Celibacy: east vs. west

[JReducation]

If you are saying what I think you are saying, ROFL!

The custom, or a significant custom? It would seem, since this issue at least in the West was periodically surfacing, that while there was a custom of priests being celibate, it certainly would appear that there was a continual and not insignificant number of married priests; else why would the issue surface?

The Cardinal’s work seems to be one of attempting to prove not only the impossible, but the unnecessary. Celibacy for priests and bishops goes back to the earliest times; and it would appear that a married clergy does likewise. Setting aside the issue of continence before Mass, ( and there is a blog concerning the Canon law code as it would seem to apply to deacons in the Roman rite), a general rule is that if something is not broken, most people don’t go around fixing it. Accepting for the moment your comment about how early legislation should be viewed, it still appears that throughout history, there were numerous clergy who were married and not totally continent, and that legistlation was sporadic (and obviously not all pervasive in its adherence).

The Church professes that celibacy in the priesthood is a discipline. The Cardinal seems to want to take it to a doctrinal level, which leads me to ask what the driving force is behind it; that is, he appears not to be researching to find what happened, but rather researching from a polemical standpoint.

I think that you have to remember that the Cardinal is writing an apologia. The purpose of an apologia is to defend, not to explore. The apologist will take hold of every fact and piece of information that can be used as a defense for a position. That’s his or her job. That’s what the Church wants from an apologist.

It is was not the intent of the Cardinal to write a historical study of celibacy, but to defend celibacy. He makes use of specific historical details, writings and thoughts.

What we, as faithful Catholics must remember here is that we have a moral duty to the Church and to stand by her positions of all matters. I was going to say all matters but sin, but then the Church cannot teach sin. That would not work here. Celibacy is certainly not a sin.

Maybe this is where the 21st century Catholic falls into error. There is a tendency to look at mandatory celibacy negatively, as if it were something wrong. The fact is that the Roman Church’s requirement of mandatory celibacy for those who are not married and are going to be ordained: deacons is inspired by the life of Christ, the teachings of Paul and the lives of religious orders. It’s an ascetical practice that has its roots in the Sacred Tradition. The Roman Church has embraced it as a desired good for its clerics.

Now, if you notice, I mentioned ordination to the diaconate. It is at that point that the candidate makes his promsie of celibacy, not at the ordination to the priesthood. Those candidates who are single, promise to remain single. Those candidates who are married, promise to remain single after they were widowed. This is only part of the ordination of a secular clergyman. The rite of ordination for a consecrated man does not include this promise, nor the promise of obedience, because the consecrated man has already made a vow of celibate chastity and obedience to his religious institute, both of which override any promise. A promise does not have the same theological intensity as a vow. It would be silly to have men in vows make promises

The Oriental Churches have not adopted this mandatory celibacy, not because it’s a bad thing. They simply have not adopted it, because it’s not a part of their tradition. Celibacy is highly valued in the Oriental Churches, but it is viewed as a state for the consecrated person, not the secular man or woman. But make no mistake about it. The Oriental Churches do agree with the Council of Trent and with the succeeding popes that celibacy is a state of perfection that is highly desirable.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[otjm]

I think that you have to remember that the Cardinal is writing an apologia. The purpose of an apologia is to defend, not to explore. The apologist will take hold of every fact and piece of information that can be used as a defense for a position. That’s his or her job. That’s what the Church wants from an apologist.

I would agree that is his approach.

It is was not the intent of the Cardinal to write a historical study of celibacy, but to defend celibacy. He makes use of specific historical details, writings and thoughts.

We should hope that it was not his intent. It appears that he has reached hard for an Apostolic teaching of total continence. Perhaps he is correct, although there seems to be a weight of authority against the position which he has not acknowledged.

What we, as faithful Catholics must remember here is that we have a moral duty to the Church and to stand by her positions of all matters. I was going to say all matters but sin, but then the Church cannot teach sin. That would not work here. Celibacy is certainly not a sin.

My recollection is that it is permissible to question disciplinary rules; one still has to follow them.

Maybe this is where the 21st century Catholic falls into error. There is a tendency to look at mandatory celibacy negatively, as if it were something wrong. The fact is that the Roman Church’s requirement of mandatory celibacy for those who are not married and are going to be ordained: deacons is inspired by the life of Christ, the teachings of Paul and the lives of religious orders. It’s an ascetical practice that has its roots in the Sacred Tradition. The Roman Church has embraced it as a desired good for its clerics.

I agree that there are many who do not use any sort of critical thinking in the questioning they do. Two issues do seem to be inconsistent with both mandatory celibacy and permanent continence: the introduction of a married priesthood which does not seem to follow perfect continence and the permanent diaconate, which as far as I can distinguish may not follow any form of continence, and most certainly appears to not be following Canon law on the issue. I belive that at least some of the questioning is comeing form critical thinkers who look at these discrepancies.

The Oriental Churches have not adopted this mandatory celibacy, not because it’s a bad thing. They simply have not adopted it, because it’s not a part of their tradition. Celibacy is highly valued in the Oriental Churches, but it is viewed as a state for the consecrated person, not the secular man or woman. But make no mistake about it. The Oriental Churches do agree with the Council of Trent and with the succeeding popes that celibacy is a state of perfection that is highly desirable.

The last point I do not disagree with; in fact, I believe that celibacy openly embraced by those who have that charism is a great, and greatly needed, witness to a world so super-saturated in sexual excess and misuse. The point I was questioning is the Cardinal’s research; granted that it is an apologia, it seems to conveniently sidestep, if not outright miss other scholarship on some of the issues and may be taking some issues as proven that are simply not provable… Taken to its logical extreme, I think the Cardinal would be for enforcement of the current Code at the minimum and possibly extending the Code, requiring married deacons to either be permanently continent or laicized. Given that we have both a married priesthood and a married diaconate and that the Code requires at least some continence, and practice may well be other than following the Code, it seems a relevant issue that the Cardinal is weighing in on.

 

[JReducation]

I would agree that is his approach.

We should hope that it was not his intent. It appears that he has reached hard for an Apostolic teaching of total continence. Perhaps he is correct, although there seems to be a weight of authority against the position which he has not acknowledged.

My recollection is that it is permissible to question disciplinary rules; one still has to follow them.

I agree that there are many who do not use any sort of critical thinking in the questioning they do. Two issues do seem to be inconsistent with both mandatory celibacy and permanent continence: the introduction of a married priesthood which does not seem to follow perfect continence and the permanent diaconate, which as far as I can distinguish may not follow any form of continence, and most certainly appears to not be following Canon law on the issue. I belive that at least some of the questioning is comeing form critical thinkers who look at these discrepancies.

The last point I do not disagree with; in fact, I believe that celibacy openly embraced by those who have that charism is a great, and greatly needed, witness to a world so super-saturated in sexual excess and misuse. The point I was questioning is the Cardinal’s research; granted that it is an apologia, it seems to conveniently sidestep, if not outright miss other scholarship on some of the issues and may be taking some issues as proven that are simply not provable… Taken to its logical extreme, I think the Cardinal would be for enforcement of the current Code at the minimum and possibly extending the Code, requiring married deacons to either be permanently continent or laicized. Given that we have both a married priesthood and a married diaconate and that the Code requires at least some continence, and practice may well be other than following the Code, it seems a relevant issue that the Cardinal is weighing in on.

I think that we agree more than we disagree, you and I that is. I will address one point that you made, the point of canon law.

The law as it applies to deacons is a little tricky here. The 1983 Code of Canon Law was written in the 1970s, under the direction of Pope Paul VI, who was himself a Doctor of Canon Law and a civil lawyer. It does not mention the ordination of the married man to the Order of Deacon.

I would venture to speculate that by the time that Pope Paul has approved this ordination of married men to the Order of Deacon, the laws had been written. Therefore, this did not get into the code itself. However, it does appear in the decree authorizing it.

One thing that we have to be careful is not to make popes slaves to Canon Law. When I was theology student in Rome, we have a wonderful Canon Law professor who said, “Canon law is meant to govern you and me, not the pope. He decides when it applies to him, how it applies to him and when it is to be ignored, because he is the law giver in Locus Christi.” He went on the explain that the pope can even tell you that the law does not apply to you, even though the written word says that it does. That is the extent of the authority of the papacy. This stems from the three titles of the pope: Ruler of the World, Vicar of Christ and Sovereign Pontiff.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

• Married Roman Catholic priests becoming normal, not causing upset? It would send a very clear signal that, once again, the Roman Catholic church would be compromising with the World. Celibacy too much for you? There there, we’ll change the rule.

I understand, but you need to realize there have ALWAYS been married Catholic priests. Always. It’s only in the Roman Rite that, later in the tradition, celibacy was taught as a discipline (not dogma). Even in the Roman Catholic Church today there are married priests. So it is completely NOT a case of compromising with the world or changing rules. Does that help? Is there more we can provide to help you understand? Thanks.

I very much doubt that, celibacy being esteemed by Heaven, that the Holy Ghost will guide the Church to change the rule, but that other Spirit (of Vatican II), might encourage such ideas amongst some of the faithful.

What is your reference for Catholic teaching that says “celibacy being esteemed by Heaven”? I’ve never heard that before. Again, thanks.

 

[Layman]

I understand, but you need to realize there have ALWAYS been married Catholic priests. Always. It’s only in the Roman Rite that, later in the tradition, celibacy was taught as a discipline (not dogma). Even in the Roman Catholic Church today there are married priests. So it is completely NOT a case of compromising with the world or changing rules. Does that help? Is there more we can provide to help you understand? Thanks.

Sure, they exist. But they’re not the norm. At all. A celibate priesthood is a defining feature of Catholicism. Also, coming on foot of the post-1960’s changes to our religion, changing the celibacy rule would be seen as one more compromise with the world.

Also, where’s the benefit to the Church? Otjm said, I think, that it would allow men who wanted to be married and priests to do so. That woud benefit them. I don’t see how it benefits the Roman Catholic church.

What is your reference for Catholic teaching that says “celibacy being esteemed by Heaven”? I’ve never heard that before. Again, thanks.

Just about every Catholic saint who ever lived.

 

[JReducation]

Sure, they exist. But they’re not the norm. At all. A celibate priesthood is a defining feature of Catholicism. Also, coming on foot of the post-1960’s changes to our religion, changing the celibacy rule would be seen as one more compromise with the world.

Slow down. A celibate priesthood has never been a defining feature of Catholicism. Let me show you. First of all, there are 22 Catholic Churches all united under one Pontiff, but each very Catholic and yet very autonomous. Only one, the Roman Church requires that men be celibate to be ordained priests. If a celibate priesthood were a feature of Catholicism, then we would have to say that the other 21 Catholic Churches are in error. We know that they are not. We can say that celibate priests are part of the Roman Church. That would be correct.

Secondly, one must look at the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The priesthood is one order within the Sacrament. Between the end of the first millenia and the 1960s, the Roman Church required that all men to be ordained, be celibate. The promise of celibacy is not part of the ordination right to the priesthood. It’s part of the ordination rite to the diaconate. It remains that way today. We did ordain married men. Though, as I have stated in other posts, they were not as numerous as some paint it. Eventually, the practice ceased.

Third, since celibacy is not essential for validity, it is not part of our Catholic faith as the sacraments are. It is a part of our Roman tradition, not the Catholic religion. The Catholic Church has always ordained married men, just not in the Roman Church. We have to be very careful not to confuse the Roman Church with the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith is bigger than the Roman Church. This being said, those who are ordained in the Roman Church must comply with the discipline of celibacy, if it applies to them.

Fourth, since madatory celibacy for the secular clergy is not part of the universal Church, it would not be a compromise with the world, if the Roman Church discontinued the practice. Simply speaking, the Roman Church would be following the same custom as the other Catholic Churches. Now, the Holy Spirit has guided the Roman Church down this parth, because it’s good for the Church of Rome, not because it’s good for the universal Church. There is the big difference. There are times where something may be good from some, but not for all.

Also, where’s the benefit to the Church? Otjm said, I think, that it would allow men who wanted to be married and priests to do so. That woud benefit them. I don’t see how it benefits the Roman Catholic church.

This is a valid question as long as we limit the question to the Roman Church, not the Catholic Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Shin]

'It happened that a person who was absorbed in prayer heard then a voice saying to her: "O you to whom it has been given to hear and see spiritually, hear now the things that I want to reveal to you: namely, concerning that archbishop who said that if he were pope, he would give leave for all clerics and priests to contract marriages in the flesh. He thought and believed that this would be more acceptable to God than that clerics should live dissolutely, as they now do. For he believed that through such marriage the greater carnal sins might be avoided; and even though he did not rightly understand God’s will in this matter, nonetheless that same archbishop was still a friend of God.

But now I shall tell you God’s will in this matter; for I gave birth to God himself You will make these things known to my bishop and say to him that circumcision was given to Abraham long before the law was given to Moses and that, in that time of Abraham, all human beings whatsoever were guided according to their own intellect and according to the choice of their own will and that, nevertheless, many of them were then friends of God. But after the law was given to Moses, it then pleased God more that human beings should live under the law and according to the law rather than follow their own human understanding and choice. It was the same with my Son’s blessed Body.

For after he instituted in the world this new sacrament of the eucharist and ascended into heaven, the ancient law was then still kept: namely, that Christian priests lived in carnal matrimony. And, nonetheless, many of them were still friends of God because they believed with simple purity that this was pleasing to God: namely, that Christian priests should have wives and live in wedlock just as, in the ancient times of the Jews, this had pleased him in the case of Jewish priests. And so, this was the observance of Christian priests for many years.

But that observance and ancient custom seemed very abominable and hatefull to all the heavenly court and to me, who gave birth to his body: namely, because it was being thus observed by Christian priests who, with their hands, touch and handle this new and immaculate Sacrament of the most holy Body of my Son. For the Jews had, in the ancient law of the Old Testament, a shadow, i.e., a figure, of this Sacrament; but Christians now have the truth itself - namely, him who is true God an man - in that blessed and consecrated bread.

After those earlier Christian priests had observed these practices for a time, God himself, through the infusion of his Holy Spirit, put into the heart of the pope then guiding the Church another law more acceptable and pleasing to him in this matter: namely, by pouring this infusion into the heart of the pope so that he established a statute in the universal Church that Christian priests, who have so holy and so worthy an office, namely, of consecrating this precious Sacrament, should by no means live in the easily contaminated, carnal delight of marriage.

And therefore, through God’s preordinance and his judgment, it has been justly ordained that priests who do not live in chastity and continence of the flesh are cursed and excommunicated before God and deserve to be deprived of their priestly office. But still, if they truthfully amend their lives with the true purpose of not sinning further, they will obtain mercy from God.

Know this too: that if some pope concedes to priests a license to contract carnal marriage, God will condemn him to a sentence as great, in a spiritual way, as that which the law justly inflicts in a corporeal way on a man who has transgressed so gravely that he must have his eyes gouged out, his tongue and lips, nose and ears cut off, his hands and feet amputated, all his body’s blood spilled out to grow completely cold, and finally, his whole bloodless corpse cast out to be devoured by dogs and other wild beasts. Similar things would truly happen in a spiritual way to that pope who were to go against the aforementioned preordinance and will of God and concede to priests such a license to contract marriage.

For that same pope would be totally deprived by God of his spiritual sight and hearing, and of his spiritual words and deeds. All his spiritual wisdom would grow completely cold; and finally, after his death, his soul would be cast out to be tortured eternally in hell so that there it might become the food of demons everlastingly and without end. Yes, even if Saint Gregory the Pope had made this statute, in the aforesaid sentence he would never have obtained mercy from God if he had not humbly revoked his statute before his death.’

The Virgin Mary to St. Bridget of Sweden, ‘Revelations of St. Bridget’

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

'It happened that a person who was absorbed in prayer heard then a voice saying to her: "O you to whom it has been given to hear and see spiritually, hear now the things that I want to reveal to you: namely, concerning that archbishop who said that if he were pope, he would give leave for all clerics and priests to contract marriages in the flesh. He thought and believed that this would be more acceptable to God than that clerics should live dissolutely, as they now do. For he believed that through such marriage the greater carnal sins might be avoided; and even though he did not rightly understand God’s will in this matter, nonetheless that same archbishop was still a friend of God.

But now I shall tell you God’s will in this matter; for I gave birth to God himself You will make these things known to my bishop and say to him that circumcision was given to Abraham long before the law was given to Moses and that, in that time of Abraham, all human beings whatsoever were guided according to their own intellect and according to the choice of their own will and that, nevertheless, many of them were then friends of God. But after the law was given to Moses, it then pleased God more that human beings should live under the law and according to the law rather than follow their own human understanding and choice. It was the same with my Son’s blessed Body.

For after he instituted in the world this new sacrament of the eucharist and ascended into heaven, the ancient law was then still kept: namely, that Christian priests lived in carnal matrimony. And, nonetheless, many of them were still friends of God because they believed with simple purity that this was pleasing to God: namely, that Christian priests should have wives and live in wedlock just as, in the ancient times of the Jews, this had pleased him in the case of Jewish priests. And so, this was the observance of Christian priests for many years.

But that observance and ancient custom seemed very abominable and hatefull to all the heavenly court and to me, who gave birth to his body: namely, because it was being thus observed by Christian priests who, with their hands, touch and handle this new and immaculate Sacrament of the most holy Body of my Son. For the Jews had, in the ancient law of the Old Testament, a shadow, i.e., a figure, of this Sacrament; but Christians now have the truth itself - namely, him who is true God an man - in that blessed and consecrated bread.

After those earlier Christian priests had observed these practices for a time, God himself, through the infusion of his Holy Spirit, put into the heart of the pope then guiding the Church another law more acceptable and pleasing to him in this matter: namely, by pouring this infusion into the heart of the pope so that he established a statute in the universal Church that Christian priests, who have so holy and so worthy an office, namely, of consecrating this precious Sacrament, should by no means live in the easily contaminated, carnal delight of marriage.

And therefore, through God’s preordinance and his judgment, it has been justly ordained that priests who do not live in chastity and continence of the flesh are cursed and excommunicated before God and deserve to be deprived of their priestly office. But still, if they truthfully amend their lives with the true purpose of not sinning further, they will obtain mercy from God.

Know this too: that if some pope concedes to priests a license to contract carnal marriage, God will condemn him to a sentence as great, in a spiritual way, as that which the law justly inflicts in a corporeal way on a man who has transgressed so gravely that he must have his eyes gouged out, his tongue and lips, nose and ears cut off, his hands and feet amputated, all his body’s blood spilled out to grow completely cold, and finally, his whole bloodless corpse cast out to be devoured by dogs and other wild beasts. Similar things would truly happen in a spiritual way to that pope who were to go against the aforementioned preordinance and will of God and concede to priests such a license to contract marriage.

For that same pope would be totally deprived by God of his spiritual sight and hearing, and of his spiritual words and deeds. All his spiritual wisdom would grow completely cold; and finally, after his death, his soul would be cast out to be tortured eternally in hell so that there it might become the food of demons everlastingly and without end. Yes, even if Saint Gregory the Pope had made this statute, in the aforesaid sentence he would never have obtained mercy from God if he had not humbly revoked his statute before his death.’

The Virgin Mary to St. Bridget of Sweden, ‘Revelations of St. Bridget’

One, this is a private revelation and there for not part of the Deposit of Faith.

Second, it speaks of allowing priests to marry (see the bolded emphasis I added) which is not what is being discussed here and has never been allowed nor will it ever be allowed. What is being discussed here is the ordination of married men to the priesthood.

 

[Layman]

I knew as soon as I posted that I should have stipulated Roman Catholicism with regard to priestly celibacy, but I thought, hey, it’s the “Forum for discussion of traditional Roman Catholic spirituality”, so I thought the old ‘the Eastern Catholics have always had married priests (so let married Jim Donovan of the County Cork become one)’ argument might be given a rest.

Celibate Roman Catholic priests are a defining feature of Roman Catholicism to the people in the pews. To the widow of the bus driver who comes to confession for comfort. To the shop girl who’s got pregnant and doesn’t know what to do. To the gruff old soldier who hasn’t been to Mass in twenty years and now feels his mortality.

**Roman Catholic priestly celibacy is associated with holiness. Here is a man who’s given up marriage and children to minister to me and for the glory of God. He has done what I would not or could not do. He is a living symbol of goodness in an increasingly Satanic world. He is living just like Christ. Celibacy allows priests the the twin benefits of living like a monk yet going out in the world to save souls through the sacraments and preaching. **

I think the Church would change such an iconic feature at its peril.

 

[JReducation]

I knew as soon as I posted that I should have stipulated Roman Catholicism with regard to priestly celibacy, but I thought, hey, it’s the “Forum for discussion of traditional Roman Catholic spirituality”, so I thought the old ‘the Eastern Catholics have always had married priests (so let married Jim Donovan of the County Cork become one)’ argument might be given a rest.

I believe that many of us who are theologians, religious, clergy, or educators find it necessary to remind the lay faithful about the Oriental Church, but not to oppose your position. On the contrary, we are echoing the Church’s ever increasing effort to ensure that the Roman Catholic faithful better understand the universal Church, learn to appreciate that they are not the Church, but a Church among many that make up The Church, and to include the Oriental Churches in our discussion about Catholicism. For too many years, even centuries, we Roman Catholics have have been very unfair to our Catholic brothers and sisters of other Churches, sometimes going as far as defining the Church as “One, Holy, ‘Roman’ Catholic and Apostolic” Church. The insertion of Roman into the title of the Church is historically, sacramentally and theologically incorrect and reductionist. Today, the Church is being more emphatic than ever that we are one Catholic Church and when we speak of all things Catholic, we must include everything and everyone that is Catholic. So, my statement above was not to bring out something that is insignificant. Just the opposite, my attempt is to evangelize and as St. Francis wrote in our rule, to convert Roman Catholics to true Catholicism. The mandate that St. Francis of Assisi gave to the superiors of his order cannot be ignored or obstructed.

"In their contact with the laity, let the brothers proclaim all things Catholic and convert Roman Catholics to love the universal Church and to embrace the entire Catholic Church as the one body of Christ that was born from the side of Christ and built upon the faith of all the Apostles. And if any brother fail to announce this great truth to the faithful, let him be dismissed from the order and presented to the Lord Pope for excommunication." And he added "The brothers shall proclaim the brotherhood of all Catholics in their words and in their actions by their own brotherhood without distinctions."

Celibate Roman Catholic priests are a defining feature of Roman Catholicism to the people in the pews. To the widow of the bus driver who comes to confession for comfort. To the shop girl who’s got pregnant and doesn’t know what to do. To the gruff old soldier who hasn’t been to Mass in twenty years and now feels his mortality.

This is true. The Roman Catholic in the pew has been deprived of the broarder and deeper understanding of the Catholic Church and the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Therefore, he associates the Sacrament of Holy Orders with the priesthood, even to the exclusion of the diaconate and especially to the exclusion of the Oriental clergy. These percpetions must be corrected as part of a solid Catholic catechesis. A defining feature of Catholicism is the unity of the Church, not the celibacy of the priest. It must also be taught to the man in the pew that the clerical state includes married men who are deacons and priests, as well as celibate men both consecrated and secular.

 

[JReducation]

**Roman Catholic priestly celibacy is associated with holiness. Here is a man who’s given up marriage and children to minister to me and for the glory of God. He has done what I would not or could not do. He is a living symbol of goodness in an increasingly Satanic world. He is living just like Christ. Celibacy allows priests the the twin benefits of living like a monk yet going out in the world to save souls through the sacraments and preaching. **

Celibacy is definitely a call to a more intimate union with Christ and his Church. It is true that it has been adopted from the religious life. We would be wrong to say that it allows the celibate cleric: deacon, pirest or bishop to live like a monk or a friar. To say this reduces the life of the monk and friar to continence. The celibacy of the monk and the friar goes further. Through our celibacy, we not only embrace continence, be we do something that the secular priest cannot do, because he is not called to do it. We detach from our biological families to embrace a spiritual family of brothers whom we obey, with whom we share our lives, and with whom we identify as our brothers given to us by the Spirit and whom we must love more than we would our brothers according to the flesh This depth of spiritual anonymity is not part of the promise of celibacy as defined for the secular cleric. The secular cleric embraces celibacy to live and serve as Christ served, but deliberately excludes the apostolic fraternity found in the consecrated life, but few are called to that way of lfie. We also have to be careful when mentioning children. The rule of celibacy does not exclude children. Many secular clergy and consecrated religious are fathers. The one thing that the Church protects when she receives these men to both the Sacrament of Holy Orders and to the Profession of Religious Vows, is the sacred bonds between parent and child, for those men who are dads. That bond cannot be set aside, even by the vows of religious life. We when we say that a celibate, be he secular or religious, surrenders to God the right to parenthood, we are speaking of future children only. We must help the lay faithful understand this. Imagine a religious or a secular cleric who is a dad, abandoning his children. That would be a grave act against justice and a scandal to the faithful. Those religious and secular clerics who are parents, retain that sacred duty. This too we must include in our teaching on celibacy.

I think the Church would change such an iconic feature at its peril.

I agree that this would be a dangerous change for the Roman Church, since a celibate secular clergy is part of the gift that the Holy Spirit has given to her. But let’s not think of it as a detriment to the Church. Whether it’s a detriment can be debated. We do ordain married men to the diaconate and under the pastoral provision, also to the priesthood. It does not seem to be doing any harm to the Church. Just this weekend, while in the UK, the Holy Father spoke to the bishops about the importance of promoting more vocations to the diaconate among married men. He was most emphatic about the essential need that the Church has of such men and how without them, the three orders of the Sacrament are not fully present. He also mentioned the appropriateness and even necessity to open the doors to the married clergy coming to us from the Anglican communion as a bridge between the Church of Rome and the Reformation Church of England.

While celibacy remains a required discipline for those who are born and baptized into the Roman Church, it does not exclude married men to the Order of Deacon or to the Order of Presbyter, if they come to us from other Christian traditions.

This is a very delicate balance that we must teach and preserve.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Layman]

Sorry, JREd, but coupled with the other changes to our worship, changing the rule of clerical celibacy would be a hammer-blow to the Roman Catholic Church.

It’s my opinion, that, were we ever to do that, we would be heading further down the same road as the Anglicans: **to an ever nicer, ever more tolerant, ever more irrelevant and scandal-ridden church. **

Clerical celibacy is a sacrifice. An offering to God. The Roman Catholic Church, stopping it, would suffer for it.

It would be trying to, once again, square the circle: to achieve the same dignity our forefathers enjoyed while dropping the means whereby it was attained. Vicars are very nice people but when an exorcism is required, send for the Catholic priest.

 

[Aramis]

So those Roman Catholic priests, who are married, are converts? That gives a different picture to saying “The Church has had married clergy since its’ beginning…” As I understand it, the norm is that a Roman Catholic married man cannot be ordained. Nor can he marry after ordination.

The church did have married clergy in the beginning, including the majority of the 12 Apostles…

It was not until the 600’s that the Roman church started pushing strongly towards universal celibacy of clerics; even then, it didn’t require it outright until the around the 12th C. (ca 1123, Lateran II Council). In the 9th C (888), it was made explicit that Roman major clerics could not live with their wives, even in continence; but it was not forbidden them to have wives.

But, even as Rome was phasing out married men in major orders, and even minor ones, the Maronites were coming back into union, and had married clerics.

Most modern married priests in the Roman Church are in fact converts. A few are loaners from other churches in union with Rome. But they are a different reason than the historical married priests in the Roman church.

 

[JReducation]

Sorry, JREd, but coupled with the other changes to our worship, changing the rule of clerical celibacy would be a hammer-blow to the Roman Catholic Church.

It’s my opinion, that, were we ever to do that, we would be heading further down the same road as the Anglicans: **to an ever nicer, ever more tolerant, ever more irrelevant and scandal-ridden church. **

Clerical celibacy is a sacrifice. An offering to God. The Roman Catholic Church, stopping it, would suffer for it.

It would be trying to, once again, square the circle: to achieve the same dignity our forefathers enjoyed while dropping the means whereby it was attained. Vicars are very nice people but when an exorcism is required, send for the Catholic priest.

I believe that I’ve made myself very clear here. I do not endorse or reject the idea of ordaining married men to the priesthood. First of all, I do not have a right to have such an opininon. I certainly have never asked my superior for such permission to express an onpinion on the matter, nor would I, because it’s not necessary. The Holy See will do whatever the Holy Spirit guides it to do. My role is to understand what it does and why, then convert Catholics.

Additionally, I do believe that both sides are speculating about the effects of changing the discipline. The only truth here is the current teaching of the popes on this matter. The answer is straightforward. “Do not ask, because we’er not going to listen.” For the sake of grounding this discussion in reality, I try to keep in mind and remind others that this dialogue is reallly entertainment for the posters. Holy Mother Church is not interested in hearing what any of us has to say on this matter. She has made up her mind and has said that no changes are coming. In fact, she has made it much more difficult for those who are already celibate to even get a dspensation to marry. Unless you commit a crime, you can forget a dispensation. Pope John Paul II made it very clear that the desire to marry is not a good reason to give up celibacy.

I do believe that it’s no accident that we’re having this discussion at the time when Cardinal Newman is being beatified. Here we are debating the merits of a discipline in the Roman Church. This is how Newman began his journey to sanctity. He began to raise questions about disciplines, which lead to questions about theology and history. Maybe, since we’re walking the same path as John Henry Newman, we should look at how he walked that path and allow him to teach us how to become saints instead of debators. As Newman raised the questions, just as posters here are doing, he read the answers of the Church. But unlike us, he did not question the legitimacy of the Church’s answers, but the legitimacy of his positions. I believe that we do not do this enough.

Many people have positions on these questions, but how many question the legtimacy of their own positions? I believe that someone like our father, Francis had the right of it when he forbade the expression of personal opinion on matters of faith, morals, and disciplines. These men knew that the Holy Spirit speaks through the papacy, because it has been promised by Christ. They could not guarrantee that the Holy Spirit was speaking through the individual, until the Church confirmed it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[malphono]

But, even as Rome was phasing out married men in major orders, and even minor ones, the Maronites were coming back into union, and had married clerics.

In order to avoid the usual argument, how about we split the difference? I think that "union was re-affirmed is a lot closer to the truth anyway.

 

[notredame_999]

According to wikipedia, St. Patrick was the grandson of a married priest, and the son of a married deacon. Is this true?

 

[JReducation]

According to wikipedia, St. Patrick was the grandson of a married priest, and the son of a married deacon. Is this true?

I don’t know about the deacon, but his grandfather was a priest.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[notredame_999]

I don’t know about the deacon, but his grandfather was a priest.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you Brother JR. Knowing this, can we infer with 100% certainty, that his grandfather was continent after ordination?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thank you Brother JR. Knowing this, can we infer with 100% certainty, that his grandfather was continent after ordination?

I do not think that is possible just as I do not think it is possible to state that St Patrick’s grandfather was not a widower when he was ordained.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think that there is any way that we can prove or disprove that the grandfather of St. Patrick was continent. It does not really matter. The marriage act is not only an act of love between husband and wife, but it is also an act of justice. Couples have a right to each other’s physical love. A spouse cannot deny the other without just cause. The fact that a man will be celebrating the sacraments or assisting at liturgy as does a deacon is not just cause to deny your spoiuse her rights, because the two are not in conflict.

There was a time in the history of the Christian world when the sexual act was viewed with some negativity. It was viewed almost as a necessary evil. But this was never a doctrine of the Church. It was a product of the times The Church’s understanding of the sexual act between spouses has become clearer with the passing of the centuries.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF