Peter and several of the original apostles were married. As to not mentioning their wives by name in the scriptures and talking about their sex life, the answer is simple. It has nothing to do with revelation of the Messiah.
The idea would not have cross the evangelists’ minds. This was a perfectly normal thing for them. There are letters for the early Fathers and I can’t remember which one mentions Peter’s daughter as a “deacones”. The word was not used in the same sense as we use it in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but as one who waits on tables.
As to why Roman Catholic priests do not marry, there are several facts that we have consider here.
- Most Roman Catholic priests are also religious. Religious make vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. The vow of chastity binds them to Christ through their religious community. If you took away celibacy, it would only apply to about 1/3 of the clergy. That would be the 1/3 of priests who are not religioius, but are secular men, such as Fr. Alberto.
- Celibacy was introduced by Christ himself and practiced very early in the Eastern and Western Church. John and Paul espoused it. Paul wrote about it in his letters and promoted it. It is not a new way of life in the Church. The Western and Eastern Churches have had celibate men and women from the beginning. Originally it was practiced by secular men and secular women and later it became part of religious life and was canonized by St. Benedict, St. Basil, St. Scholastica and St. Albert, all the great founders of relgious life.
- Celibacy for secular deacons and priests is a discipline that can be changed. As we have seen with secular men who wish to be deacons, but you must be married first. A priest cannot marry. A married man can become a priest. We do have some married priests in the Western Church and many in the Eastern Churches. The Promise of celibacy for secular men wishing to be priests only applies to the West. By the way, it’s a promise, not a vow. Only religious men and women make vows of celibacy. There is a canonical difference.
As to Fr. Alberto’s problem, there is a serious situation here. The situation is simple to understand, but not simple to fix. The Holy Father has frozen dispensations for priests and religious brothers. In his communications with bishops and major superiors of religious men, the Holy Father has made it clear that that secular priests and religious men cannot leave nor can they be expelled from their diocese or their religious communities, except in the case of schism, in which case the individual takes himself out.
The only thing that a bishop can do with a secular priest is to suspend him and offer him options. But he can’t even impose those options, because the priest in question is a secular man. His promise of obedience to the bishop is not the same as the vow of obedience of a religious. A bishop has less control over the personal life of a secular priest. A religious superior has total control over the personal life of his religious. The vow of obedience of a religious includes personal choices. In other words, religious can only make the choices that their superiors and their constitutions allow. To disobey is a grave sin.
The secular deacon or priest is bound to obey the bishop in pastoral matters, not internal matters. The bishop has no authority there. If he did, then the man would not be a secular, he would be religious. That’s one reason why many men become diocesan priests. They are not called to the discipline of religious obedience.
In this case, the bishop can give Fr. Alberto options and can order that he choose one, because it impacts on the pastoral life of the diocese. Not to obey constitutes a grave sin at various levels. However, there is not much that the bishop can do if Fr Alberto or any diocesan priest chooses not to obey. He has already suspended him. He cannot excommunicate hijm for an offense that does not incurr excommunication.
If the priest in question attempts marriage, then there is an automatic excommunication. If he allows himself to be consecrated bishop, there is an automatic excommunication. If he speaks against dogma, he MAY be excommunicated as a heretic. This is a tricky one. Not everything that is heresy incurs an excommunication. The bishop is the only judge of that, but the pope can declare it invalid if they do not agree with each other.
So far, Fr. Alberto has not said anything against dogma. He has spoken out on celibacy. Celibacy is discipline. He certainly has committed several sins, but we already know what those are.
The points are, celibacy is a standing discipline in the Church that dates back to Christ himself and Fr. Alberto is a secular priest whom the bishop cannot canonically dispose of too easilly. The bishop is bound to work within the system that Pope Benedict has set up. The sytem says that the bishop must use persuasion not threats.
We just have to remain silent and pray. . .ilent, because there is not much that we can do to help this pciture. The best answer that I have given to others is that I don’t have an answer, because I’m not perfect.
Fraternally,
JR
