Celibacy: east vs. west

[otjm]

[My emphasis, above]

I think you are splitting hairs. Celibacy is the norm for Roman Catholic priests. What have Eastern Catholic rules got to do with it?It has everything to do with it. The Eastern rites are not something “attached” to the Roman rite. It is all One Church. One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic. That applies just as much and just as thoroughly to the Eastern rites as it does to the Western Rites. The sacrament of priesthood (deacon, priest, bishop) is the same sacrament whether it is in the Eastern or the Western rites. The point BC was making is that whatever defines priesthood, whatever is intrinsic to priesthood, is defining and intrinsic to all, or it is not a defining factor of priesthood. That means that where there are disciplinary differences, they are not defining. Priesthood is priesthood, whether one is married when one is ordained or not.

Further, because the Roman rite has married priests, celibacy cannot be a defining factor; otherwise one is left with a priesthood (the married priests) which defies definition. Disciplines are not definitions because of their changeability. As should be obvious, the discipline in the Roman rite has changed; it is not absolute as many think or wnat to think.

Layman:

Once again, I perceive a trend of pushing the exception to becoming the rule for the Roman Catholic Church i.e. “Was it ever done, in any rite, at any time, in any special circumstances in the entire Catholic Church? Yes? Then let it be done universally in the Roman Catholic church, now.”

And again, if the Church were to reduce or remove the discipline in the Roman rite, married priests would not become “the rule”. “The rule” is where there are only exceptions or no exceptions to it. Having both a married and a celibate clergy does not make having a married clergy “the rule”. the ration of married clergy to celibat clergy has never driven out celibate clergy in the Eastern rites, and there is no reason anywhere whatsoever to assume that if Rome relaxed the discipline in the Roman rite, or removed it, that a celibate clergy would not continue to flourish.

Layman:
The church holds celibacy as a higher estate. The lives of the saints bear ample witness that Heaven agrees. Yesterday I read how Christ favoured Sr. Faustina by granting her the grace to never suffer carnal temptations.

I find it surprising, in the light of tradition, that people even argue for a change in the celibacy rule.It all depends on what tradition one wants to look at. Your view seems to be that whatever tradition was in place prior to Vatican 2 is the one and oonly tradition worthy of consideration, and certainly by the fact that it existed at that time, in the 1950’s, that is thereby is far more worthy than anything else. Tradition with a small “t” is something that has changed over time and will continue to change, as appropriate for the time. Those who want to take a tradition (such as celibacy ion the priesthood, or limiting the Rosary to the Joyful, Sorrowful and Glorious Mysteries) and raise it to doctrinal or dogmatic status are those who don’t understand what those traditions really are and what their place in the Church really is.

Will the rule of celibacy change in the Roman rite? There certainly are good reason to say it won’t any time soon, considering the amount of change the Church has gone through in the last 40+ years, and the fact that it will take more time for the process, already begun, to flush out the goofiness and get back on track.

On the other hand, given the married deaconate and the growth it has seen, not to mention problems in Africa with celibacy and priesthood, and the influx of married Protestant ministers (which will probably grow with the Anglican influx), one can say that it would appear to be an issue that may be warmer on the burner than what certain appearances may give. Rome is not notorious for tipping its hand early.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Oh no … we agree.

Celibacy may be the norm according to the current discipline of the Latin Church, but it is certainly not definitive of the secular priesthood itself.

Stranger things have happened.

I think we agree on more than we realize it just happens that those few things we disagree on can get heated at times.

 

[Layman]

I’m not using ‘defining’ in a legal sense. I mean it in terms of public perception and as a statistical and moral norm. R.C. priest = celibate, in the mind of most Catholics and non-Catholics. Changing this, plus given that Heaven favours celibacy, offers no benefits to the Church, that I can see.

e.g. Complete the following sentence: “Pope Benedict announced today that Roman Catholic clergy are no longer required to be celibate, because …”.

 

[bilop]

I’m not using ‘defining’ in a legal sense. I mean it in terms of public perception and as a statistical and moral norm. R.C. priest = celibate, in the mind of most Catholics and non-Catholics. Changing this, plus given that Heaven favours celibacy, offers no benefits to the Church, that I can see.

e.g. Complete the following sentence: “Pope Benedict announced today that Roman Catholic clergy are no longer required to be celibate, because …”.

The benefit would be an increased number of good and dedicated priests.

If the Holy Father believed allowing married men to be ordained would double the number of ordinations in the Church, and that those ordinands would be of high quality, that would be an excellent reason to allow married men to be ordained.

God Bless

 

[Layman]

The benefit would be an increased number of good and dedicated priests.

If the Holy Father believed allowing married men to be ordained would double the number of ordinations in the Church, and that those ordinands would be of high quality, that would be an excellent reason to allow married men to be ordained.

God Bless

How does being married imply you would be a good, dedicated priest?

I’ve read that the vocations crisis is manufactured. That traditionalist bishops do not lack vocations. That liberal dioceses do. That the latter filter out traditionalist candidates. That the hope is that the lack of vocations will force changes to the celibacy rule.

In practice, I think it forces parish closures, ‘Communion Services In The Absence Of A Priest’ and ‘Father is having to cover two parishes’.

Want to quadruple your vocation candidates overnight? Get homosexuals and liberals out of the selection process and advertise that “We welcome traditionalist candidates who want to say the TLM”.

A straight man with prospects is less likely to give up marriage and children to be a worker for social-justice-and-peace-cum-presider at the N.O. in a bare church with cheesy hymns. Assuming he could get past the lay vocation directors and psychologists picked by his ecumaniacal bishop.

 

[Aramis]

I’m not using ‘defining’ in a legal sense. I mean it in terms of public perception and as a statistical and moral norm. R.C. priest = celibate, in the mind of most Catholics and non-Catholics. Changing this, plus given that Heaven favours celibacy, offers no benefits to the Church, that I can see.

Many non-catholics also see RC Priest=Child molesting sodomite. That also isn’t a valid viewpoint, either.

e.g. Complete the following sentence: “Pope Benedict announced today that Roman Catholic clergy are no longer required to be celibate, because …”.

The benefit would be an increased number of good and dedicated priests.

If the Holy Father believed allowing married men to be ordained would double the number of ordinations in the Church, and that those ordinands would be of high quality, that would be an excellent reason to allow married men to be ordained.

God Bless

Well said, bilop.

Personally, I suspect it will only be opened to “permanent” deacons of 10+ years when whichever pope opens it to married men.

How does being married imply you would be a good, dedicated priest?

I’ve read that the vocations crisis is manufactured. That traditionalist bishops do not lack vocations. That liberal dioceses do. That the latter filter out traditionalist candidates. That the hope is that the lack of vocations will force changes to the celibacy rule.

In practice, I think it forces parish closures, ‘Communion Services In The Absence Of A Priest’ and ‘Father is having to cover two parishes’.

Want to quadruple your vocation candidates overnight? Get homosexuals and liberals out of the selection process and advertise that “We welcome traditionalist candidates who want to say the TLM”.

A straight man with prospects is less likely to give up marriage and children to be a worker for social-justice-and-peace-cum-presider at the N.O. in a bare church with cheesy hymns. Assuming he could get past the lay vocation directors and psychologists picked by his ecumaniacal bishop.

“traditionalist” bishops? The only bishops I know using that label are on the fringes, and look to be moving further towards formal schism.

Certain bishops who have rejected the abuses common in some other dioceses have had shortages of bedspace in their seminaries. But these are not bishops who reject the OF. They are bishops who embrace “Do the Red. Say the black.” Bishops who also expect their priests to obey that simple rule.

I will grant there are some really lax bishops out there… and they do have a crisis in their dioceses. Unfortunately, their own laxity is at its origin.

 

[otjm]

I’m not using ‘defining’ in a legal sense. I mean it in terms of public perception and as a statistical and moral norm. R.C. priest = celibate, in the mind of most Catholics and non-Catholics. Changing this, plus given that Heaven favours celibacy, offers no benefits to the Church, that I can see.

e.g. Complete the following sentence: “Pope Benedict announced today that Roman Catholic clergy are no longer required to be celibate, because …”.

that is part of the problem of public perception; it is too often not accurate. It gives rise to urban legends that are out of sync with the Church.

Celibacy in the Roman rite is not a moral norm; it is a discipline which may be lifted and has been lifted. Both the East and the West see celibacy as a higher calling than marriage; but that has less to do with priesthood than it does with celibacy itself; professed religious are celibate and that has nothing to do with the priesthood.

You cannot see the value in a married clergy because, it would appear, a) you have had no contact with married clergy, and b) you appear to think that what the rules were before Vatican 2 are better simply because they were in place then. As a matter of fact, they were not in place as has been amply demonstrated in this thread; only that the Roman rite has had celibacy as a discipline which could and has been applied to the great majority of diocesan priests, but not all. It should be obvious that if the Eastern rites have had married clergy since the founding of the Church, and if the Roman rite now has married clergy, that someone other than you sees value in it - and more than one or two individuals, at that. As in, Rome has seen the value. One of the obvious values is the value a priest brings to the Church, whether married or not. Priesthood is entirely distinct from married status. And while celibacy is a higher calling, celibacy is not intrinsic to the priesthood in any way; nor is priesthood intrinsic to celibacy. We have had both married and celibate clergy throughout history, and the Roman rite has a long history of having both; it also has a long history of having only one - celibate. Given the fact that it has not been mandated for the Eastern rites also, it should be clear that part of it has had other than a theological basis; otherwise, the Eastern rites would long ago have been pushed into celibacy only.

 

[otjm]

How does being married imply you would be a good, dedicated priest?

2000 years of history of good, holy, dedicated married priests should provide you with that answer.

I’ve read that the vocations crisis is manufactured. That traditionalist bishops do not lack vocations. That liberal dioceses do. That the latter filter out traditionalist candidates. That the hope is that the lack of vocations will force changes to the celibacy rule.

Not only is your reading rather narrow, but so is your practical experience. You see things in black and white; - either liberal or conservative. What you miss out on is that there are any number of dioceses which are not liberal, nor fitting in with your definition of conservative. They just follow the Magisterium.

In practice, I think it forces parish closures, ‘Communion Services In The Absence Of A Priest’ and ‘Father is having to cover two parishes’.

Which completely ignores the leading cause of closing parishes - changing demographics.

A straight man with prospects is less likely to give up marriage and children to be a worker for social-justice-and-peace-cum-presider at the N.O. in a bare church with cheesy hymns. Assuming he could get past the lay vocation directors and psychologists picked by his ecumaniacal bishop.

Blowing snot at the John Paul 2 priests, those who follow the Magisterium, say the OF without interjecting themselves into the Mass, and seek to preach Christ and Him crucified shows neither any dignity nor charity. It also has nothing whatsoever tyo do with whether or not married men should be ordained. And not to get off topic, but the only statistics I have seen which are world-wide statistics and follow some 117,000 parishes world wide, show that about 1 in 250 parishes says the EF. That works out to about 0.4% world wide. Even the Pope says the OF, and it is not the EF that is going to rescue the Church; it is the ordination of priests who want to follow the Magisterium - of whom we are ordaining more and more.

And some of those priests are going to be married men before they are ordained; the question is, how many.

Oh, and by the way, our parishes are not bare. Not even approaching it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

How does being married imply you would be a good, dedicated priest?

The answer to that question is the same as the answer to these questions…

How does being a celibate male imply you would be a good, dedicated priest?
What is the price of tea in China?
What’s that got to do with the price of cheese?

 

[diggerdomer]

Hee, hee, these priests are in a minority. A small one. Celibate Roman Catholic priests are therefore the statistical as well as the practical norm. Celibacy is therefore a defining feature. Look at popular portrayals of R.C. priests, even by non-Catholics. There are no ‘Mrs. Priests’.

Saying:

• I would like there to be more married R.C. priests;
• There are already some married R.C. priests;

… are not good reasons for changing the celibacy rule, especially as celibacy is considered a higher estate within the Church.

I define Modernism as:

• The belief that doctrine can be changed or updated according to the fashion of the present.
• The thirst for the new regardless of its worth.

I think it’s the second that’s influencing the calls for married priests. It does seem that these calls are now dying out, but I mentioned it in the context of the argument for married priests.

Please read what I posted.

I said celibacy is not a defining feature of Catholicism. I was not limiting that to only Roman Catholicism.

Yes, of course, in the ROMAN Catholic Rite, celibacy has been the norm for quite a while (important note…not originally), but that doesn’t qualify celibacy as a defining feature of the CATHOLIC Church (as anyone who knows anything about history, Catholics have always had married clergy, it was only later and in some Rites that celibacy became the preferred though not exclusive norm).

 

[Layman]

The answer to that question is the same as the answer to these questions…

How does being a celibate male imply you would be a good, dedicated priest?
What is the price of tea in China?
What’s that got to do with the price of cheese?

I made that remark in response to a previous poster, who implied that if celibacy was no longer the rule for Roman Catholic would-be priests, then we would have an inlux of “good dedicated” priests. Being married, in itself, is no indicator of being a good, dedicated priest.

A man, who is not a homosexual, who would sacrifice marriage and children, to be a priest, would certainly be more likely to be a good, dedicated, priest.

• “Priests following the Magisterium”. I don’t know what that means, as a value, in practical terms. If your bishop permits it, you have a lot of leeway.
• Yes, I’m specifically talking about Roman Catholicism. That’s what this sub-forum is for. Also, I have never come across another rite’s church. And I live in London. I think that’s the experience of most Roman Catholics. I only ever hear about them on this forum, in the context of the argument “Because X church does this, or ever did it, the Roman Catholic church should do it, now”. It doesn’t follow.
• “Priests as child-molester” is a recent phenomenon and one hyped-up by the enemies of the church. “Priest as celibate” has a far older pedigree. The former perception will disappear once the true facts become more widley known - that a very small group of perverts took advantage of post-1940’s episcopal ‘tolerance’. It also, hopefully, shines a spotlight on seminary formation: “Is So-and-so being rather too intimate with others here? Then send him home”. Probem solved.

 

[Layman]

• I’m in the unusual position of straddling two countries, four dioceses and four parishes, both diocesan and religious, urban and rural. I even looked into being a priest or a religious in these areas, some time ago. A small sampling, but it was clear that dioceses and orders, with progessive ideas, that had non-standard Masses, in chuches with unusual fittings seemed to be the ones most in need of vocations i.e. “we had one priest ordained this year”.
• By traditionalist here I mean a bishop who is not an obvious liberal. ‘Traditionalist’ with a capital T bishops, in good standing: I’m not sure they exist. Yet. I think I recall the Latin Mass society in the UK was urgently seeking donations, to pay for men who wanted to study at Traditionalist seminaries. From memory, they wanted just one bishop to sponsor these men. Vocations going a-begging. Yet the diocese I’m currently living in, whose bishop, is shall we say, not a big fan of the old rite, is having to ‘double up’ a priest I know, onto two parishes: ‘Please pray for vocations’ is the regular refrain. Ironic, isn’t it?

 

[otjm]

I made that remark in response to a previous poster, who implied that if celibacy was no longer the rule for Roman Catholic would-be priests, then we would have an inlux of “good dedicated” priests. Being married, in itself, is no indicator of being a good, dedicated priest.

And we have ample proof that being celibate is no guarantee of virtue, nor any guarantee that they will be good priests.

A man, who is not a homosexual, who would sacrifice marriage and children, to be a priest, would certainly be more likely to be a good, dedicated, priest.

A man who has the charism of celibacy will embrace it; the man who is called to marriage will embrace that. Both require sacrifice; and neither is more likely to be a good priest. Priesthood, and being a good priest, has nothing to do with the issue of celibacy/marriage. Neither state is intrinsic to priesthood. There is no certainty whatsoever as to how good a man will be a priest, based on his status of celibate or married. You seem to know far to few celibates personally. I have heard mroe than one talk about how freeing celibacy is to them - they have no responsibility to another person, only a diffused responsibility to the parish. Living day in and day out with a woman requires tha patience of Job, the wisdom of Solomon, and a self-giving, a requirement to rid oneself of self centeredness that is nowhere required of celibacy.

• “Priests following the Magisterium”. I don’t know what that means, as a value, in practical terms. If your bishop permits it, you have a lot of leeway.

That leeway is the leeway that the Church provides, allows and has legislated for. Contrary to popular opinion, before Vatican 2 bishops did not micromanage parishes and priests either.

• Yes, I’m specifically talking about Roman Catholicism. That’s what this sub-forum is for. Also, I have never come across another rite’s church. And I live in London. I think that’s the experience of most Roman Catholics. I only ever hear about them on this forum, in the context of the argument “Because X church does this, or ever did it, the Roman Catholic church should do it, now”. It doesn’t follow.

However, neither does it follow that if a discipline was imposed at one point, that it is better than what went before or should work to never allow a return to the original position. That appears to be your position; the Roman rite once had married priests but it decided to not do so and that decision should be binding forever, because it was made subsequent to the time where it had married priests. It is a discipline, not a dogma, and is subject to change (which should by now be obvious, since it has changed - we now have married priests).

• “Priests as child-molester” is a recent phenomenon and one hyped-up by the enemies of the church. “Priest as celibate” has a far older pedigree. The former perception will disappear once the true facts become more widely known - that a very small group of perverts took advantage of post-1940’s episcopal ‘tolerance’. It also, hopefully, shines a spotlight on seminary formation: “Is So-and-so being rather too intimate with others here? Then send him home”. Problem solved.

All of which has no bearing on the issue that the Roman rite has waived the discipline of celibacy for certain married men to be ordained.

 

[notredame_999]

I feel called to the priesthood. I do not feel called to celibacy, but I am willing to do it becuase its part of the package. I looked into switching rites to become a married priest, thats nearly impossible, so I am coming to terms with celibacy in the latin rite. If the option of a married priesthood was on the table, I would take it, but that option has not been on the table for nearly a thousand years.

Is this attitude appropriate and common among today’s priests?

 

[JReducation]

I feel called to the priesthood. I do not feel called to celibacy, but I am willing to do it becuase its part of the package. I looked into switching rites to become a married priest, thats nearly impossible, so I am coming to terms with celibacy in the latin rite. If the option of a married priesthood was on the table, I would take it, but that option has not been on the table for nearly a thousand years.

Is this attitude appropriate and common among today’s priests?

If celibacy is a question in your mind, it may be the case that you do not have a vocation to be a priest. God calls us to be what we can be, not what we feel. When a man “feels” the desire to be a priest in the Roman Church, celibacy is never a question for him . . . if that feeling comes from God.

God does not usurp his Church, but works within the parameters that she sets. Therefore, he calls men to a celibate priesthood, because these are the parameters of the Roman Church. Those who enter with reservations or questions about celibacy may be setting themselves up for an invalid ordination. Whether we’re speaking about Holy Orders, marriage or religious profession of vows, there is a pschological predisposition that is necessary for validity.

One must be free of all canonical impairments. One must be free of reservations. One must believe what the Church teaches about the state that one is entering. One must submit without reservations One must be happy to do this. It may never be a cross. This is not to say that crosses will not present themselves. What I’m saying is that one does not enter thinking that celibacy is going to be a cross. That’s like saying, “it’s a necessary evil”. That kind of thinking raises questions about validity.

My suggestion is to work through this with a good spiritual director.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Layman]

And we have ample proof that being celibate is no guarantee of virtue, nor any guarantee that they will be good priests.

Guarantee, no. Indicator, yes. Celibacy is a higher estate.

That leeway is the leeway that the Church provides, allows and has legislated for. Contrary to popular opinion, before Vatican 2 bishops did not micromanage parishes and priests either.
otjm;7124429:

Actually, I read that before Vatican II, parish priests were the “Popes of their parish”. Once in situ, they could not easily be moved or influenced. Now I hear they can be moved at the whim of the bishop. My understanding is that it would be a brave priest who would currently introduce a TLM to his church if his bishop was liberal, Motu Proprio or no, for example.
otjm;7124429:

That appears to be your position; the Roman rite once had married priests but it decided to not do so and that decision should be binding forever, because it was made subsequent to the time where it had married priests. It is a discipline, not a dogma, and is subject to change (which should by now be obvious, since it has changed - we now have married priests).

My position is that I would like to be served by holy priests, who can be channel for graces. Celibacy is esteemed by God. God is the font of all holiness. His favour is important. I don’t see how, therefore, relaxing the rule on celibacy would help this end. It would be a good idea for the Pope to run that idea by Our Master via some living saints, who have conversations with Him, first, I think.

All of which has no bearing on the issue that the Roman rite has waived the discipline of celibacy for certain married men to be ordained.

Sure. Certain Non-Roman Catholics.

So if a married man currently wanted to be an R.C. priest he would have to contrive first to become ordained as an Anglican and then, convert, and then have a conditional ordination. If a bishop, he could then only be a priest in the R.C. church. I think that’s the route, isn’t it?

 

[notredame_999]

If celibacy is a question in your mind, it may be the case that you do not have a vocation to be a priest. God calls us to be what we can be, not what we feel. When a man “feels” the desire to be a priest in the Roman Church, celibacy is never a question for him . . . if that feeling comes from God.

God does not usurp his Church, but works within the parameters that she sets. Therefore, he calls men to a celibate priesthood, because these are the parameters of the Roman Church. Those who enter with reservations or questions about celibacy may be setting themselves up for an invalid ordination. Whether we’re speaking about Holy Orders, marriage or religious profession of vows, there is a pschological predisposition that is necessary for validity.

One must be free of all canonical impairments. One must be free of reservations. One must believe what the Church teaches about the state that one is entering. One must submit without reservations One must be happy to do this. It may never be a cross. This is not to say that crosses will not present themselves. What I’m saying is that one does not enter thinking that celibacy is going to be a cross. That’s like saying, “it’s a necessary evil”. That kind of thinking raises questions about validity.

My suggestion is to work through this with a good spiritual director.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br. Jr. I’m glad you clarified the cross thing- because that is exactly what I feel. I feel that by entering a life of celibacy, I would be carrying my cross- but it is a necessary cross because I would be able to evangelize, catechize, and administer the sacraments. I recently emailed a seminary rector and he told me that if I viewed celibacy as a cross, I would not fit in at his seminary. I am starting to re-think my vocation. Is it common to be very depressed when contemplating the priesthood? Because I am depressed, not because being a priest makes me sad, but because the idea of giving up a wife, children, and yes the marital act makes me sad.

By the way when Jesus talks about carrying a cross, what is he referring to?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Br. Jr. I’m glad you clarified the cross thing- because that is exactly what I feel. I feel that by entering a life of celibacy, I would be carrying my cross- but it is a necessary cross because I would be able to evangelize, catechize, and administer the sacraments. I recently emailed a seminary rector and he told me that if I viewed celibacy as a cross, I would not fit in at his seminary. I am starting to re-think my vocation. Is it common to be very depressed when contemplating the priesthood? Because I am depressed, not because being a priest makes me sad, but because the idea of giving up a wife, children, and yes the marital act makes me sad.

By the way when Jesus talks about carrying a cross, what is he referring to?

Do you have a spiritual director yet? You should have one especially if this is causing you emotional distress.

Have you explored the permanent diaconate? To be a married deacon you would have to wait until your 35 but you can work towards it as you work towards actually getting married.

A deacon can evangelize, catechize, and administer some of the sacraments. Actually a lay person can evangelize and catechize.

Parish priests do not do much in the way of evangelizing as they responsible for the parish flock.

 

[malphono]

I feel called to the priesthood. I do not feel called to celibacy, but I am willing to do it becuase its part of the package. I looked into switching rites to become a married priest, thats nearly impossible, so I am coming to terms with celibacy in the latin rite. If the option of a married priesthood was on the table, I would take it, but that option has not been on the table for nearly a thousand years.

That option may be “on the table” next week, and then again it may take another 1000 years. In the meantime, the one constructive suggestion I can offer is to take it slow. If it means marrying and then seeking ordination to the “permanent” diaconate, so be it. If not, there’s nothing wrong with what is commonly called a “late vocation.” Time will tell. And one other thing: get a good spiritual father.

Is this attitude appropriate and common among today’s priests?

That’s not a question that can be answered in this (or any other) forum.

 

[notredame_999]

Do you have a spiritual director yet? You should have one especially if this is causing you emotional distress.

Have you explored the permanent diaconate? To be a married deacon you would have to wait until your 35 but you can work towards it as you work towards actually getting married.

A deacon can evangelize, catechize, and administer some of the sacraments. Actually a lay person can evangelize and catechize.

Parish priests do not do much in the way of evangelizing as they responsible for the parish flock.

The problem with the permanent diaconate is that there is this stigma against them in the traditional TLM parishes that I am attracted to.

However, I have read that St. Patrick’s father was a married deacon, although I am unsure if he was sexually active after receiving holy orders. This is inspiring.