Bishopes oppose celebacy rule

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes. But it is not Roman Catholic. Also was I mistaken about your church’s view of contraception and divorce? I apologize if I did because to my knowledge, the Eastern church’s do allow them.

Eastern Catholic Churches are Catholic, they are in union with the Pope. You are gravely mistake if you believe this.

If my Church, the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church, was not a part of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome there is no way that I could be a member of the Carmelite Order yet I am a Carmelite Friar.

You are correct. But they are not Roman Catholic priests. They are not considered the same as RC priests unless I am very very mistaken.

They are as much a priest as any Catholic priest, their orders are valid and they are Cahtolic. Again, gravely mistaken.

I agree. I only started this discussion since I thought you might be saying ‘‘we have married priests so RC can have married priests as well’’.

As the Eastern Catholic Church have married priest and there are already married priests within the Roman Catholic Church it is not doctrine nor dogma that secular priests must be celibate, so yes, as part of the Catholic Church has married priests then the Roman Church could change this discipline and have married priests as well.

Once again, it may not be part of the definition and theology of an Eastern Catholic priest. But it is part of the definition of the RC. We cannot simply get rid of the idea of celibate priests just to accommodate a cultural distorted view of sex. The Roman Catholic priesthood has celibacy as part of how its defined. To get rid of it makes it in to something it is not.

A discipline is not part of the definition of priest. I am sorry but celibacy is not a theological (doctrinal or dogmatic) requirement of the priesthood and that is where you find the definition of priesthood. It is a matter of discipline (of law) only.

In other words, to make my position more clearer, there is a name given for someone who decides to consecrate ones life to the lord and live a celibate life. That vocation is defined as a Roman Catholic priest. We cannot simply say such a position does not exist. As I said to Charlemagne II, one is perfectly ok in having a new position for married people who want to serve the lord but to call it Roman Catholic priesthood destroys what it already stands for.

Not true, as there are married priests already in the Roman Church, you defintion leaves them out but the are as much a priest as their celibate counterpart. Your defintion fits religious (those who belong to religious orders) but does not fit priest.

So unless you have theological proof that celibacy is sinful (which I don’t think anyone can claim), such a role is acceptable and has to be held in higher position than a married priest. Who can best serve the church? One who is married to his spouse or one who considers the entire church as his sole family? I am sure a married man can attempt to live life as the latter but it would result in quiet a bit of marital discord. I am also not sure how theologically correct it would be for a married man to live that way.

No where have I even alluded to celibacy being sinful.

 

[Abu]

ddarko
Please check Vatican II and the Church’s teaching on the priesthood. While the Church recognises the greater excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ, She allows a married priesthood in certain circumstances.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_24061967_sacerdotalis_en.html
“17. Virginity undoubtedly, as the Second Vatican Council declared, “is not, indeed, demanded by the very nature of the priesthood, as is evident from the practice of the primitive Church and from the tradition of the Eastern Churches.”(4) But at the same time the council did not hesitate to confirm solemnly the ancient, sacred and providential present law of priestly celibacy. In addition, it set forth the motives which justify this law for those who, in a spirit of faith and with generous fervor, know how to appreciate the gifts of God” (Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, June 24, 1967; Pope Paul VI).

Note
(4) See Second Vatican Council, Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church, no. 35: AAS 58 (1966), 690 [TPS XI, 195-96]; Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, no. 1: AAS 58 (1966), 837 [TPS XI, 119-20]; Decree on the Priestly Ministry and Life, nos. 10 ff.: AAS 58 (1966), 1007-08 [TPS XI, 455-56]; Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church, nos. 19, 38; AAS 58 (1966), 969, 984 [TPS XI, 426, 437-38].

In *Pastores Dabo Vobis *(I Will Give You Shepherds, 1992), John Paul II, with the Synod of the world’s bishops, has reiterated this. John Paul II stated that he did “not wish to leave any doubts in the mind of anyone regarding the Church’s firm will to maintain the law that demands perpetual and freely chosen celibacy for present and future candidates for priestly ordination in the Latin rite” (no. 29).

The Council of Trent: Can. 10 “If anyone says that the married state excels the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is better and happier to be united in matrimony than to remain in virginity or celibacy,[15] let him be anathema.”

Pius XII, reiterating the same doctrine [as Trent], notes that ‘it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the Holy Council of Trent, and explained in the same way by all the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church’ (encyclical Sacra Virginitas, n. 32).

Vatican II, taught that “students for the priesthood, while having a proper knowledge of the dignity of marriage, 'should recognise the greater excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ” (Decree on the Training of Priests, n.10)."

 

[ddarko]

Eastern Catholic Churches are Catholic, they are in union with the Pope. You are gravely mistake if you believe this.

If my Church, the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church, was not a part of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome there is no way that I could be a member of the Carmelite Order yet I am a Carmelite Friar.

Once again, please do understand my position. I am saying the Roman Catholic priesthood is defined in a certain way. That cannot be changed. Exceptions can be made to accommodate your circumstances but that in now way changes the definition of a RC priest.

They are as much a priest as any Catholic priest, their orders are valid and they are Cahtolic. Again, gravely mistaken.

No I have not mistaken. I am simply saying that you are the exception.

As the Eastern Catholic Church have married priest and there are already married priests within the Roman Catholic Church it is not doctrine nor dogma that secular priests must be celibate, so yes, as part of the Catholic Church has married priests then the Roman Church could change this discipline and have married priests as well.

No they should not. Why should we go for a second rate definition of a priest you have? Which is greater, someone who gives up all for God (including marriage?) or someone who wants to have both?

By your logic, what should we do about anglicans who come in to communion with Rome? Should we start adopting their values? As i said before, the logic that your church has it so should mine is INVALID. I can just as simply make the argument the other way. Why don’t you change?

A discipline is not part of the definition of priest. I am sorry but celibacy is not a theological (doctrinal or dogmatic) requirement of the priesthood and that is where you find the definition of priesthood. It is a matter of discipline (of law) only.

No one denies that. I think this is why you keep arguing with me. I am simply saying that the discipline is integral to a Roman Catholic priest. Anything less makes it in to an exception. We can’t have the exception as the norm to satisfy disordered sexual appetites. Its as simple as that.

Not true, as there are married priests already in the Roman Church, you defintion leaves them out but the are as much a priest as their celibate counterpart. Your defintion fits religious (those who belong to religious orders) but does not fit priest.

Ha? My definition leaves no one out. It simply acknowledges them for who they are.

No where have I even alluded to celibacy being sinful.

Exactly. So my argument stands (if you read it properly)

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

ddarko
Please check Vatican II and the Church’s teaching on the priesthood. While the Church recognises the greater excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ, She allows a married priesthood in certain circumstances.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_24061967_sacerdotalis_en.html
“17. Virginity undoubtedly, as the Second Vatican Council declared, “is not, indeed, demanded by the very nature of the priesthood, as is evident from the practice of the primitive Church and from the tradition of the Eastern Churches.”(4) But at the same time the council did not hesitate to confirm solemnly the ancient, sacred and providential present law of priestly celibacy. In addition, it set forth the motives which justify this law for those who, in a spirit of faith and with generous fervor, know how to appreciate the gifts of God” (Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, June 24, 1967; Pope Paul VI).

Note
(4) See Second Vatican Council, Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church, no. 35: AAS 58 (1966), 690 [TPS XI, 195-96]; Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, no. 1: AAS 58 (1966), 837 [TPS XI, 119-20]; Decree on the Priestly Ministry and Life, nos. 10 ff.: AAS 58 (1966), 1007-08 [TPS XI, 455-56]; Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church, nos. 19, 38; AAS 58 (1966), 969, 984 [TPS XI, 426, 437-38].

In *Pastores Dabo Vobis *(I Will Give You Shepherds, 1992), John Paul II, with the Synod of the world’s bishops, has reiterated this. John Paul II stated that he did “not wish to leave any doubts in the mind of anyone regarding the Church’s firm will to maintain the law that demands perpetual and freely chosen celibacy for present and future candidates for priestly ordination in the Latin rite” (no. 29).

The Council of Trent: Can. 10 “If anyone says that the married state excels the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is better and happier to be united in matrimony than to remain in virginity or celibacy,[15] let him be anathema.”

Pius XII, reiterating the same doctrine [as Trent], notes that ‘it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the Holy Council of Trent, and explained in the same way by all the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church’ (encyclical Sacra Virginitas, n. 32).

Vatican II, taught that “students for the priesthood, while having a proper knowledge of the dignity of marriage, 'should recognise the greater excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ” (Decree on the Training of Priests, n.10)."

Thanks for the resources, I’ve seen some but there were some new ones. But once again, I am not denying that such exceptions exists. I thought I made the clear.

My position is simple. There is a vocation where you sacrifice the marital good for God. That is called the RC priesthood. We can always make exceptions now. But to call it the norm of RC priesthood is incorrect.

Secondly, to make married priests the norm IS sinful if done for the reasons brought forth on this discussion. All the reasons brought forth so far is that priests should marry to reduce sexual abuse cases. That is a result of a distorted view of sex and is impractical, illogical and has no psychological facts to back it up.

God Bless

 

[Marc_Anthony]

No they should not. Why should we go for a second rate definition of a priest you have? Which is greater, someone who gives up all for God (including marriage?) or someone who wants to have both?

I actually thought you made good points until you reached this part. I totally, 100% disagree that those Priests that are married are somehow second rate to celibate Priests. This is a very unfair look at Eastern Catholic Priests. Just because they look at the Priesthood in a slightly different way than Roman Catholics do does not make their Priesthood “second rate”. Do you consider St. Peter’s Priesthood “second rate”?

 

[ddarko]

I actually thought you made good points until you reached this part. I totally, 100% disagree that those Priests that are married are somehow second rate to celibate Priests. This is a very unfair look at Eastern Catholic Priests. Just because they look at the Priesthood in a slightly different way than Roman Catholics do does not make their Priesthood “second rate”. Do you consider St. Peter’s Priesthood “second rate”?

Well ok maybe that was harsh on my part

But my point is that, if there is a greater form of devoting oneself to God, that should be respected I am sure you’d agree.

As an aside though, I am not sure st.Peter was married at the time he started his discipleship with Christ. Its also not fair to hold this against St.Peter or take it as revealing anything to us even if he was because of his limited knowledge prior to meeting Christ.

God Bless

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ddarko

*Secondly, to make married priests the norm IS sinful if done for the reasons brought forth on this discussion. **All the reasons brought forth so far is that priests should marry to reduce sexual abuse cases. *That is a result of a distorted view of sex and is impractical, illogical and has no psychological facts to back it up.

Reducing sexual abuse was not the single reason given for a married priesthood.

It was pointed out many posts back that the early Church had married priests, and therefore it was a legitimate convention in its day, and there was nothing sinful about it. And those early priests did not marry just for the sex. They married to have families. Marrying to have families is also a holy longing and has nothing to do with a distorted view of sex.

Another reason for married priests is to reduce the stress on the current priesthood, who are suffering their own martyrdom as a result of so few vocations.

A third reason is that Catholics are leaving the Church in droves, and Christianity on the whole is shrinking, whereas atheistic secularism is exploding. We need more priests not only to re-evangelize fallen away Catholics, but also to bring non-Catholics into the fold.

There doesn’t have to be an end to a celibate priesthood. The monastic and missionary orders can still require it, as well they should. Even in the secular priesthood there might be more celibate priests than married priests.

But I don’t think there is any proof anywhere that the Church is doing just fine as things are, or that the future doesn’t look anything but bleak if the Church doesn’t return to the practice of the early Church, as it has in so many other ways during the last several decades (permanent deacons, Mass in the language of the people, Communion in the hand, etc.)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

And those early priests did not marry just for the sex.

Just a quick note.

Priests have never been allowed to marry. The reception of Holy Orders is an impediment to the Sacrament of Marriage.

When we talk about married priests we are speaking of married men who are ordained to the priesthood.

Once in Holy Orders you can not get married (this goes for deacons as well), so if a man’s spouse passes away he automatically becomes a celibate.

 

[Abu]

Charlemagne II
But I don’t think there is any proof anywhere that the Church is doing just fine as things are, or that the future doesn’t look anything but bleak if the Church doesn’t return to the practice of the early Church, as it has in so many other ways during the last several decades (permanent deacons, Mass in the language of the people, Communion in the hand, etc.)

The cause of the crisis is the chaos which occurred at and after Vatican II (NOT because of) in the U.S.A. and in the rest of the world with rampant humanism, secularism and relativism, and which impacted on the bishops and the seminaries and religious orders including nuns. The banal distortions in the Ordo Missae Liturgy which came from transgressions of the Vatican II directives are only now to be mitigated in 2011. Communion in the hand has certainly contributed to the laxity and irreverence.

Once again, there was no legitimate “convention of married priests in the Early Church”, because it was an Apostolic norm that celibacy was the obligatory rule for the priests who were married (the majority) in the Early Church. Below is a real life case of the real need for unmarried priests today.

Why Not Married Priests? The Case for Clerical Celibacy
George Sim Johnston [crisismagazine.com/january2006/feature1.htm]](http://www.crisismagazine.com/january2006/feature1.htm])
But this one exception to the general rule is the occasion of a story that I tell my audience. It is about a friend of mine who is now a prominent Catholic moral theologian. Years ago, he was an Episcopalian priest who decided to convert to Catholicism. He was married with children and was given the option of becoming a Catholic priest. He agonized over the decision. He was already an ordained minister (although the Church does not recognize the validity of Episcopalian orders) and was deeply attracted to the Catholic priesthood. But at the same time, he recognized that there must be serious reasons why the Church insists on a discipline that is such a sign of contradiction to the modern world.

The debate went on, until finally there came the moment of clarification. He was up all night with one of his children who was seriously ill. Feeling drained and haggard, he went to Mass the next morning, and the priest celebrating Mass came out looking equally drawn. During the brief homily, the priest mentioned in passing that he had been up all night with a parishioner’s child who was dying of meningitis. A light bulb went off over my friend’s head: You can’t do both. If you fully understand the vocations to marriage and to the priesthood—the total availability and self-emptying that each demands—you would not choose to do both. And so he became a lay theologian and, apart from raising a large family, has served the Church in ways that he probably could not have as a member of the clergy.

As my bleary-eyed friend discovered at that early morning Mass, the sacraments of Holy Orders and matrimony are too consuming to allow for both. A married priest can’t help giving his first thoughts to his wife and children. To the extent he does so, he may be forgoing his priestly role as “father,” and people who call a married priest “father” would rightly get the idea that they are second in line as spiritual children. Paul understood this perfectly well when he wrote to the Corinthians, “For he who is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of this world, how he may please his wife; and he is divided” (1 Cor 7:32-34).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Abu

*As my bleary-eyed friend discovered at that early morning Mass, the sacraments of Holy Orders and matrimony are too consuming to allow for both. A married priest can’t help giving his first thoughts to his wife and children. To the extent he does so, he may be forgoing his priestly role as “father,” and people who call a married priest “father” would rightly get the idea that they are second in line as spiritual children. Paul understood this perfectly well when he wrote to the Corinthians, “For he who is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of this world, how he may please his wife; and he is divided” (1 Cor 7:32-34). *

This is an interesting story, but it doesn’t prove that married men cannot be effective priests. Protestant ministers also work hard, and their labors are divided between their work and their families. But they manage. In the early Church there were many married priests who doubtless carried a great burden, as Paul says. But I don’t think Paul made celibacy a mandate for Orders, and the general practice, at least until the time of Constantine, was to treat married and celibate priests equally. And this was fortunate for the Church, because it grew at a phenomenal rate. How phenomenal that rate would have been if the priesthood had been restricted to celibates, is an open question.

Communion in the hand has certainly contributed to the laxity and irreverence.

But since Jesus at the last supper distributed Communion to his apostles by hand, how can it be irreverent for us to take it in the same manner? And since the priest takes it from his own hand, is he less reverent than if someone placed it on his tongue?

ddarko

Priests have never been allowed to marry. The reception of Holy Orders is an impediment to the Sacrament of Marriage.

Are you saying this applied in the early Church as well? If so, what is your authoritative source for this?

Thanks.

 

[ddarko]

ddarko

*Secondly, to make married priests the norm IS sinful if done for the reasons brought forth on this discussion. **All the reasons brought forth so far is that priests should marry to reduce sexual abuse cases. ***That is a result of a distorted view of sex and is impractical, illogical and has no psychological facts to back it up.

Reducing sexual abuse was not the single reason given for a married priesthood.

It was pointed out many posts back that the early Church had married priests, and therefore it was a legitimate convention in its day, and there was nothing sinful about it. And those early priests did not marry just for the sex. They married to have families. Marrying to have families is also a holy longing and has nothing to do with a distorted view of sex.

Another reason for married priests is to reduce the stress on the current priesthood, who are suffering their own martyrdom as a result of so few vocations.

A third reason is that Catholics are leaving the Church in droves, and Christianity on the whole is shrinking, whereas atheistic secularism is exploding. We need more priests not only to re-evangelize fallen away Catholics, but also to bring non-Catholics into the fold.

There doesn’t have to be an end to a celibate priesthood. The monastic and missionary orders can still require it, as well they should. Even in the secular priesthood there might be more celibate priests than married priests.

But I don’t think there is any proof anywhere that the Church is doing just fine as things are, or that the future doesn’t look anything but bleak if the Church doesn’t return to the practice of the early Church, as it has in so many other ways during the last several decades (permanent deacons, Mass in the language of the people, Communion in the hand, etc.)

Once again, you choose to ignore my complete objections and answers bits and pieces.

My point was clear. You have no proof that allowing priests to marry results in more priests. That is simply a false notion just like your sex abuse thing.

Actually the church is doing just fine. In Western countries, its probably not as a result of their distorted view of sex. But in south America and south Asia, there is an abundance of priests. The right thing to do is protect these countries from the sexual revolution of the west. As long as its done, it will continue to be this way.

In short what you are proposing is not a fix. It is just simple way of maybe prolonging the inevitable conclusion of this disordered view of sex. As we can already see, even the number of people committing to marriage are dropping in the West. So its only a matter of time before even marriage goes out of the window.

So I would ask you yet again to think whether what you are proposing makes any logical sense. Your solution to allow married priests does nothing for the priesthood (especially in the long term).

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

ddarko

Priests have never been allowed to marry. The reception of Holy Orders is an impediment to the Sacrament of Marriage.

Are you saying this applied in the early Church as well? If so, what is your authoritative source for this?

Thanks.

Sorry I think that line does not belong to me.

That being said, my position as I stated few times now is that
if there is a greater way of devoting one self to God, that should be respected for what it is. To say that its impossible to hold to that standard is FALSE and goes against the centuries of saints, and people who have maintained Celibacy.

I am really puzzled why you make such an argument. I mean whats next? Would you like us to go back to the Old testament because the new covenant is a ‘‘little hard’’ for society to satisfy and the church isn’t doing very well promoting it ? After-all, there were prophets and people who lived in the time of the old covenant who were pleasing to God

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Abu

*As my bleary-eyed friend discovered at that early morning Mass, the sacraments of Holy Orders and matrimony are too consuming to allow for both. A married priest can’t help giving his first thoughts to his wife and children. To the extent he does so, he may be forgoing his priestly role as “father,” and people who call a married priest “father” would rightly get the idea that they are second in line as spiritual children. Paul understood this perfectly well when he wrote to the Corinthians, “For he who is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of this world, how he may please his wife; and he is divided” (1 Cor 7:32-34). *

This is an interesting story, but it doesn’t prove that married men cannot be effective priests. Protestant ministers also work hard, and their labors are divided between their work and their families. But they manage. In the early Church there were many married priests who doubtless carried a great burden, as Paul says. But I don’t think Paul made celibacy a mandate for Orders, and the general practice, at least until the time of Constantine, was to treat married and celibate priests equally. And this was fortunate for the Church, because it grew at a phenomenal rate. How phenomenal that rate would have been if the priesthood had been restricted to celibates, is an open question.

Thanks.

The point is not about ‘‘managing by’’. Its about doing the best they can at what they do. If you were married, I am sure you would know that caring for once family and caring for your neighbor’s family in the same degree is not going to stick well with your own family. But as a priest, that’s how it is. He can afford to do what no married man can do.

Your argument from history can only take you so far btw. You can’t just keep bringing up church fathers for every thing. You should also look at matters logically. Right now you are ignoring the logic and trying to solely rely on what someone else did in the past. Not very good strategy by any means

God Bless

 

[Abu]

Charlemagne
But I don’t think Paul made celibacy a mandate for Orders, and the general practice, at least until the time of Constantine, was to treat married and celibate priests equally. And this was fortunate for the Church, because it grew at a phenomenal rate. How phenomenal that rate would have been if the priesthood had been restricted to celibates, is an open question.

Celibacy is the Apostolic norm, and the phenomenal growth was due to the seed of the martyrs, persecution, fidelity to Christ and His Church. There were relatively few unmarried who had the faith in the beginning.

The crisis in Christ’s Church is due to the modernist errors abroad before Vatican II, whose promoters tried to take over the Council, and are referred to in *Christ Denied *TAN, 1982, by Fr Paul Wickens).

Before Vatican II, by May of 1964, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) had approved the sex education program put forward by 2 Swedish delegates, and the whole sordid conglomerate is exposed in Claire Chambers The SIECUS Circle, 1977. The power structure exerts pressure on local schools and the gullible public for its school sex education program. The network promotes population control, legalised abortion, homosexuality, pornography, sensitivity training and drugs (p xv). We surely know how dissenters have spread these into the People of God.

The '60’s saw the rise of anarchy in the USA with much that was good in society decried and destroyed with nothing worthy to replace it. The new religion of the so-called Enlightenment was welcomed by selfists.

The degradation of sacred order, at the invitation of nuns, occurred from 1967 in the USA through humanistic psychologists especially Carl Rogers, and I have heard one of his lieutenants, Dr J W Coulson in person, apologising for the grave harm caused. [See *The Emperor’s New Clothes by William Kirk Kilpatrick, 1985, p 149-150]. The destruction of whole Catholic school systems and religious orders occurred.

Then followed the disgraceful public dissent against Humanae Vitae by Rahner and numerous dissenting theologians, Richard McBrien’s Catholicism (full of errors), the revolt of the Catholic universities and the bureaucratic/theological tail wagging the episcopal dog so to speak – coupled with lax or dissenting bishops this resulted in a grave crisis, which is worldwide with relativism, selfism and secularism.

Homosexual activists became established in the seminaries and priesthood, with the confusion over doctrine.

How many Catholics know this?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Celibacy is the Apostolic norm

Can you give us some source for this claim?

We know that a married priesthood has been from the beginning along side the celibate priesthood so I do not understand how one is the Apostolic norm when both started with the Apostles.

 

[Abu]

ByzCath
We know that a married priesthood has been from the beginning along side the celibate priesthood so I do not understand how one is the Apostolic norm when both started with the Apostles.

Post #49: Fr. John Echert of EWTN on 10/Nov/03
“What Cochini shows through patristic sources and conciliar documentation is that from the beginning of the Church, although married men could be priests, they were required to vow to celibacy before ordination, meaning they intended to live a life of continence.”
The Apostolic norm shown by the scholars below was a life of continence for all priests because of the vow of celibacy before ordination.

Post #33: “In 1969 Christian Cocchini, S.J. completed his doctoral thesis at the Institut Catholique, on the history of clerical celibacy. The president of the examiners who approved his dissertation was Cardinal Danielou. Cocchini’s mastery of the sources from the New Testament to the seventh century is unequalled.

This is what he found:
“From the beginnings of the Church, and throughout the Greco-Latin world, a single rule prevailed: Priests were celibate; or else, if they had married before ordination, they and their wives promised to live together thereafter without the use of the marriage. This rule was an Apostolic norm; it was proclaimed and practiced by the Apostles; and that norm in turn was founded upon the example of our Lord Himself.

“Clerics were often chosen from among married older men. After ordination they were required to abstain from conjugal intercourse. In effect then, they were not married. Qui habent uxores, tamquam non habentes sint. “Let those who are married live as if they do not have wives”. Pope Leo the Great in 458 AD borrowed those words of Saint Paul in order to describe the celibacy of the clergy.” (I Cor. 7:29). [Letter from Pope Leo to Rusticus, Bishop of Narbonne]. The Origin Of Priestly Celibacy, by Hugh Ballantyne, June 2003]

For Early Church Tradition the most important studies are: Fr Roman Cholij, Clerical Celibacy in East and West (Herefordshire: Fowler Wright Books, 1988); Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ddarko

Your argument from history can only take you so far btw. You can’t just keep bringing up church fathers for every thing. You should also look at matters logically. Right now you are ignoring the logic and trying to solely rely on what someone else did in the past. Not very good strategy by any means.

I am trying to be logical. The Church is enduring the gravest crisis in centuries with the decline of those who are entering the priesthood. Now that the world needs evangelizing more than ever, there are few priests left to do it. Those who are left are living out a martyrdom of burdens. If it were not for revival of the married diaconate, I think many more priests would have left Orders long ago or collapsed from overwork and discouragement. In our diocese we have five seminarians studying for the priesthood and forty married laymen studying for the diaconate. This is relief of some sort, but it only indicates how many more vocations for the priesthood might be out there for married laymen.

Give me some better logic on your side than just the tradition of the Church for celibacy that was never formalized at all until the Spanish Council of Elvira in 295 A.D.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Abu

*“From the beginnings of the Church, and throughout the Greco-Latin world, a single rule prevailed: Priests were celibate; or else, if they had married before ordination, they and their wives promised to live together thereafter without the use of the marriage. This rule was an Apostolic norm; it was proclaimed and practiced by the Apostles; and that norm in turn was founded upon the example of our Lord Himself. *

Well, I need more verification for this “Apostolic norm” than Father Cocchini’s doctoral dissertation. That is hardly authoritative. Why aren’t you naming documents from the early Church that indicate this was an “Apostolic norm”?

If you want to use the historical record, use it. I’ve never seen this “apostolic norm” written out anywhere but in the theories of theologians. There has to be a better reason than a theory. There have to be documents from the Apostolic period that are definitive, not documents from centuries later when the early Fathers were trying to impose celibacy on married men who were ordained.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

“Clerics were often chosen from among married older men. After ordination they were required to abstain from conjugal intercourse. In effect then, they were not married. Qui habent uxores, tamquam non habentes sint. “Let those who are married live as if they do not have wives”. Pope Leo the Great in 458 AD borrowed those words of Saint Paul in order to describe the celibacy of the clergy.” (I Cor. 7:29). [Letter from Pope Leo to Rusticus, Bishop of Narbonne]. [The Origin Of Priestly Celibacy, by Hugh Ballantyne, June 2003]

Actually, the passage from Paul quoted by Pope Leo above reads as follows:

1 Corinthians 7:
29
I tell you, brothers, the time is running out. From now on, let those having wives act as not having them,
30
those weeping as not weeping, those rejoicing as not rejoicing, those buying as not owning,
31
those using the world as not using it fully. For the world in its present form is passing away.

This has nothing to do with the marital state of priests. Paul is talking about everyone … about the temporality of the world. That we must all prepare for the end of the world as we know it. Go read it.

So that passage cannot be used as an apostolic authority against married priests,** nor can it be used as an argument requiring continence of priests if they are married.**

 

[Abu]

Charlemagne II
I need more verification for this “Apostolic norm” than Father Cocchini’s doctoral dissertation. That is hardly authoritative. Why aren’t you naming documents from the early Church that indicate this was an “Apostolic norm”?
Cor 1 :29-31 that passage cannot be used as an apostolic authority against married priests, nor can it be used as an argument requiring continence of priests if they are married.

I’m sure the faithful are happy to recount facts as uncovered but individual “needs” are not necessarily catered for.

holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/rayryland/thegift.asp
**The Gift: A Married Priest Looks at Celibacy by Fr. Ray Ryland
An Ancient Discipline **
Unquestionably, sentiment in favor of optional celibacy for priests is growing, even among faithful Catholics. But there are two fundamental errors underlying this opinion, one historical, the other theological.
First, the historical error: People commonly believe that the Church mandated celibacy for her priests beginning in the fourth century or the twelfth century or somewhere in between. The fact is, priestly celibacy is an apostolic institution. 1
Note:

1. For more detail, see Ray Ryland, “A Brief History of Clerical Celibacy.” Peter Stravinskas, ed., Priestly Celibacy: Its Scriptural, Historical, Spiritual, and Psychological Roots (Mt. Pocono: Newman House Press, 2001), pp. 27-44.
   **
   The Ancient Tradition of Clerical Celibacy, by Mary R. Schneider**
   catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7663&CFID=51739617&CFTOKEN=57277060
   The persecution suffered by the early Church during the first three centuries made it difficult for it to write down most of its laws.5 Yet it is very unlikely that when the Church did begin to write down its laws in the fourth century, that it would have ignored its earlier, unwritten rules and composed brand new ones, especially one such as the Elvira canon, which would have deprived clerics of a long-established right.6 It is quite likely that the tradition of clerical continence dates back to apostolic times but the lack of written records from that era means that we cannot know this with certainty.
   Notes
2. Alfons M. Stickler, The Case for Clerical Celibacy. Its Historical Development and Theological Foundation, trans. Brian Ferme, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995), 18.
3. Ibid., 23.

The CDF and Pope John Paul II, and all the Councils, Synods and Popes below regard priestly continence as from Apostolic times with priestly candidates chosen from the celibate faithful.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_31011994_directory_en.html
Congregation For The Clergy, Directory On The Ministry And Life Of Priests, 1994
(Approved by Pope John Paul II)
#59: “The example is Christ, who in going against what could be considered the dominant culture of his time, freely chose to live celibacy. In following him the disciples left “everything” to fulfil the mission entrusted to them (Lk 18:28-30).

“For this reason the Church, from apostolic times, has wished to conserve the gift of perpetual continence of the clergy and choose the candidates for Holy Orders from among the celibate faithful (cf 2 Thes 2:15; 1 Cor 7:5; 9:5; 1 Tim 3:2-12; 5:9; Tit 1:6-8).(188)” [My underlining].
“Note:
(188) Cf COUNCIL OF ELVIRA (a. 300-305) cann. 27; 33: BRUNS HERM., Canones Apostolorum et Conciliorum saec. IV-VII, II, 5-6; COUNCIL OF NEOCESAREA (a. 314), can. 1; ECUM. COUNCIL OF NICEA I (a 325), can. 3: Conc. Oecum. Decree 6; ROMAN SYNOD (a. 386): Concilia Africae a. 345-525, CCl 149 (in Council of Telepte), 58-63; COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE (a. 390): ibid 13. 133 ff.; COUNCIL OF TRULLANO (a. 691), cann. 3, 6, 12, 13, 26, 30, 48: Pont. Commissio ad redigendum CIC Orientalis IX I/1 125-186; SIRICIO, decretals Directa (a. 386): PL 13, 1131-1147; INNOCENT I, lett. Dominus inter (a. 405): BRUNS, cit. 274-277. S. LEO THE GREAT, lett. a Rusticus (a. 456): PL 54, 1191; EUSEBIUS OF CESAREA, Demonstratio Evangelica 1 9: PG 22, 82 (78-83); EPIPHANIO OF SALAMINA, Panarion PG 41, 868, 1024; Expositio Fidei PG 42, 822-826.”