Attacks Against Married Clergy, Please Respond

  • Thread starter Thread starter CDB1718
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Miserissima said:
OP, what’s the outline of your response so far?
Click to expand...
I don’t have one. I’m still working on the other projects and wanted to be able to brush up whatever others offered. Nothing addresses the article author’s concern yet.

What we need is an explanation of the theology of celibacy and the history of the Roman Rite’s tradition in a way that affirms marriage and ministry, without confusing marriage and celibacy as being the same thing or as being in opposition, and while clarifying vocation and the ministry of the priesthood.
 
CDB1718 said:
I don’t have one. I’m still working on the other projects and wanted to be able to brush up whatever others offered. Nothing addresses the article author’s concern yet.

What we need is an explanation of the theology of celibacy and the history of the Roman Rite’s tradition in a way that affirms marriage and ministry, without confusing marriage and celibacy as being the same thing or as being in opposition, and while clarifying vocation and the ministry of the priesthood.
Click to expand...
Pope Paul VI wrote in 1967, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus:35. … In Christian antiquity the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers testify to the spread through the East and the West of the voluntary practice of celibacy by sacred ministers (71) because of its profound suitability for their total dedication to the service of Christ and His Church.
  1. From the beginning of the 4th century, the Church of the West strengthened, spread and confirmed this practice by means of various provincial councils and through the supreme pontiffs. (72) More than anyone else, the supreme pastors and teachers of the Church of God, the guardians and interpreters of the patrimony of the faith and of holy Christian practices, promoted, defended, and restored ecclesiastical celibacy in successive eras of history, even when they met opposition from the clergy itself and when the practices of a decadent society did not favor the heroic demands of virtue. The obligation of celibacy was then solemnly sanctioned by the Sacred Ecumenical Council of Trent (73) and finally included in the Code of Canon Law. (74) …
  2. Further, it is by no means futile to observe that in the East only celibate priests are ordained bishops, and priests themselves cannot contract marriage after their ordination to the priesthood. This indicates that these venerable Churches also possess to a certain extent the principle of a celibate priesthood and even of the appropriateness of celibacy for the Christian priesthood, of which the bishops possess the summit and fullness. (81)
The Tradition of the Western Church
  1. In any case, the Church of the West cannot weaken her faithful observance of her own tradition. Nor can she be regarded as having followed for centuries a path which instead of favoring the spiritual richness of individual souls and of the People of God, has in some way compromised it, or of having stifled, with arbitrary juridical prescriptions, the free expansion of the most profound realities of nature and of grace.
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_24061967_sacerdotalis_en.html
 
His Holiness Paul VI made a factual error within the quote.

Note that bit about “only celibate priests are ordained to the episcopate” … well, not entirely true. Widowed priests have often been ordained to the episcopate, and a few priests’ wives have entered the monastery so that their husbands could be ordained as bishops. Mostly in the Russian Orthodox tradition.
 
Aramis said:
His Holiness Paul VI made a factual error within the quote.

Note that bit about “only celibate priests are ordained to the episcopate” … well, not entirely true. Widowed priests have often been ordained to the episcopate, and a few priests’ wives have entered the monastery so that their husbands could be ordained as bishops. Mostly in the Russian Orthodox tradition.
Click to expand...
Was that statement, perhaps, abrogated later…? Our was that the norm at the time he wrote?

Aramis, as always, thank you for your patience with me.
 
Aramis said:
His Holiness Paul VI made a factual error within the quote.

Note that bit about “only celibate priests are ordained to the episcopate” … well, not entirely true. Widowed priests have often been ordained to the episcopate, and a few priests’ wives have entered the monastery so that their husbands could be ordained as bishops. Mostly in the Russian Orthodox tradition.
Click to expand...
I’m no linguist (or even fluent in Latin) but I wonder if Paul VI meant to include them under the category “celibate” (caelibatus).
 
Peter_J said:
I’m no linguist (or even fluent in Latin) but I wonder if Paul VI meant to include them under the category “celibate” (caelibatus).
Click to expand...
It is because of continence. If one is widowed then continence is not an issue. For the Latin Church:CIC
Can. 277 §1 Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven, and are therefore bound to celibacy. Celibacy is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbour.

As mentioned by Aramis for the eastern churches: “a few priests’ wives have entered the monastery so that their husbands could be ordained as bishops.”

There is the possibility of allow spouses to separation for this purpose, in CCEO 864.2.
Canon 864
  1. If either of the spouses causes serious danger to the other spouse or to the children, or renders common life too hard, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for separating in virtue of a decree of the local hierarch, or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.
  2. In the particular law of individual Churches sui iuris other reasons can be established according to the customs of the people and circumstances of the place.
  3. In all cases, when the reason for the separation ceases, the conjugal life is to be restored, unless it is established otherwise by competent authority.
 
I don’t know a lot about Fr Barron, or why he thinks the way he does; but I think it’s safe to say that he’s in the minority. Most Catholic apologists/bloggers (nowadays) take an approach more along the lines of “If you want married priests in the Latin Church, then you’re just as bad as those who want to require celibacy among Eastern priests.”
 
Peter_J said:
I don’t know a lot about Fr Barron, or why he thinks the way he does; but I think it’s safe to say that he’s in the minority. Most Catholic apologists/bloggers (nowadays) take an approach more along the lines of “If you want married priests in the Latin Church, then you’re just as bad as those who want to require celibacy among Eastern priests.”
Click to expand...
The problem is that for most Western Catholics, even ones like Fr. Barron (who generally is a good popular apologist among the Latins - they even show his series on PBS), they don’t even know the Eastern Churches exist except the schismatic ones. I mean, the only reason I know of the Eastern Churches is because twice I lived in close proximity to Arabs. Furthermore, the Western experience with married clergy is unfortunately tainted with the example of the Protestant Revolt, and before that, the especial venality of much of the white clergy during the Middle Ages. When American Catholics especially think of married clergy, they instinctively think of the Protestants. That colors the experiences of many Western Catholics, even clergy.
 
Aramis said:
His Holiness Paul VI made a factual error within the quote.

Note that bit about “only celibate priests are ordained to the episcopate” … well, not entirely true. Widowed priests have often been ordained to the episcopate, and a few priests’ wives have entered the monastery so that their husbands could be ordained as bishops. Mostly in the Russian Orthodox tradition.
Click to expand...
It is not an error. Celibacy is distinct from than just never having had martial congress, it is the participation in a public vow or promise to not engage in marital congress.

A person could live their entire lives as an unmarried virgin and never once have been celibate.

Likewise, a widower with a dozen children who takes this vow or promise, at that point becomes a celibate man.

So HH’s statement is true, only men who have taken such a vow or promise are admitted to the episcopacy. No sui juris Church, East or West, admits men to the esicopacy with such a vow\promise
 
Brendan said:
A person could live their entire lives as an unmarried virgin and never once have been celibate.
Click to expand...
Do you mean chastity?

A virgin is by definition celibate, but might not be chaste.

Celibacy vows do not go retroactively. Priests and bishops can have had sex before ordination. Celibate priests vow to not have sex from that point forward. All people must be chaste, whether they have sex or not.
 
CDB1718 said:
Do you mean chastity?

A virgin is by definition celibate, but might not be chaste.
Click to expand...
Brendan gave his definition of “celibate”. It’s not one that I’ve heard before … but I guess definitions are changing all the time, so who’s to say, maybe it’s a real definition.
 
Collins Dictionary (American English)* celibate*

noun
  • an unmarried person, esp. one under a vow to remain unmarried
  • one who abstains from sexual intercourse
adjective
  • of or in a state of celibacy
Collins Dictionary (British English) celibate

noun
  • a person who is unmarried, esp one who has taken a religious vow of chastity
**adjective **
  • unmarried, esp by vow
  • abstaining from sexual intercourse
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top