Artificial Birth Control -vs- Cellibacy

[Uncle_Norbert]

But, we have inconsistiencies, based on circumstance

A-- Celibate priest, never married, etc…most common

B-- Widower with children and possibly grandchildren

C-- Convert who may have wife and children, and possibly have even more children?

I’m trying to understand…Are priests to be cellibate or not?

Why different rules? Why does one priest have to repress his reproduction/sexuality, when others didn’t or don’t ?

 

[catherine_m]

But, we have inconsistiencies, based on circumstance

A-- Celibate priest, never married, etc…most common

B-- Widower with children and possibly grandchildren

C-- Convert who may have wife and children, and possibly have even more children?

I’m trying to understand…Are priests to be cellibate or not?

Why different rules? Why does one priest have to repress his reproduction/sexuality, when others didn’t or don’t ?

They have to be celibate while Priests. Not in their lives before Priesthood when they are in the vocation of marriage and do not know that when they are a widower they will be called to the Priesthood.

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

What about Episcopal converts ?

 

[catherine_m]

What about Episcopal converts ?

I don’t know. But I can’t imagine that you can be in a marriage and be celibate as that is not a marriage. Maybe they make an exception for them as they are greatly fewer in number than Priests who were not originally Episcopal converts but were single men who entered the Seminary.

 

[catharina]

OK. You won’t look at google?

Episcopal priests have WIVES who are NOT called to celibacy in their Sacramental marriages - so as long as the wife is alive a married formerly Protestant priest can observe his marital relations. The PRACTICE in the West (in the ROMAN Catholic Chrurch) is one of priestly celibacy but the one Sacrament (Holy Orders) does not negate the privileges/obligations of the other Sacrament (Matrimony)? Get it?

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

Ding – Ding – Ding – Ding…thank you, thank you, thank you…So the Roman Catholic Church DOES have married priests who engage in “marital relations”

Why is this so? Is it not contradictory to Church Teaching?

See why I struggle with this cellibacy thing?

Thank you

 

[catharina]

Ding – Ding – Ding – Ding…thank you, thank you, thank you…So the Roman Catholic Church DOES have married priests who engage in “marital relations”

Why is this so? Is it not contradictory to Church Teaching?

See why I struggle with this cellibacy thing?

Thank you

No, I do not see why you struggle with the celibacy thing. It’s beyond me why anyone chooses to struggle with the celibacy thing but then again, in this day and age, many people are unaccustomed to thinking in terms of extraordinary self-sacrifice. This celibacy thing is a freely chosen acceptance of personal sacrifice that is a discipline for priests within the Roman Catholic Church. The Church will not be teaching converts to ignore their still-binding Sacramental duties/privileges. What’s the problem?

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

Problem? The Church teaches that priests must be cellibate, yet we have priests that clearly are NOT.

:banghead:

 

[catharina]

Problem? The Church teaches that priests must be cellibate, yet we have priests that clearly are NOT.

:banghead:

No problem.

A discipline is not a dogma. A discipline can be lifted by exemption for good (valid) cause. The needs of husbands/wives provide the reason for exemption. I applaud the Church for making such an exception. Why is anyone concerned about another’s calling?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ok, let’s throw in another one…guy gets married, has kids, and after kids are grown, wife dies.

Guy decides to enter priesthood…it DOES happen…yet his life was not cellibate.

Discuss?

His life was not always celibate. Many priests have had lives which were not always celibate. And not all celibates become priests.

So, in the Eastern Catholic Rite, the majority of priests are married and not celibate.

In the Latin Catholic Rite, the candidates for the priesthood are normatively chosen from those men who voluntarily choose to take a vow of celibacy. Not all celibates are ordained. However, unless dispensed from the norm, Latin Rite priests voluntarily taken a vow of celibacy.

The hypothetical person above also voluntarily chose to be celibate prior to becoming a priest, even though he may have not always been celibate.

St. Augustine–also not always celibate–but later took a voluntary vow of celibacy.

It is good to give up something good for the sake of God’s kingdom.

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

No problem.

A discipline is not a dogma. A discipline can be lifted by exemption for good (valid) cause. The needs of husbands/wives provide the reason for exemption. I applaud the Church for making such an exception. Why is anyone concerned about another’s calling?

Ah, but there’s the rub. How many more men could we attract to the priesthood if the Church eliminated the requirement for cellibacy?

Every time I raise this on other threads, I get bombarded with scriptural references defending the Church position.

BUT, if scripture supports a Church teaching that priests must be cellibate, then WHY do we accept converts with their wives and children? Perhaps conversion should have to wait until the death of the female spouse? Would that not be MORE consistient with Church teaching?

Don’t we restrict married Catholic men to the Permanent Deaconate, with the understanding that they can pursue priesthood if their spouse dies?

 

[catharina]

1. How many more men could we attract to the priesthood if the Church eliminated the requirement for cellibacy?

That is a theory espoused by some.

The fact though is that the Latin Rite has an expectation of celibacy for priests. The expectation is for ALL its priests. The deference (exemption, dispensation) is made for mature married converts who have led a ministerial life in their previous religion.

This entire argumentation reminds me of children running home from school and saying “MOM! The teacher let Joey do this or that but she never lets me do that!!!”

A mom with any sense says “Get used to it. You’re not Joey.”

To put this issue into a more personal perspective, I’ll recall when my younger brother married a girl from Columiba SC in the early 1980s. Her family, her parish and their priests (and priests’ families) came into the Roman Catholic Church shortly before the wedding. How lovely that those priests could continue to serve their parishoners (after suitable education).

Who would not be happy about this? WHY?

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

Somebody who wanted to be a priest, but wanted to be married with children too…and was told they had a choice.

Only to find out years later that it could happen, and did happen, under certain circumstances…

Am I clear yet?

 

[catharina]

Somebody who wanted to be a priest, but wanted to be married with children too…and was told they had a choice.

Only to find out years later that it could happen, and did happen, under certain circumstances…

Am I clear yet?

Well as Mom would say: “You’re not Joey.” The ordinary set of circumstances applied to you. You had a choice. You made a choice.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Problem? The Church teaches that priests must be cellibate, yet we have priests that clearly are NOT.

:banghead:

This may be your big hangup, i.e. that you think the Church “teaches that priests must be celibate.” In fact, she teaches no such thing. She teaches that priests may be married or celibate. Now, the part of the Church governed by the Code of Canon Law mandates that outside of a very limited set of circumstances she will only ordain men from a specific pool, namely, those who have vowed celibacy. It’s a choice made based on what our portion of the Church has historically decided brings great benefits. What it is not is a teaching about who can possibly be ordained (or function as) a priest.

Somebody who wanted to be a priest, but wanted to be married with children too…and was told they had a choice.

Only to find out years later that it could happen, and did happen, under certain circumstances…

Am I clear yet?

This reminds me of the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. Those who were called to work at the very end of the day received the same wage as those who had worked all day, and the master told them no one had any business complaining.

Here we have, on the one hand, men who grow up or live at least some portion of their lives within the Latin Church and its disciplinary structure before confronting a vocational point of no return. On the other hand are those who have already been formed and experienced in ministry before they ever enter the Church and get confronted with a question (priesthood) that was never posed to them before. To this limited group of men, the Church generously decides to give them a “last-minute” chance at the priesthood. Cradle Catholics don’t get to complain about the Church’s generosity. Note, though, that this provision applies only to converts from a limited number of “high church” denominations, and then again only to those who were already ministers in that limited pool of denominations. A married formal Pentecostal minister doesn’t get the chance, a married former Lutheran layman doesn’t get the chance.

Now, do I think the pastoral provision is “a good idea” or “worth it”? I don’t know. But I recognize that “that’s not fair” isn’t an argument that is going to cut it. It needs to be assessed on a broader, more dispassionate basis.

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

Well as Mom would say: “You’re not Joey.” The ordinary set of circumstances applied to you. You had a choice. You made a choice.

Well, well now…talk about your “Cafeteria Catholicsm”…when it’s your younger brother’s family/marriage…it’s a beautiful thing…when it’s me…
“You’re not Joey”.

I thought Church teaching applied to ALL Catholics…

 

[Yerusalyim]

UN,

You seem like you’re having a hard time wrapping your brain around the concept of DISCIPLINE vs. DOCTRINE. The Roman Catholic Church does NOT teach that a priest MUST be celibate. In the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church the DISCIPLINE is celibacy for the priest. However, since this is ONLY A DISCIPLINE and not a doctrine…there are exceptions. Episcopal priests that convert remain married and have normal marital relations and can even continue to have children if the couple desire. The State Chaplain for the Knights of Columbus in South Carolina is an Episcopal convert who is married and he assures me he and his wife are still…active. I also know a priest who has adopted children.

Now then, in the BYZANTINE RITE of the Church married men can be ordained to the priesthood…but they can not become Bishops.

There is NO CONFLICT because this is…again…DISCIPLINE not DOGMA.

Further, Celibacy does NOT mean that the individual NEVER had sex, only that they’ve made a vow to NO LONGER have sex. So, a guy who played the field a bit…then repented and had a calling to the priesthood can be a priest, as can a man who is widowed. Celibacy does NOT require virginity.

 

[tcraig]

Ah, but there’s the rub. How many more men could we attract to the priesthood if the Church eliminated the requirement for cellibacy?

I think perhaps you’re married? Because, like many men, you seem to be focusing on the celibacy requirement and assuming that it’s the one thing (or even the main thing) that is keeping us from having more priests…

However, of the priests we’ve known and have become good friends with, the celibacy is really “no big deal.” To a married man, called to the vocation of marriage, that may be hard to understand but it has never been an issue with the priests we’ve known. When considering their vocation to the priesthood, most said that the celibacy requirement was “low” on their “things that concern me” list.

In fact, many have mentioned how *hard *the vocation of marriage appears to them (based upon confessions they’ve heard, counseling they’ve given, etc.) To them, living a married life as a husband/father appears so much more difficult than living a celibate life as a priest.

One priest friend of ours, a diabetic, said that controlling his diet was the hardest thing he ever had to do. My husband innocently asked, “Harder than remaining celibate?” Our friend looked at him in amazement, and then replied (laughing): “Celibacy is easy! Women are nowhere near as tempting as food!”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…if we accept men into the priesthood who were not cellibate to begin with, why is it neccessary to require cellibacy at all?

Celibacy is not “required” to be a priest. It is a norm that can (and has been dispensed) for proportionate reasons.

However, it is normative for the Latin Rite to select their priests from candidates who have voluntarily taken the vow of celibacy. Likewise, it is normative to select priests who have completed seminary. Neither are conditions for valid holy orders, but merely disciplinary norms.

As an analogy, I’m an Air Force Officer. Normatively, the Air Force selects their officers from candidates who have at least a bachelor’s degree. However, this is a “norm,” not a condition for receiving a commission. There have been some who received an officer commission who have not attained a bachelor’s degree. The question is, should it be a “norm,” and why?

It is fitting for Latin Rite priests to be selected from those who take a vow of celibacy, as it provides a sign of contradiction that is much needed in this sex-worshipping world of our. It also better signifies Christ, who was also a celibate.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Well, well now…talk about your “Cafeteria Catholicsm”…when it’s your younger brother’s family/marriage…it’s a beautiful thing…when it’s me…
“You’re not Joey”.

I thought Church teaching applied to ALL Catholics…

You seem quite confused about the distinction between “teaching” or DOCTRINE and ecclesial DISCIPLINE.

Church DOCTRINE does apply to ALL. Universal Church discipline is for the “common good.” But in particular circumstances the disciplinary norm may not serve the “common good” as was the intent of the law-giver. So, the law-giver has the authority to “DISPENSE” from the norm, in accord with his intent.

It is no different in the military. We have instructions from our superiors that are mandatory, by the order of the commander. Those instructions are developed as a disciplinary norm to serve the “common good” of the military unit. However, under certain circumstances, the instructions may fail to serve the common good in accord with the commander’s intent, so we have a “waiver” process, where justification is forwarded to the waiver authority for an exception to the norm…a “dispensation” from the rule.

Sometimes teenagers get upset when there are “exceptions to the rule” because they haven’t matured enough to understand the disctinctions between absolutes and that which is normative and provisional because it is most fitting, most of the time. When one matures and is placed in an authoritative position, responsible for “the rules” and the “waivers” or dispensations from the rules, they better understand the distinctions between absolute truths (DOCTRINE) and norms established for the “common good.” (DISCIPLINE).

In the final analysis, you seem to simply disagree with the law-giver as to what is best for the “common good” of the Latin Rite. I agree with the law-giver. Celibacy is a wonderful and enduring sign to the Church which serves to remind us that we can and must sacrifice, give up something good for the sake of God’s kingdom. It should remain the norm, especially in the west were sexual gratification seems to be the preferred “idol” of the modern age.