Celibacy: east vs. west

[notredame_999]

As I have noted in other posts, I am a young man who has thought seriously about the latin-rite priesthood. Yet for some reason I just can’t get over the issue of mandatory celibacy. The issue has consumed me, and I have tried to convince myself why it is necessary but its becoming extremely difficult.

I have studied the issue and found that the latin church was heavily influenced by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose who believed that sexual relations made a man “impure” to imitate the sacrifice of the mass and be present on the altar. Thus, the gradual trend toward a celibate clergy and then a mandatory celibate clergy was created. This was eventually confirmed in 1139.

Meanwhile the east had a different perspective of celibcy. Yes, Celibacy was a higher state than marriage as defined by both Christ himself and St. Paul. However, celibacy was something to be freely chosen by the individual and not a pre-requisite to ordination. Celibacy was recognized as an extraordinary calling and something to be lived out in a monastic environment. Priests, with their families and even outside professions, were a part of the community and had not renounced the world to the extent of the monks and bishops. This view was supported by St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Athanasius.

"Saint Athanasius the Great: “There are two ways in life. One is ordinary and worldly, that is marriage; the other one is angelic and a higher one, that is celibacy. If someone chooses the worldly way — marriage — he will not be censured, but he will not receive the same gifts. However, he will receive some of them, because he brings the thirty-fold fruit. But if one chooses a glorious way which is high above the world he will receive more wonderful gifts, though this way is more mournful and difficult than the first one: because he has brought a perfect and hundred-fold fruit.”

Saint Gregory the Theologian: “There are two possible ways in life — marriage and celibacy, and the latter is higher and more godlike, but it is more difficult and dangerous, and the former is lower, but more safe…” “Neither celibacy, nor marriage connect or disconnect us with God or with the world entirely, so that one could be worthy of abhorrence, and the other of unconditional praise. On the contrary, the mind must be a good governor both in marriage and in celibacy, and to create virtue in them like an artist in a certain material…” “Though marriage has an earthly origin and celibacy makes us brides to Christ the King, it happens, however, that celibacy throws us down to earth, and marriage brings us to Heaven. That is why, if one began to blame marriage and another one celibacy, both would be wrong…” “Virginal life is better, really better; but if it serves the world and the earth it is worse than marriage.”

My question is how come most latin catholics in the defense of mandatory celibate clergy, immediately state issues like “being married to the church,” or “what if they got divorced,” or “what if they get a sick call at 3am,” or “how will their family be supported,” when in reality the whole latin church basis for instituting celibacy has nothing to do with these reasons but rather was about recognizing the sexual act itself was unclean and made a man unfit to consecrate the eucharist?

Another issue with this is that most people who are in favor of allowing a married priesthood are radical catholic liberals who believe in womens ordination, artifical birth control, eliminating the tridentine mass, masturbation, no confession, pre-marital sex, divorce, homosexuality- all things contrary to God’s law. It seems like I am the only traditional catholic who believes that mandatory celibacy should be lifted. Furthermore, I bet I am one of the very few who enjoys the latin mass who also believes mandatory celibacy should be lifted.

Some catholics on CAF have said that a married priesthood would encourage young men to follow their fathers. What is wrong with that? Wasn’t St. Patrick’s grandfather a priest? How many popes following in their fathers footsteps who were also popes?

Some people have told me I am a hypocrite because I believe in all the latin church theology but I believe in the eastern church definition of the priesthood and celibacy. But the way I see it, I am just going back to remnants of the Latin Church before 1139. Thoughts?

 

[manualman]

What I think you are missing is the possibility that Divine guidance sometimes happens in advance of the theological explanation. Thomism is great and all, but in the end, human reason is not fully adequate to comprehend God in all His greatness!

It is faulty reasoning to argue that if the original rationale for a certain teaching has been proven to be faulty, the teaching is therefore proven invalid. Sometimes people, even Early Fathers may have gotten things right in spite of arriving there via the wrong reasoning. (And if you disagree with me, I predict that you will someday dissent on the topic of contraception too because the original rationale for THAT teaching was faulty biological science)

Theologically, I think we’ve established that a married priesthood is acceptable to God. (i.e. Eastern catholics are NOT second class). So to my way of thinking, if it is legitimate to retain priestly celibacy in the West, the primary reasons must be practical, not theological. Interestingly enough St. Paul makes the practical case quite well. Historically, a celibate priesthood has made evangelization MUCH easier because the priests are free to be martyrs for Christ (often literally).

The EO obviously had a serious handicap in evangelizing the world in the form of Islamic oppressors, but look at the way the Catholic Church converted whole continents. It wasn’t the settlers, the explorers and the laymen who shone the light of Christ that converted the masses. Quite the opposite, those guys were usually the exploiters and the hypocrites. It was the missionary priests who were free to go off to the New World with nothing but the love of Christ that impressed the native peoples and lit the fires of faith.

The need today is as pressing, perhaps more pressing than ever for priests who can give EVERYTHING of themselves to Christ for his glory. Take it from this married guy, being a husband and father is NOT a part time job. Don’t discount the practical benefits of priestly celibacy. They are potentially world-changing.

 

[HCC]

Dear notredame_999,

Have you read this?

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_sign_en.html

 

[archangel04]

To notredame_999 I too would call myself a traditional Catholic, but I agree on the Eastern Churches definition on the priesthood, but I do see the view of celibacy to be a higher calling. I agree with you that the celibacy requirement, at least for secular priest, should be lifted, but I am not going to make a big argument for it because it’s only my humble opinion and I follow what the Church teaches, if at any point she lifts this requirements I would more than welcome it, but don’t get your hopes up

I also agree with the 2nd poster he brings up a very good argument. It’s funny how we were so eager to let go of so much tradition after the 60’s but we were not willing to let go of the tradition of celibacy in the priesthood, yes a discipline of the Church and not Dogma or Tradition.

You are not a hypocrite for having that view, you are not going against a Church teaching only a very beautiful discipline.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

What I think you are missing is the possibility that Divine guidance sometimes happens in advance of the theological explanation. Thomism is great and all, but in the end, human reason is not fully adequate to comprehend God in all His greatness!

It is faulty reasoning to argue that if the original rationale for a certain teaching has been proven to be faulty, the teaching is therefore proven invalid. Sometimes people, even Early Fathers may have gotten things right in spite of arriving there via the wrong reasoning. (And if you disagree with me, I predict that you will someday dissent on the topic of contraception too because the original rationale for THAT teaching was faulty biological science)

Theologically, I think we’ve established that a married priesthood is acceptable to God. (i.e. Eastern catholics are NOT second class). So to my way of thinking, if it is legitimate to retain priestly celibacy in the West, the primary reasons must be practical, not theological. Interestingly enough St. Paul makes the practical case quite well. Historically, a celibate priesthood has made evangelization MUCH easier because the priests are free to be martyrs for Christ (often literally).

The EO obviously had a serious handicap in evangelizing the world in the form of Islamic oppressors, but look at the way the Catholic Church converted whole continents. It wasn’t the settlers, the explorers and the laymen who shone the light of Christ that converted the masses. Quite the opposite, those guys were usually the exploiters and the hypocrites. It was the missionary priests who were free to go off to the New World with nothing but the love of Christ that impressed the native peoples and lit the fires of faith.

The need today is as pressing, perhaps more pressing than ever for priests who can give EVERYTHING of themselves to Christ for his glory. Take it from this married guy, being a husband and father is NOT a part time job. Don’t discount the practical benefits of priestly celibacy. They are potentially world-changing.

Dear Friend,

As the grandson of a married Eastern Catholic priest, with many married priests in my family, I just wanted to add my comment.

As for martyrs for Christ, there were many married Eastern Catholic priests with families who were martyred for Christ during the time of the Soviet Union, a number of whom were beatified by Pope John Paul II in 2000.

Bl. Father Emilian Kovch was a married UGCC priest with six children. He also hid many children in his barn. He fearlessly baptized Jews who came to him for protection and was arrested by the Gestapo. When told it was against the law to baptize Jews, he said he didn’t know that. But when asked if he would continue to baptize Jews, he simply said, “Of course.” He was sent to a death camp where he was exterminated after ministering to hundreds of condemned people there. His daughter attends my parish here in Toronto where there is a stained glass window of her father - she is often seen standing near it, praying.

My grandather was arrested and tortured for Christ. He couldn’t have done it without the support of his wife. Patriarch-Cardinal Joseph Slipyj was, as the rector of the UGCC Seminary in Lviv, very much in support of a celibate priesthood (he tried to get my father to become a celibate priest, but no). After he was released from Siberia, he stood up during one of the sessions of Vatican II and made an impassioned plea for married priests for the entire Catholic Church. One of the things that made him change his mind, he said, was how easily some unmarried Catholic priests in his experience rejected the Church while married priests continued on as martyrs with the support of their wives and children.

As for the missionary outreach, the married priesthood in the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic tradition did indeed suffer with their people during the Ottoman occupation and that of the Soviet terror. The Christian faith would have been extinguished in those countries without the married priests and I have many further examples of this just from my family’s experience alone.

As for whole continents being converted, we also need to recognize that Christianity was also imposed on peoples by the conquering nations of Europe. Yes, there was missionary outreach and missionary martyrs. But mass conversion tended to be the rule of the day as the conquering nations wanted to Europeanize their pagan vassals. This has led to the fact of cultural Catholicism in many nominally Catholic countries today where there is a real crisis of Christian faith and practice among the people (yes, including North America, for different reasons).

In my experience, our celibate priests tend to be situated in established and large urban parishes while our married priests are sent to - and go - to do the hard work in outlying regions and parishes. The married priesthood is a true crucifixion in so many ways and involves both the priest and his entire family.

I will tell you now that if I ever had the opportunity to become a priest, I would only become a celibate priest because I would be afraid of that type of sacrifice married priests and their families are called upon to make.

But that is why, in my experience, they truly do reflect the passion and glory of our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Alex

 

[otjm]

It’s funny how we were so eager to let go of so much tradition after the 60’s but we were not willing to let go of the tradition of celibacy in the priesthood, yes a discipline of the Church and not Dogma or Tradition.

One does not have to “let go of the tradition of celibacy” to allow married priests in the Roman rite (we already have them). The “tradition of celibacy” would continue on if the discipline of mandatory celibacy were removed.

Celibacy is a charism, a gift, as is priesthood. Not all are given those gifts, and it is factually wrong to assume, presume, or insist that those who have the charism of priesthood have the charism of celibacy (and I do not mean that you do). The Church seems to, however.

 

[archangel04]

One does not have to “let go of the tradition of celibacy” to allow married priests in the Roman rite (we already have them). The “tradition of celibacy” would continue on if the discipline of mandatory celibacy were removed.

Celibacy is a charism, a gift, as is priesthood. Not all are given those gifts, and it is factually wrong to assume, presume, or insist that those who have the charism of priesthood have the charism of celibacy (and I do not mean that you do). The Church seems to, however.

And I agree with you 100% I was just mearly putting the whole aspect of how we were willing to let go of so much tradition (although not required), but the idea of allowing Catholic married men to enter the prieshood was still denied, unless you came from the Anlgican or other certain protestant churches. I agree that celebicy is a gift, and of course should be used by those who have it.

 

[diggerdomer]

As I have noted in other posts, I am a young man who has thought seriously about the latin-rite priesthood. Yet for some reason I just can’t get over the issue of mandatory celibacy. The issue has consumed me, and I have tried to convince myself why it is necessary but its becoming extremely difficult.

I have studied the issue and found that the latin church was heavily influenced by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose who believed that sexual relations made a man “impure” to imitate the sacrifice of the mass and be present on the altar. Thus, the gradual trend toward a celibate clergy and then a mandatory celibate clergy was created. This was eventually confirmed in 1139.

Meanwhile the east had a different perspective of celibcy. Yes, Celibacy was a higher state than marriage as defined by both Christ himself and St. Paul. However, celibacy was something to be freely chosen by the individual and not a pre-requisite to ordination. Celibacy was recognized as an extraordinary calling and something to be lived out in a monastic environment. Priests, with their families and even outside professions, were a part of the community and had not renounced the world to the extent of the monks and bishops. This view was supported by St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Athanasius.

"Saint Athanasius the Great: “There are two ways in life. One is ordinary and worldly, that is marriage; the other one is angelic and a higher one, that is celibacy. If someone chooses the worldly way — marriage — he will not be censured, but he will not receive the same gifts. However, he will receive some of them, because he brings the thirty-fold fruit. But if one chooses a glorious way which is high above the world he will receive more wonderful gifts, though this way is more mournful and difficult than the first one: because he has brought a perfect and hundred-fold fruit.”

Saint Gregory the Theologian: “There are two possible ways in life — marriage and celibacy, and the latter is higher and more godlike, but it is more difficult and dangerous, and the former is lower, but more safe…” “Neither celibacy, nor marriage connect or disconnect us with God or with the world entirely, so that one could be worthy of abhorrence, and the other of unconditional praise. On the contrary, the mind must be a good governor both in marriage and in celibacy, and to create virtue in them like an artist in a certain material…” “Though marriage has an earthly origin and celibacy makes us brides to Christ the King, it happens, however, that celibacy throws us down to earth, and marriage brings us to Heaven. That is why, if one began to blame marriage and another one celibacy, both would be wrong…” “Virginal life is better, really better; but if it serves the world and the earth it is worse than marriage.”

My question is how come most latin catholics in the defense of mandatory celibate clergy, immediately state issues like “being married to the church,” or “what if they got divorced,” or “what if they get a sick call at 3am,” or “how will their family be supported,” when in reality the whole latin church basis for instituting celibacy has nothing to do with these reasons but rather was about recognizing the sexual act itself was unclean and made a man unfit to consecrate the eucharist?

Another issue with this is that most people who are in favor of allowing a married priesthood are radical catholic liberals who believe in womens ordination, artifical birth control, eliminating the tridentine mass, masturbation, no confession, pre-marital sex, divorce, homosexuality- all things contrary to God’s law. It seems like I am the only traditional catholic who believes that mandatory celibacy should be lifted. Furthermore, I bet I am one of the very few who enjoys the latin mass who also believes mandatory celibacy should be lifted.

Some catholics on CAF have said that a married priesthood would encourage young men to follow their fathers. What is wrong with that? Wasn’t St. Patrick’s grandfather a priest? How many popes following in their fathers footsteps who were also popes?

Some people have told me I am a hypocrite because I believe in all the latin church theology but I believe in the eastern church definition of the priesthood and celibacy. But the way I see it, I am just going back to remnants of the Latin Church before 1139. Thoughts?

Neither Christ nor Paul said celibacy is a higher state of life, simply and universally.

 

[JReducation]

Actually, the Church has clarified what Christ and St. Paul taught on this matter. The Church has infallibly stated that consecrated celibacy is a higher calling and that this doctrine must be believed and assented to by all or be anathema.

The Council of Trent dealt with this as a point of doctrine, because there was a great concern at the time about the number of religious orders that had grown in Europe. As everyone knows, religious life cannot exist without consecrated celibacy. The Council had to remind the world of the doctrine of consecrated celibacy to get the world to back off the celibate religious.

What happens in the Roman Church, which did not happen in the Eastern Churches was that religious orders had a great deal of influence in the formation of the clergy, including deacons and priests. One has to understand that the original religious were not priests. They were brothers who vowed celibacy, obedience and poverty. Eventually, priests asked to join them. They demanded that these priests be celibate in order to be brothers.

The holiness of these men was greatly admired by all. When asked about their lives, they spoke about the influence of Paul and the early desert fathers, as well as the fact that men such as John the Baptist and John the Evangelist were also celibate and highly esteemed by Jesus, who was also celibate.

Gradually, all of the pieces fell into place and more men who chose to remain in the world as priests, chose to be celibate. They took their spiritual cue from the religious. By 1136, the discipline of celibacy becomes law in the Roman Church. But it does not mean that the practice of celibacy was embraced at that time. On the contrary, the law was only giving support to something that had already become part of the clergy since the early days of the Church. In fact, it was not only secular priests who were celibate, but also secular deacons. The married deacon is a recovery of a very ancient practice that was dropped by the third century. By the time that Augustine converts and is ordained, the secular clergy was already practicing celibacy. The number of married men entering Holy Orders as deacons or priests was getting smaller and smaller.

Religious life (brothers) was doing what the Holy Spirit intended for it to do. It was setting the example of anticipating life in the Kingdom where men and women are not given to each other in marriage, but spend eternity in the worship of God.

Here is the problem. If we relegate celibacy and the other evangelical counsels just to those who are consecrated religious, then what we’re doing is hand-cuffing religious life. Religious life is not a lamp to be placed under a bushel. It is supposed to shine on the Church and set the example for others to follow. John the Baptist says it best when he says that he is the voice in the wilderness that prepares the way of the Lord. Paul also makes the same cry as John the Baptist when he tells the Churches that he wishes them to be as he is. Both men proclaim that they are lights that point to the perfect existence in Christ and the perfect consecration to Christ. John the Evangelist sums it up well in his letters on the perfection of love.

These early brothers, who later, under the guidance of Benedict and Basil are organized into monastic communities, took on the mission of John the Baptist, Paul and John the Evangelist. They embrace the Lord with all of their hearts and put aside all other commitments to live for him alone. But they don’t stop there. Like John the Baptist and the Apostles, they call all men to embrace Christ with the same intensity of love. Thus they become the light that shines in the darkness and points to Christ. That’s how celibacy becomes so desirable for the ordained secular clergy as well as for the consecrated religious.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Reverend Brother,

Certainly, celibacy or the monastic state, like that of the Bishop, is a “state of perfection.”

But when and how is this an infallible dogma that one must give formal assent to under pain of excommunication? Must have missed that. Celibacy can certainly be a desirable characteristic of the Priesthood. But imposed equally on all secular priests? I wonder. Celibacy in any state requires a great deal of ascetical effort through prayer, fasting and penance in order to adequately achieve. Are the issues relating to failed Catholic secular priests today at all related to a failure to live the Grace-filled life of asceticism? Undoubtedly so.

And evenso, this does not preclude the right of married priests to exist in the Catholic Church, as they always have in the universal Church in the first millennium, and continue to exist in the Eastern Catholic Churches (not to mention Protestant and other married clergy who enter the Latin Catholic Church and are ordained as priests in their married state - you are about to get quite a few of them in the coming months).

And one may be in the state of perfection, but not be as holy as someone who is married, priestly or lay.

Holiness and its degrees is something that is entirely dependent on God and a person’s willingness to cooperate with Grace and to increase that Grace.

That is all dependent on the will, inspired and aided by Grace. Finally, only God can and will judge how holy we were, whether celibate or married.

Alex

 

[JReducation]

Dear Reverend Brother,

Certainly, celibacy or the monastic state, like that of the Bishop, is a “state of perfection.”

But when and how is this an infallible dogma that one must give formal assent to under pain of excommunication? Must have missed that. Celibacy can certainly be a desirable characteristic of the Priesthood. But imposed equally on all secular priests? I wonder. Celibacy in any state requires a great deal of ascetical effort through prayer, fasting and penance in order to adequately achieve. Are the issues relating to failed Catholic secular priests today at all related to a failure to live the Grace-filled life of asceticism? Undoubtedly so.

And evenso, this does not preclude** the right **of married priests to exist in the Catholic Church, as they always have in the universal Church in the first millennium, and continue to exist in the Eastern Catholic Churches (not to mention Protestant and other married clergy who enter the Latin Catholic Church and are ordained as priests in their married state - you are about to get quite a few of them in the coming months).

Alex

This is what the Church has said about consecrated celibacy and based on this, she has decreed that any Catholic man, in the Roman Church, must be celibate to be ordained. Obviously, there is a pastoral provision for clergy that converts and the decree does not apply to the other Churches. Each Church has their own rules on this matter.

As far as a right to be a priest, there is never a right to be either a priest or a consecrated religious. The Church does not acknowledge such a right. Her teaching is that the call to be either or both, priest and consecrated religious, comes from Christ, but must come through either a bishop or a major superior of a religious community. We cannot say that we are called to the priesthood or to the religious life because we have heard the voice of Christ through some other source. Christ will speak through the Church alone. Without the confirmation from the Church, there is no call. The Church does have the power to say that a call to the priesthood in the Roman Church is only given to those baptized men who are celibate.

The reason that clergymen who convert are not included under that umbrella is because they were called before they belonged to the Roman Church. The conditions of the call did not apply to them at the time of the call. God works within human circumstances. If one is an Anglican and God wishes to call that person to the priesthood, he will use the circumstances in which that person finds himself. He is not going to demand celibacy of a man who belongs to an eclesial community where celibacy is not the norm. On the other hand, if one is a Roman, celibacy is the norm, God will work within those norms.

Anyway, here are the statements on consecrated celibacy. There are many documents written on this subject and they all refer to it as the doctrine of consecrated celibacy as decreed through the Ordinary Magisterium. We are bound to believe and obey what the Ordinary Magisterium identifies as a doctrine handed down to us from the Apostles. Pope Pius refers to it as a dogma.

**Pope Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas, no. 32: “This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as we have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, 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."

Council of Trent, pg. 225: “If anyone saith that the marriage state is to be preferred before the state of virginity, let him be anathema.” …] "writing to the Corinthians, [Paul] says: I would that all men were even as myself; that is, that all embrace the virtue of continence…A life of continence is to be desired by all.”**

The Council went on to excommunicate a number of people that were not in agreement with this point and wanted it to remain on the floor.

Pope John Paul II did not go as far as threatening excommunication, but he did write a very stern letter to the secular clergy, deacons and priests, not to ask again, reinforcing that neither he nor his successors would take kindly to any more requests for a change in the discipline for the Roman clergy.

The current policy is even more stringent. Not only is the topic banned from any discussions at the Vatican, but the number of dispensations being granted to both religious and clergy has been reduced in large numbers, because many of the requests for dispensations are made by clergy and religious who wish to leave in order to marry. There was a time, during the 1970s, when many dispensations were granted for the purpose of marrying. This is not the case today. The response today is, “Don’t even ask, because it will not be heard.” In other words, if you choose to get married, you leave on your own and you become a renegade cleric or religious. In other words, you excommunicate yourself. The desire to marry is not a just cause for a dispensation, nor is the desire to be a priest a just cause for an ordination.

Those who enter the Roman seminary to be priests, a diocesan or another type of secular seminary, must submit to the asceticism of celibacy. The Church is not willing to negotiate on this. From where I sit, I do not see why this is even a point worth discussing, except to educate those who do not know the rules and the reason for these rules. Certainly, a discussion with the hope that the rule will change seems almost pointless at this time, until Rome opens the floor.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[otjm]

Those who enter the Roman seminary to be priests, a diocesan or another type of secular seminary, must submit to the asceticism of celibacy. The Church is not willing to negotiate on this. From where I sit, I do not see why this is even a point worth discussing, except to educate those who do not know the rules and the reason for these rules. Certainly, a discussion with the hope that the rule will change seems almost pointless at this time, until Rome opens the floor.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

With no disrespect to where you sit, there are some of us not under a vow of celibacy who see what would appear to be a bit of psychological legerdemain (for lack of a better term at the moment) in which Rome grants a waiver of the discipline to those who are married converts but not to even discuss the issue as to married non-converts. In short, there seems to be a lack of intellectual honesty, or perhaps some sort of emotional inability to consider allowing married Catholic men to be ordained. What seems to come out of Rome is some sort of (almost) knee-jerk reaction, that somehow lifting the discipline would be the equivalent of “doing away with celibacy”. They seem to cast it in an either/or mode, instead of a both/and.

There is a good bit of talk about a large increase in married clergy due to the Anglican/Episcopalian issue, and only time will tell what the results will be - whether we get a large influx of them into the Church or not, and whether or not a large number of clergy are ordained or not. I would suspect that if we see a large number of clergy ordained, that it will turn up the issue in Rome, whether or not there is a rule of silence about the issue.

I don’t wish to be an idealogue about it; I was in seminary in college in the mid 60s and we all got “The Talk”. I don’t truly think that if Rome relaxed the discipline that there would be any great rush of married men to be ordained; then again, some thought there would not be a great rush of married men to be ordained to the permanent diaconate.

Time will tell.

 

[palmas855]

I find it most interesting that no one has brought up two things. It is indeed true that the Eastern Churches and the Orthodox do allow a married clergy, something that is often brought up when speaking about the idea of celibacy in the Latin Church along with the fact that there is a small number of married Latin Rite Priests.

The facts which are almost completely ignored are these. Eastern Rite and Orthodox Priests can be married IF AND ONLY IF they were married prior to ordination. If they become wodowers or divorced, they CANNOT re-marry. Add to the fact that ALL BISHOPS must come from those who have been celibate, In fact if I am informed correctly they have have to come from monastic orders.

I would have no real objection if the Latin Rite followed those same rules. The only problem is that here in the US divorce is so widespread, even amongst Protestant clergy that I can only assume it would be no better with a married Priesthood which would drag in all the problems associated with divorce. Of course I suppose if a Priest got divorced he could be de-frocked, but that does seem that it could be a bit unfair in some cases.

 

[brumano]

This is what the Church has said about consecrated celibacy and based on this, she has decreed that any Catholic man, in the Roman Church, must be celibate to be ordained. Obviously, there is a pastoral provision for clergy that converts and the decree does not apply to the other Churches. Each Church has their own rules on this matter.

As far as a right to be a priest, there is never a right to be either a priest or a consecrated religious. The Church does not acknowledge such a right. Her teaching is that the call to be either or both, priest and consecrated religious, comes from Christ, but must come through either a bishop or a major superior of a religious community. We cannot say that we are called to the priesthood or to the religious life because we have heard the voice of Christ through some other source. Christ will speak through the Church alone. Without the confirmation from the Church, there is no call. The Church does have the power to say that a call to the priesthood in the Roman Church is only given to those baptized men who are celibate.

The reason that clergymen who convert are not included under that umbrella is because they were called before they belonged to the Roman Church. The conditions of the call did not apply to them at the time of the call. God works within human circumstances. If one is an Anglican and God wishes to call that person to the priesthood, he will use the circumstances in which that person finds himself. He is not going to demand celibacy of a man who belongs to an eclesial community where celibacy is not the norm. On the other hand, if one is a Roman, celibacy is the norm, God will work within those norms.

Anyway, here are the statements on consecrated celibacy. There are many documents written on this subject and they all refer to it as the doctrine of consecrated celibacy as decreed through the Ordinary Magisterium. We are bound to believe and obey what the Ordinary Magisterium identifies as a doctrine handed down to us from the Apostles. Pope Pius refers to it as a dogma.

Pope Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas, no. 32: “This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as we have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, 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."

Council of Trent, pg. 225: “If anyone saith that the marriage state is to be preferred before the state of virginity, let him be anathema.” …] "writing to the Corinthians, [Paul] says: I would that all men were even as myself; that is, that all embrace the virtue of continence…A life of continence is to be desired by all.”

The Council went on to excommunicate a number of people that were not in agreement with this point and wanted it to remain on the floor.

Pope John Paul II did not go as far as threatening excommunication, but he did write a very stern letter to the secular clergy, deacons and priests, not to ask again, reinforcing that neither he nor his successors would take kindly to any more requests for a change in the discipline for the Roman clergy.

The current policy is even more stringent. Not only is the topic banned from any discussions at the Vatican, but the number of dispensations being granted to both religious and clergy has been reduced in large numbers, because many of the requests for dispensations are made by clergy and religious who wish to leave in order to marry. There was a time, during the 1970s, when many dispensations were granted for the purpose of marrying. This is not the case today. The response today is, “Don’t even ask, because it will not be heard.” In other words, if you choose to get married, you leave on your own and you become a renegade cleric or religious. In other words, you excommunicate yourself. The desire to marry is not a just cause for a dispensation, nor is the desire to be a priest a just cause for an ordination.

Those who enter the Roman seminary to be priests, a diocesan or another type of secular seminary, must submit to the asceticism of celibacy. The Church is not willing to negotiate on this. From where I sit, I do not see why this is even a point worth discussing, except to educate those who do not know the rules and the reason for these rules. Certainly, a discussion with the hope that the rule will change seems almost pointless at this time, until Rome opens the floor.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[brumano]

There seems to be an unasked question in these threads…how does one discerning the call to the priesthood in good conscience actually attain to celibacy, because I think part of the apprehension on the part of those in discernment involves them questioning within if they will be able to reach it, and keep it throughout the priestly life.

 

[malphono]

There is a good bit of talk about a large increase in married clergy due to the Anglican/Episcopalian issue, and only time will tell what the results will be - whether we get a large influx of them into the Church or not, and whether or not a large number of clergy are ordained or not. I would suspect that if we see a large number of clergy ordained, that it will turn up the issue in Rome, whether or not there is a rule of silence about the issue.

Whether it will happen or not is an unknown at this point, but yes, the wake of Anglicanorum Coetibus would seem to be an opportune time for Rome to “open the floor” on the matter.

 

[Layman]

I read somewhere that a lot of people are exercised by priesly celibacy but very few priests are. It seems to me to be a fixation.

Being a husband is a hard station.
Being a priest is a hard station.

Great idea: Combine both! :whacky:

Well done, JRed, for a forthright statement of the Church’s position on this matter. Rome has said NO and in a way that is very direct, especially post Vat. II. Take a hint, I sez.

 

[otjm]

I find it most interesting that no one has brought up two things. It is indeed true that the Eastern Churches and the Orthodox do allow a married clergy, something that is often brought up when speaking about the idea of celibacy in the Latin Church along with the fact that there is a small number of married Latin Rite Priests.

The facts which are almost completely ignored are these. Eastern Rite and Orthodox Priests can be married IF AND ONLY IF they were married prior to ordination. If they become wodowers or divorced, they CANNOT re-marry. Add to the fact that ALL BISHOPS must come from those who have been celibate, In fact if I am informed correctly they have have to come from monastic orders.

I would have no real objection if the Latin Rite followed those same rules. The only problem is that here in the US divorce is so widespread, even amongst Protestant clergy that I can only assume it would be no better with a married Priesthood which would drag in all the problems associated with divorce. Of course I suppose if a Priest got divorced he could be de-frocked, but that does seem that it could be a bit unfair in some cases.

the same rule applies to permanent deacons. I have not heard of any wide-scale issue of divorces within their group ( which does not mean that they are not occuring - only that there seems to be little or no information concerning it).

As to defrocking anyone, Canon law would apply. And while there is no such thing as only one person having an argument, it should not be presumed that if a deacon (or for the sake of discussion, the priest) were to be subject to a divorce, it would not automatically follow that they were the main cause of it.

Another way to look at it: at least one priest in our archdiocese was married, subsequently divorced, received a decree of nullity and then subsequently ordained.

 

[otjm]

I read somewhere that a lot of people are exercised by priesly celibacy but very few priests are. It seems to me to be a fixation.

Being a husband is a hard station.
Being a priest is a hard station.

Great idea: Combine both! :whacky:

Well done, JRed, for a forthright statement of the Church’s position on this matter. Rome has said NO and in a way that is very direct, especially post Vat. II. Take a hint, I sez.

Perhaps part of that is that those who were - to use your term “exercised” - have been laicised and are now married.

I am not sure what you have read; I have heard that a significant number ( not a majority) have indicated that celibacy was not and is not their charism. It would be interesting to see if any polls have been taken.

You sez take a hint. Well, perhaps Rome could take a hint too…

Being anything and being married is a hard station, particularly if one has something besides a 40 hour gig. Ask a doctor, ask a lawyer, ask a teacher, ask a CPA… you get the drift.

 

[otjm]

Whether it will happen or not is an unknown at this point, but yes, the wake of Anglicanorum Coetibus would seem to be an opportune time for Rome to “open the floor” on the matter.

I, however, am not going to hold my breath or check on the odds makers in Las Vegas.

There are some individuals who advocate doing away with celibacy; but they seem to be a small minority, and from most appearances could not think their way out of a wet paper bag armed with a sharp knife and two synapses firing in sequence.

However, the tone and tenor from Rome seems to be that it is either the discipline or the other extreme, doing away with celibacy. Perhaps it is just me, but that is my recollection on public discussions which have emanated from somewhere in Italy… Both/and seems to entirely escape them.