cause) of the problem.

 

[M-Dent]

The question was posed in 2005 at the Synod of Bishops.

Proposition 11 said the lack of priests was a cause of “acute pain” and said the situation called for “effective pastoral initiatives.”

But it added: “In this context, the synod fathers affirmed the importance of the inestimable gift of ecclesiastical celibacy in the practice of the Latin Church.” Catholic faithful, it said, need to better know the reasons behind the relationship between celibacy and ordination.

“Some participants made reference to ‘viri probati,’ but in the end the small discussion groups evaluated this hypothesis as a road not to follow,” it said.

The propositions called for new efforts at fostering vocations. They said pastors should not be afraid to propose the priesthood as a radical way of following Christ. They encouraged prayers and eucharistic adoration celebrations for the intent of priestly vocations.

They also called for a more equitable distribution of priests and for a willingness among priests themselves to serve where they are most needed

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0505907.htm

 

[EphelDuath]

It really bugs me when people bring up priestly celibacy as some sort of “solution” to the sex abuse crisis.

If the only thing stopping a man from molesting young boys is the fact that he has a wife to be his “sexual outlet”, he shouldn’t be a priest whether he’s married or not.

Whenever something bad happens to the Church, everyone in the secular world and their grandma chimes in to tell us that we’ve been doing it all wrong; like it was some kind of fluke we’ve survived 2,000 years. No, we should do as the secular world is doing, where every fad and novel philosophy dies out in a few decades. THAT’ll fix everything up, for sure.

This generation’s novelty is to idolize sexual pleasure, making the Catholic Church one of their greatest persecutors. Their solution – “well if you just married the rapists off and let them have as much sex as they want” – is consistent with their own ideals, but utterly useless to the Church at large.

Seriously?!? The “mess” is beginning to be addressed, but it is far from “cleaned up.” As to a link between celibacy and sexual abuse - I am not the one that drew that connection. That said, I think there may be some connection, but I agree that celibacy is not the only contributing cause (or even necessarily the main cause) of the problem.

There is no link between celibacy and sex abuse, aside from the from the fact that they’re both things that the secular world likes to throw at the Church in lieu of logical conversation.

 

[GEddie]

It ending of celibacy requirement would be counterproductive.
First of all existing priests will never be allowed to marry.
Eastern Rite Churches allow married priests but do not priests to marry or Bishops to be married. Would it be prudent to become more liberal than the East.

Certainly not, but once the Church has knuckled under on celibacy, allowing priestly marriage will be the next “pressure point.”

We all, East and West, know that the Church is not a democracy, but only in the west is there a drive to make it one by default.

What effect would this have on the current priesthood who have taken the vow of celibacy. Would many leave?

More to the point, would seminarians leave formation en masse to find a wife?

If so, so much for “encouraging vocations.”

Finally it is dubious that allowing marriage would create enough vocations to offset the priests inability to give his undivided attention to his parish.

Indeed. ICXC NIKA

 

[weller2]

It really bugs me when people bring up priestly celibacy as some sort of “solution” to the sex abuse crisis.

If the only thing stopping a man from molesting young boys is the fact that he has a wife to be his “sexual outlet”, he shouldn’t be a priest whether he’s married or not.

The majority of instances of clerical pedophilia was homosexual pedophilia. Actually, in the majority of cases it was not pedophilia by clinical definition, i.e. attraction to pre-pubescent children. It was attraction to young men in their teens, i.e. homosexuality.

Celibacy creates an artificial, all-male environment, and such environment attracts male homosexuals.

Further, Church’s condemnation of “homosexual lifestyle” and gay marriage essentially means that a young gay Catholic is given choice between going to Hell and maintaining chastity. Some of these people, fearing that they will be unable to live in chastity, opt to join priesthood, sincerely hoping that it will help them in their struggle. So they do, only to find other people like them. As a result, you have an organization full of closeted homosexuals shouting condemnations of homosexuality.

This cannot go on much longer. There are two options (well, three):

(a) Accept the fact that we have gay clergy, but that would necessarily lead to revision of the current doctrine on homosexuality.

(b) Purge homosexuals from the clergy. The best way of doing this is by granting Holy Orders only to married men. This would be effective, as incidence of homosexuality among married men is quite low. Since celibacy is a disciplinary issue, no doctrinal revision would be involved. Yes, there would be some practical problems, mainly related to financial issues, but they are perfectly solvable.

(c) Do nothing and expect another child molesting scandal within 20-40 years. Next time however, the civilian authorities may not show the remarkable restraint they have exhibited this time. Expect bishops arrested by SWAT teams and charged under RICO act.

 

[Country_Gal]

The majority of instances of clerical pedophilia was homosexual pedophilia. Actually, in the majority of cases it was not pedophilia by clinical definition, i.e. attraction to pre-pubescent children. It was attraction to young men in their teens, i.e. homosexuality.

Celibacy creates an artificial, all-male environment, and such environment attracts male homosexuals.
**
Further, Church’s condemnation of “homosexual lifestyle” and gay marriage essentially means that a young gay Catholic is given choice between going to Hell and maintaining chastity. Some of these people, fearing that they will be unable to live in chastity, opt to join priesthood, sincerely hoping that it will help them in their struggle. So they do, only to find other people like them. As a result, you have an organization full of closeted homosexuals shouting condemnations of homosexuality. **

This cannot go on much longer. There are two options (well, three):

(a) Accept the fact that we have gay clergy, but that would necessarily lead to revision of the current doctrine on homosexuality.

(b) Purge homosexuals from the clergy. The best way of doing this is by granting Holy Orders only to married men. This would be effective, as incidence of homosexuality among married men is quite low. Since celibacy is a disciplinary issue, no doctrinal revision would be involved. Yes, there would be some practical problems, mainly related to financial issues, but they are perfectly solvable.

(c) Do nothing and expect another child molesting scandal within 20-40 years. Next time however, the civilian authorities may not show the remarkable restraint they have exhibited this time. Expect bishops arrested by SWAT teams and charged under RICO act.

I think you accurately describe a real factor here.