Celibacy: east vs. west

[notredame_999]

By John L. Allen
orthodoxanswers.org/celibacy.asp

However contrary this may be to the modern mind, Fr. Ryland has a point: a married clergy can be seen as “compromise,” a ‘lower ideal.’ This unpopular affirmation is simply based on the scriptural model of service and dedication. St. Paul viewed the married state as a holy icon of Christ and His Church , but also as “a concession ,” or what St. John Chrysostom calls “moderate virtue.” It must be recognized with the Apostle that not all have received the gift of celibacy or continence which certainly opens the door for undivided service to the Kingdom. At the same time, there is a safe harbor in the holy and undefiled marriage bed that is well understood, especially in today’s world. The disciplinary practice of East and West have borne the fruits that can be expected from both disciplines, some glorious, some more problematic.

The Church has always seen in dedicated virginity a living icon of the age to come, a radiant witness to radical discipleship to our Lord Jesus Christ. Certainly, celibate vocations, for those who have received this gift, should be fostered, and those who embrace this vocation should live in a context that is helpful and supportive. The trouble with the Latin model of the vocational priesthood is that is presupposes that the highest forms of service in the Church are now reserved to those who have also received the gift of celibacy. There are many gifted preachers who found themselves discouraged from entering the Roman Catholic Communion because ministerial service is reserved to the celibate caste.

The restoration of the permanent diaconate in the wake of Vatican II - without requirements of marital continence – has addressed this problem with significant success. In seems quite obvious, though, that in post-Vatican II liturgics, ‘proximity to the altar’ is granted to just about anyone, so that the Levitical model endorsed by the councils of Carthage is in fact abandoned, along with the Temple worship paradigm of the Novus Ordo. The Eastern discipline of the altar, which includes Levitical continence on the day prior to serving the Divine Liturgy – seems consistent with the ancient spirit of the ancient Eastern Christianity.

 

[archangel04]

Br. JR I have a quick questions for you because I am ignorant on this matter. Say a Roman Catholic man feels he has a call to be husband and priest, let’s say he has already had an attraction to the Byzantine Catholic Church. He then gets permission from both Bishops to change rites and he marries in the Byz Church and later after couple of years decides he wants to go to seminary to become a Byz priest, is this possible? Would this be allowed?

 

[malphono]

Br. JR I have a quick questions for you because I am ignorant on this matter. Say a Roman Catholic man feels he has a call to be husband and priest, let’s say he has already had an attraction to the Byzantine Catholic Church. He then gets permission from both Bishops to change rites and he marries in the Byz Church and later after couple of years decides he wants to go to seminary to become a Byz priest, is this possible? Would this be allowed?

Briefly, it’s highly unlikely. And if it did happen, it would undoubtedly be more than a “couple of years.” FYI, there have been several threads in the EC forum dealing with just that topic.

 

[Shin]

By John L. Allen
orthodoxanswers.org/celibacy.asp

However contrary this may be to the modern mind, Fr. Ryland has a point: a married clergy can be seen as “compromise,” a ‘lower ideal.’ This unpopular affirmation is simply based on the scriptural model of service and dedication. St. Paul viewed the married state as a holy icon of Christ and His Church , but also as “a concession ,” or what St. John Chrysostom calls “moderate virtue.” It must be recognized with the Apostle that not all have received the gift of celibacy or continence which certainly opens the door for undivided service to the Kingdom. At the same time, there is a safe harbor in the holy and undefiled marriage bed that is well understood, especially in today’s world. The disciplinary practice of East and West have borne the fruits that can be expected from both disciplines, some glorious, some more problematic.

I see a certain parallel here between the concession of divorce under the old law, and the forbidding of it in the new.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What I just don’t understand is how the church defines celibacy as a “gift.” To me it seems like just a matter of will-power, like all the men who are in prison and all the people who for whatever reason never get married. The church demands that those people stay celibate as well.

No, the Church Teaches that those people stay chaste.

Celibacy is the state of not marrying.
Chastity is the state of using sex appropriately, married people with their spouse, and single people not doing it.

All are called to be chaste, only some are called to be celibate.

I want to ask you, you failed to respond to it when I brought it up and have still failed to respond to it when Br. JR brought it up.

Both of us have stated that God works though His Church. Do you believe this or not?

 

[notredame_999]

No, the Church Teaches that those people stay chaste.

Celibacy is the state of not marrying.
Chastity is the state of using sex appropriately, married people with their spouse, and single people not doing it.

All are called to be chaste, only some are called to be celibate.

I want to ask you, you failed to respond to it when I brought it up and have still failed to respond to it when Br. JR brought it up.

Both of us have stated that God works though His Church. Do you believe this or not?

God works through the church but the church doesn’t always work for God. For example, we both know that not every pope selected in our history has been a saint. We also know the church was wrong with the way it handled St. Padre Pio. It was also wrong with the way it handled eastern catholics in North America, like Archbishop John Ireland.

The church also contradicted itself in some ways with the doctrines of Vatican II- in particular regarding ecumensim, religious liberty, and the purpose of sex.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR I have a quick questions for you because I am ignorant on this matter. Say a Roman Catholic man feels he has a call to be husband and priest, let’s say he has already had an attraction to the Byzantine Catholic Church. He then gets permission from both Bishops to change rites and he marries in the Byz Church and later after couple of years decides he wants to go to seminary to become a Byz priest, is this possible? Would this be allowed?

Canonically it is permissible. How and how soon it happens is a local decision made by the bishop. One has to demonstrate that one truly wants to be Chaldean, Melkite, Maronite, Syrian, etc and not that wants to fly under the radar. We have to protect the purity of the Oriental Churches. Theya are very small and if we allow Romans to cross over and contaminate them with the Roman mindset, it would be nihilistic. The person crossing over has to truly identify with that tradition. This would be a priority, before Holy Orders would ever be contemplated.

I always think of the Oriental Churches as the Churches of the martyrs. They are always in danger of death. We don’t want people crossing over who are doing to do them harm.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

God works through the church but the church doesn’t always work for God. For example, we both know that not every pope selected in our history has been a saint. We also know the church was wrong with the way it handled St. Padre Pio. It was also wrong with the way it handled eastern catholics in North America, like Archbishop John Ireland.

The church also contradicted itself in some ways with the doctrines of Vatican II- in particular regarding ecumensim, religious liberty, and the purpose of sex.

Who said all that? Pope Benedict would strongly disagree with all of these allegations, except for the one that most popes are not saints, neither are most lay people. In fact, the largest group of saints are nuns and the second largest are lay brothers. But that has nothing to do with celibacy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[archangel04]

Thank you Shin and Br. JR for your informative responce.

 

[otjm]

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.

As Brother tried to explain, the Church has had a married clergy for 2000 year without falling apart at the seams; in addition, the Roman rite has had married clergy, albeit few of the total, without any scandal or “hammer blow”. In fact, it has been anything but a “hammer blow” as many Roman Catholics don’t even know there are married priests.

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. **

Your opinion ignores the fact that we already do have a married clergy; and if the Anglican Option to Join the Church proceeds as many seem to be predicting, we will have even more married clergy. All without your "nicer, ever more tolerant, ever more irrelevant and scandal-ridden church

Clerical celibacy is a sacrifice. An offering to God.

So, as I recall, is marriage. and given some conversations I ahve had with celibate priests, it may be more immediate in its impact of requiring sacrifice.

The Roman Catholic Church, stopping it, would suffer for it.[/QUYOTE]OK, you are stuck on a red herring. Allowing married men to be ordained is not “stopping” celibacy. The Eastern rites have not “stopped” celibacy; it is not an “either/or” but rather a “both/and”.

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.

Well, until his death, if you had sent for the priest in one of our local parishes, he would have come for the exorcism - but he was married. So what (re: the marriage); it didn’t prevent him form exercising his priestly ministry.

Of course, a point you might have missed in your Catholic upbringing - if there is to be an exorcism, the bishop elects who the exorcist will be, and that is not a willy-nilly appointment; it requires special training.

But if you were in need of the Sacrament of the Sick - Extreme Unction if you wish, calling for the Catholic priest will ge you the anointing - whether he is married or not.

 

[otjm]

Here’re my ideas on the celibacy rule:

**- In sex, you are trying to bring a divine thing, a soul, down to Earth, into flesh. **

Occultists would talk avout things like ‘vibrations’ and ‘energies’. We might speculate that in sex you are operating a particular spiritual frequency.

**- In religious rites, you are trying to raise your soul up to Heaven. **

You are trying to operate at a different ‘frequency’ so as to communicate better with Heaven and get graces from its residents in return.

- Celibacy is an offering to God. A sacrifice. A constant, lifelong one, thus, valued.
It’s a constant discipline. You learn to master yourself.

Also:

Children, who don’t have the hormones or bodily attributes necessary to think of sexual intercource as a good, are often scandalised and repulsed if they find out what’s involved. I think they’re closer to the mind of Heaven in this. They’re innocent, they don’t have the bodily appetites and thus sex is frightful.

Kind of like how you feel about it in old age, at the other end of your life(?)

My, you do have na interesting view of the sacrament of marriage. Mayhaps you have read too much Augustine.

 

[Layman]

Where are these married Roman Catholic priests? I don’t think I’ve ever come across one. They are not the norm. They seem to be mostly converts. Roman Catholic priests are icons; pagans and Christians alike know that they, as an group, are not married. That they, as a group, aspire to chastity and thus, holiness.

I don’t see the benefit to me or the Church if the Pope decides to dump clerical celibacy as progressives want.

I’ve never read Augustine. Why is celibacy a good, even in non-Christian religions? Why do people abstain from sex for mystical reasons? I attempted to give an answer.

There’s a point in any religion when the theology and scholasticism stop and you deal with your god, his will and his power direct. Here’s a story that’s stayed in my mind:

A man comes to a fork in a road. There’s a signpost, with two signs. One points West and says: ‘To lectures on God’ and the other points East and says ‘To God’.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Vicars are very nice people but when an exorcism is required, send for the Catholic priest.

So a vicar at a parish is not a Catholic priest? Any priest in residence at a parish is a vicar whether or not he is a married priest.

This is very insulting to priests that are married regrardless of being Latin or Eastern. You imply that 1) they are not Catholic and 2) that a vicar is not a Catholic either.

And as pointed out elsewhere, exorcist is a special title and job that the bishop assigns to a priest in his diocese, not every priest can perform an exorcism. The rite of exorcism is not even taught at the seminary.

 

[simple_soul]

What I just don’t understand is how the church defines celibacy as a “gift.” To me it seems like just a matter of will-power, like all the men who are in prison and all the people who for whatever reason never get married. The church demands that those people stay celibate as well.

*I do not believe it really has anything to do with will power at all. Every vocation needs will power in order for us to be faithfull to that vocation.
I hear so many debates and arguments about it and I tend to agree with a lot of the arguments for the fact that it is a gift. I do not believe I can really add to anything that was already said in previous posts.
But, coming from my experience of being a mother, one thing that I do know is that I have such a hard time dealing with the thought that God may call me home to Him at any moment. While this is a very wonderful, beautiful , and breathtaking thought it is immediately filled with great pain. I know my husband will be so lost in a sea of misery and confusion without me that it hurts like nothing I have ever experienced. I find it one of the hardest things to balance. My love for God and my love for my husband and children. I can not fail in my love and devotion for either of them. Yes I had that fear of my love for my family becoming greater than my love for God. I have to be very intimate in my love with both God and family. To me, at times, it would be a great gift to not have to share that intimacy with anyone but God. To not have any strings attached to things of this world. But I know that if I was not intimate with both I would fail at both. But I have to put my intimate relationship with God first. The more intimate I find my relationship with God the more I learn to trust in His Divine Will. I believe I spend so much energy balancing my intimate relationship with God and family that it leaves precious little time left over to study God’s Divinely Revealed Truths, His life and ministry not to even mention about ministering to the masses like Jesus Christ did. I really do truly believe a life of celibacy is a gift. But it is not a gift just for the individual. It is a gift for the individual to be able to do what I can not do and it becomes a gift to me also. Because that soul, being free to be intimate with Christ only, is able to learn about God more and can minister to others in ways that I can not. In that learning and ministering that soul becomes a gift to me. More like a life-line to God. It teaches me what I do not have the time to learn.

As always, I hope and pray this makes some sense, *

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What I just don’t understand is how the church defines celibacy as a “gift.” To me it seems like just a matter of will-power, like all the men who are in prison and all the people who for whatever reason never get married. The church demands that those people stay celibate as well.

*I do not believe it really has anything to do with will power at all. Every vocation needs will power in order for us to be faithfull to that vocation. *
I hear so many debates and arguments about it and I tend to agree with a lot of the arguments for the fact that it is a gift. I do not believe I can really add to anything that was already said in previous posts.

Being single and not marrying (being celibate) is a gift and requires no will power at all. Staying chaste requires the same will power that all resistance to temptation needs.

People seem to be very confused as to what celibacy and what chastity are.

 

[simple_soul]

Being single and not marrying (being celibate) is a gift and requires no will power at all. Staying chaste requires the same will power that all resistance to temptation needs.

People seem to be very confused as to what celibacy and what chastity are.

*Hello Br. Dave,

I wonder if some of the confusion comes from the definition of “chaste.”
“Celibate” is used as a definition for it.
*

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Hello Br. Dave,

*I wonder if some of the confusion comes from the definition of “chaste.” *
*“Celibate” is used as a definition for it. *

Which is incorrect in a Catholic context.

All are called to be chaste including those who are married.

From www.m-w.com, celibate does appear as the second definition, but the first one is what applies in a Catholic context, “innocent of unlawful sexual intercourse”, so that means single, no sex, married, sex with only your spouse.

The thing to remember this is the evangelical counsels. Vows of Poverty, Obedience, and Chastity. There is no vow of celibacy. One could also call the Vow of Chastity the Vow of celibate Chastity but that is not necessary.

edit: Just want to add another thought that came up reading another thread. Celibate can be a defintion of chaste for a single person as every single (not married) person in the world is celibate. Only priests who make a promise of celibacy and religious who take the Vow of Chastity remain perpetually celibate.

 

[otjm]

I don’t see the benefit to me or the Church if the Pope decides to dump clerical celibacy as progressives want.

To begin with, not only is the Pope not going to “dump” celibacy, but also no one here is suggesting any such thing. The Church in 2000 years has not “dumped” celibacy, and the Eastern rites, which have had a married clergy for 2000 years have not “dumped” celibacy. They have had both a married and a celibate clergy. It is hard to have a discussion with someone who responds in an “all or nothing” approach to what is not such a discussion. Admitting married men to the priesthood is not “dumping” celibacy. It is simply widening the group of men who could be ordained.

You asked previously what good could come to the Church, or what benefit, by the Church relaxing the discipline in the Roman rite.

A couple of things come to mind: 1) a married man who is ordained provides the Church with a priest. I fail to see how the Church does not benefit with the ordination of a priest.

1. Where there are married priests, celibacy is seen by others not as something that “has to be accepted” but as something that is freely chosen. Some people see celibate priests as “the way it is done” (often because of their ignorance of a married priesthood within the Church), and most people “know” that a priest has to be celibate. I say “know” because it is not true in the Church as a whole, and not even true in the Roman rite because of the married converts who have been ordained.
2. A married priest may provide opportunities for counseling that a celibate priest could not - I have heard many people who need someone to talk with about marital problems respond that “priests don’t know what it is like”. While it can be debated whether or not a celibate priest could or would make a good counselor (and vice versa), the initial point is that if someone already feels that a priest (celibate) wouldn’t “get it”, they are not going to go there.
3. A married priest gives witness by his life to not only his sacrament of Baptism and Ordination, but also to the sacrament of Marriage. The world needs witnesses to the sacraments lived out faithfully - and desperately so. The world also needs witness to a celibate life lived out chastely; ordaining married men does not in any way damage that witness, but rather brings it clarity, as it is then much more clear that those who are celibate have chosen that openly, as opposed to “having to be celibate” because that is all the Church will ordain.
4. As to the objection that priests might get divorced: the Church has lived with that issue for 2000 years without falling apart or into great scandal, and the Church has seen fit to ordain married men to the permanent diaconate. Further, it has seen fit to ordain married converts to the priesthood in the Roman rite. It is not an issue of significance tot he Church; perhaps to you, but Rome has seen otherwise.

Note: I make no suggestion that ordaining married men is going to “cure” the issue of the number of priests we have. any married man is going to have the full consent of his wife to even be accepted to the seminary; and once accepted there is no guarantee he will be ordained.

The whole issue is one that we have no real idea as to outcome. On one hand, posters herein have said that Rome has put a clamp on any discussion of it. On the other hand, it appears with the possibility of a large influx of Anglicans/Episcopalians that we may end up with even more married priests in the Roman rite, and that certainly could lead to a relaxing of the rule; in addition, we have seen the permanent diaconate with a large influx of married men. It is somewhat like discussing the future of the liturgy. Those who prefer the EF are insistent that it will replace the OF. World-wide numbers of Masses celebrated in the EF seem to indicate otherwise; reading the letter that Benedict sent out with his release of the EF would hint at some changes to both forms. And only time will tell.

 

[Layman]

So a vicar at a parish is not a Catholic priest? Any priest in residence at a parish is a vicar whether or not he is a married priest.

This is very insulting to priests that are married regrardless of being Latin or Eastern. You imply that 1) they are not Catholic and 2) that a vicar is not a Catholic either.

And as pointed out elsewhere, exorcist is a special title and job that the bishop assigns to a priest in his diocese, not every priest can perform an exorcism. The rite of exorcism is not even taught at the seminary.

Anglican vicars are not Catholics. That’s who I meant. I’ve only heard the word ‘vicar’ used in relation to Anglicans.

---

• If the Roman Catholic Church changes the rule of priestly celibacy, and adding in the changes to our religion post-1940, Roman Catholicism won’t be too different to Anglo-Catholicism in practice. It will be very nice, very tolerant, very accepting, easygoing about discipline, having democratic rites and thus … not very important in people’s lives.
• A man who has given up marriage and children is a witness for holiness, the desired end of our religion, in a society that is so corrupted it can’t imagine that any man could do such and be happy.

Having married men, who might be better at counselling, as priests, is a poor trade-off. I think a man who hears confessions for six months will probably know more than most laypeople about the human condition anyway.

• Yes, there are very few exorcists. That’s a great pity. I understand ‘exorcist’ used to be one of the minor orders for Roman catholic clergy. Some (many?) dioceses don’t have them at all. The Devil and his fallen angels must have gone on holiday, I suppose, having admitted defeat at the news that Jesus has widened the entrance criteria to Heaven, post-1970.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Anglican vicars are not Catholics. That’s who I meant. I’ve only heard the word ‘vicar’ used in relation to Anglicans.

A priest assigned to a parish who is not the pastor is a parochial vicar, shortened to vicar.

I know this might not be used much now days as it seems parishes without multiple priests assigned to it are rare but they do exist, especially when a religious order is staffing a parish.

Hence the confusion.