Celibacy: east vs. west

[otjm]

Just two quick notes here.

Secular priests in the Roman Church do not make a vow of celibacy. In fact, they make no vows at all. They make two promises and it’s not when they are ordained to the priesthood, but when they are ordained to the diaconate. First promise: to obey the local bishop, which is limited to pastoral matters. Second promise: to remain celibate, which is not the same as the vow of chastity made by religious.

Correct; if I misstated myself, I stand corrected.

My second note, the fact that we admit married men who are converts to the priesthood and Catholic married men to the diaconate does not by necessity mean that there is a good reason to admit Catholic married men to the Order of Presbyter.

I don’t think anyone is arguing necessity. In some people’s perception, there may be an issue of justice (rightly or wrongly).

When the Church reverted to ordaining married men to the diaconate, there was a good reason. She wanted to bring back the permanent diaconate. It was part of a program of recovery before we lost the Order of Deacon, which is absolutely necessary to the sacramental and liturgical life of the Church.

Considering that the deaconate (as permanent deacons) ended before the middle ages, and considering that the Church had not stopped ordaining transitional deacons, I am not sure that there was any danger of the Order of Deacon going anywhere, and particularly going extinct. In other words, I don’t think the permanent daconate was brought back for any reason having to do with the Order of Deacon being lost.

The Order of Presbyter is not in danger of extinction. There are several reasons why you have less priests in your parishes.

There are less vocations, this is true. But also, the diocesan priests are being stretched our further, because religious orders are doing two things: 1) pulling out of parishes to return to ministries appropriate for religious and 2) ordaining less men to increase the number of brothers which was almost dessimated. This does not hold true for clerical orders. They were never brotherhoods. But many religious orders are brotherhoods and they had a surplus of ordained men, almost dessimating the concept of a brotherhood of consecrated men whose lives are other than priestly ministry.

The pulling out and the reduction in ordinations has reduced the number of priests available to fill parish posts. Unfortunately, it has taken place at a time when the number of vocations to the diocesan seminaries is lower than in the past.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

A priest is needed for the sacraments. It may be, according to Canon law, that he is needed to administer the parish. However, parish administration is not part of the priesthood; it may be part of Canon law, but the function could be handled by a permanent deacon, at least to a large extent. The deacon is answerable primarily to the bishop, and the bishop (assuming there is no running afoul of Canon law) could appoint the deacon as the administrative person in charge. And if Canon law does not so allow, it can be amended.

The administrative load of a parish weighs heavily on the priest; add a school and it is even heavier. Perhaps the model needs revisiting.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think anyone is arguing necessity. In some people’s perception, there may be an issue of justice (rightly or wrongly).

I believe that it is wrongly viewed as a matter of justice.

Considering that the deaconate (as permanent deacons) ended before the middle ages, and considering that the Church had not stopped ordaining transitional deacons, I am not sure that there was any danger of the Order of Deacon going anywhere, and particularly going extinct. In other words, I don’t think the permanent daconate was brought back for any reason having to do with the Order of Deacon being lost.

That was Pope John Paul’s whole point. The Order of Deacon had become a step to the priesthood in the Roman Church. We lost sight of it as a permanent vocation. It was in danger of becoming another stage in seminary formation, which it was never meant to be. The deacon was meant to be at the service of the bishop.

A priest is needed for the sacraments.

For the Eucharist and absolution. Yes.

It may be, according to Canon law, that he is needed to administer the parish. However, parish administration is not part of the priesthood; it may be part of Canon law, but the function could be handled by a permanent deacon, at least to a large extent. The deacon is answerable primarily to the bishop, and the bishop (assuming there is no running afoul of Canon law) could appoint the deacon as the administrative person in charge. And if Canon law does not so allow, it can be amended.

Actually no. Only a priest can be a pastor, because the pastor is the bishop’s delegate, being that he (the bishop) is the pastor. But the parish adminsitrator need not be a priest or a deacon.

In my community we have some brother-priests. These are brothers who are ordained. The ratio of ordained to non-ordained or non-clerical as we call them are one ordained to every 10 non-clerica. In some parishes the priest is the parrochial vicar, not the pator. There is no pastor, because the house is governed by a non-clerical brother who has more expertise and more training in ministry and pastoral care. For the sake of representing the bishop, you have a parrochial vicar, but all spiritual direction, administration, policies, finances, and ministries are handled by brothers who are highly trained in theology and ministry. We have one house that I know of that has six brothers. One is a priest. He takes care of the sacraments. But he is not the pastor. He is the parrochial vicar. The superior of the house is a non-clerical brother who is a Doctor of Theology and the Vicar of the house is a non-clerical brother who is a Doctor of Ministry. They handle everything from marriage preparation, annulments, spiritual direction, retreats, religious education and finances. The brother-priest is excellent with youth and the sick. He handles youth ministry, the school, the hospital and anything that has to do with the diocese.

The administrative load of a parish weighs heavily on the priest; add a school and it is even heavier. Perhaps the model needs revisiting.

Unfortunately, what happened in the USA was that priests were forced to take on roles that were formerlly handled by religious. In the past, you had religious sister and religious brothers who ran the school.

I have a neighboring parish that is run by five priests, four deacons and two brothers. The load is distributed differently there. The priests take care of the sacraments, obviously, except for baptism and weddings, unless the wedding is within a mass. They also do the sick calls. The deacons do all of the marriage prep, annulments, counseling, Benediction, religious ed and the brothers do spiritual direction, supervision of ministries, finances, outreach to the poor, youth ministry, retreat work and other things. It’s a rather large parish with several hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities and very suburban, so it extends quite far.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[otjm]

That was Pope John Paul’s whole point. The Order of Deacon had become a step to the priesthood in the Roman Church. We lost sight of it as a permanent vocation. It was in danger of becoming another stage in seminary formation, which it was never meant to be. The deacon was meant to be at the service of the bishop.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Danger? You are far too kind. We lost sight of the Order of Deacon as a pemanent vocation centuries ago. It is great that it has been brought back; it is sad how few Catholics understand much of anything about it. But what would you expect, with the beyond miserable education most have had in the faith?

 

[Layman]

Nope. You missed it all.

Your logic is wrong: it is not that the East has married priests, so the West should also.

It is this: The West already has married priests, so it should not limit those to convert ministers, but should also allow married Catholic men to be ordained.

Now we’re getting somewhere. But that is two different propositions. One re. Eastern Catholics and another re. married convert priests.

As to your issue #2, it is simply your position. Your postion presumes that all Roman rite priests are thus iconic figure; but you are factually wrong

…

Were one to walk into the church for Mass or confession, one would have no idea whether they were “iconic” or not. In short, unless one were aware of the status of the priest, one would have no clue as to the “iconicness” of him.

Incorrect, I think. It’s a matter of the individual sharing in the ‘glamour’ of the group. Roman Catholic priests are traditionally celibate. If Rome announces that they no longer need to be, that married priests become normal, statistically and in terms of public perception, then that distinction is gone.

Instead of a man looking at a priest, thinking,* “there’s a man who’s done what I couldn’t do. Like Christ and the Saints, he’s made a sacrifice”,* he would think “there’s a man in Holy Orders”.

#3: given the Church already ordains married convert ministers, your point is not made. The Church has determined that it is in the best interest of the Roman rite to have married priests; proposing it as a bow to modernity is just silly.

I regret it isn’t. An Anglican ‘opponent’ of mine in real life is happy to tell me that we will surely go the same way as the Anglicans. He can make his case based on what’s happened post-1940’s in the R.C. Church: Vernacular mass, CITH, old devotions gone, re-ordered churches, liberal theologians, falling vocations, sex scandals and then, married priests?

It would send the wrong signal. It would give great comfort to modernists, who have done so much to weaken our religion.

I guess the Church’s keenness to make converts and gain educated men as priests might override the normal objection to married men as R.C. priests, but I don’t know.

#5: that seems to be the question.

Yes. What would the spiritual effect be on the priesthood and the Church if celibacy was no longer the rule? The Church is sustained by the Grace of God. It’s not something I’d chance, personally.

 

[otjm]

Incorrect, I think. It’s a matter of the individual sharing in the ‘glamour’ of the group. Roman Catholic priests are traditionally celibate. If Rome announces that they no longer need to be, that married priests become normal, statistically and in terms of public perception, then that distinction is gone.

again, you overstate the issue. The Eastern Churches have not been overrun by married priests, and there is no reason at all to presume that if married men in th Western rite were allowed to be ordained, that there would be a) any massive rush of men to be accepted or that b) there would be more married priests than celibate. You take allowing married Catholic Roman rite men to be ordained as if somehow there is going to be some sort of overthrow of celibacy, as if celibacy will be outmoded, or ignored, or done away with. There is simply no basis for such a stance.

Instead of a man looking at a priest, thinking,* “there’s a man who’s done what I couldn’t do. Like Christ and the Saints, he’s made a sacrifice”,* he would think “there’s a man in Holy Orders”.

Both priesthood and marriage call for sacrifices; so does celibacy. They are three different issues. You try to make celibacy something intrinsic to priesthood; it isn’t. Neither is marriage intrinsic to priesthood. It is your perception that priesthood is somehow intrinsically linked to priesthood; and from prior posts it is clear that you have had no exposure whatsoever to any married priests. In that you are like most Catholics. If you had exposure to the existing married priests, or even one of them, perhaps you could understand. But from yopur comments, it appears that you simply cannot get past your only experiences. that is not by way of condemnation; however, your repeated comments indicate that you simply cannot spearate priesthood from the charism of celibacy (or lack of it).

I regret it isn’t. An Anglican ‘opponent’ of mine in real life is happy to tell me that we will surely go the same way as the Anglicans. He can make his case based on what’s happened post-1940’s in the R.C. Church: Vernacular mass, CITH, old devotions gone, re-ordered churches, liberal theologians, falling vocations, sex scandals and then, married priests?

Interesting you should tack that on the backside. Also interesting that you seem to have no long term perspective. The pendulum started moving in a different direction some years back; you have missed it. Or perhaps wht goes on in Europe is different than what has been occurring in the US. The John Paul 2 priests are making their mark; as well as the new bishops. Nothing will turn on a dime, and ofr sure not the Church. But turn it will, and turning the Church has been doing.

It would send the wrong signal. It would give great comfort to modernists, who have done so much to weaken our religion.

Ah, yes, the boggeyman in the closet. To begin with, I am not convinced you could even define “modernism”; using it in this context makes that sufficiently clear. “Modernism” is not a catchall phrase for “something seems different”. Doing something the Church has been doing for 2000 years does not fit within the actual definition of modernism.

I guess the Church’s keenness to make converts and gain educated men as priests might override the normal objection to married men as R.C. priests, but I don’t know.

Hardly a reason for the Church to relax the discipline.

Yes. What would the spiritual effect be on the priesthood and the Church if celibacy was no longer the rule? The Church is sustained by the Grace of God. It’s not something I’d chance, personally.

See? There you go again. The Church, which is sustained by the Grace of God, has a married clergy - has had for 2000 years, and in the Roman rite, has right now at this very moment. And it has not fallen apart. Celibacy is not the rule in the Church; it is the discipline in the Roman rite, a discipline that has clearly and distinctly been relaxed, and not just for Anglican/Episcopalian ministers. We have had Methodists, Lutherans, and at least one Presbyterian (Father Stuernol, in our archdiocese, who died this summer). It is not either/or; it is both/and. And both states - married or celibate - give glory to God. And both states - married or celibate - require sacrifice. And while celibacy is held by both the East and the West as a higher calling, not all are called to a higher calling. But both may be called to the priesthood (as should be obvious, since we have both as priests).

 

[JReducation]

I believe that both positions being presented are right and wrong at the same time. It is correct to say that celibacy is a higher callling than marriage. The Church has stated this for centuries and it is universally accepted in the East and West, among Catholics and Orthodox. It is also correct to say that celibacy is not part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. It is an ascetical practice that resulted from the influence of religious life.

It is incorrect to say that the priesthood would suffer if married men were ordained. The Sacrament of Holy Orders and the Sacrament of Marriage are not in conflict with each other. It is also incorrect to say that a married man can be called to the priesthood in the Roman Church. Christ does not call us where we cannot go. Christ works through the Church, not against the Church. If the Church binds that celibacy is a requirement for Roman Catholic priests, Christ works within that parameter.

At this point in time the question is not even allowed on the table. Therefore, I’m not sure of the benefit of having the discussion at all. At some point in our spiritual journey we must all learn to focus on the things that make us holy and that eventually lead us to become saints. All too often we spend a great deal of time on things that add nothing to our holiness or do not lead us to be saints. Let’s be realistic. How does this discussion make a Catholic mother a holier mother? How does it make a Catholic father a holier father? How does it make the you a holier person? You achieve holiness by using what you have and doing what is ahead of you, not with what you don’t have.

There are so many things that need our attention and that will serve to make us saints: the dignity of the unborn, the sick and the elderly; the poor, the need for a deeper life of prayer; the need for more time before the Blessed Sacrament; service to those family members who need our attention; needs at the local parish; time for silence; penance for those who do not do penance; detachment from material things; lectio divina; spiritual reading; our children’s education; pushing our governments in the right direction and so much more to do. My strong recommendation is to focus on what’s right in front of us, if we want to be saints.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

In a very practical sense, I just don’t see a married priesthood working out too well. People can cite traditions and what other religious bodies do all they want, but in the end, a married priest with a family is still going to have numerous occasions where he’ll have to choose between his parishoners and his family. He’s going to end up disappointing one or the other, and he could end up as a failure as either a priest, a father or a husband.

                               I've heard people say things like, I'd feel much more comfortable discussing a certain problem with a man who has a wife and children and can understand me more easily, but as for me, I'll always prefer to bring my problem to the man who has forsaken everything to serve Christ.

Do you recognize at the same time that there are and always have been married Catholic priests?

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

Just about every Catholic saint who ever lived.

Sorry. Celibacy is NOT a defining feature of Catholicism. There are and ALWAYS have been married priests in the Catholic Church. Celibacy was later invoked as a disciplinary norm in certain Catholic Rites.

 

[JReducation]

In a very practical sense, I just don’t see a married priesthood working out too well. People can cite traditions and what other religious bodies do all they want, but in the end, a married priest with a family is still going to have numerous occasions where** he’ll have to choose between his parishoners and his family. **He’s going to end up disappointing one or the other, and he could end up as a failure as either a priest, a father or a husband.

                               I've heard people say things like, I'd feel much more comfortable discussing a certain problem with a man who has a wife and children and can understand me more easily, but as for me, I'll always prefer to bring my problem to the man who has forsaken everything to serve Christ.

The bold is mine.

Do you know that many priests are also religious?

If a priest is a member of a religious order, even if that religious order runs a parish, must choose between his order and his parishioners. Allow me to give you an example in my own house.

Our men may not serve more than 4.5 hours per day. The rest of the time they are to be involved in community life. They spend less time at the office than the average diocesan priest, less time than the average lay man spends at work.

Our guys are told that they are to hear confessions from 4:00 to 5:00 and are to leave the confessional immediately to attend community recreation at 5:15, no questions asked. The superior will not tolerate excuses. The only time that they may slip out is for a sick call and even then, there is a schedule where only one man is on duty at a time.

They may never miss a community function to attend to the parishioners. They are first and foremost religious, then (if they are ordained) they are priests. The same applies for those who are doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers, etc. This is true of all religious orders.

Your assumption that a married priest may have to choose between the needs of his parishioners and those of his family does not hold up, because this has always been the case for those priests who are both: priest and religious. There are times when they cannot do both and they have to do one. The religious life takes priority over their priestly duties in a parish, except in matters of life and death. Usually, the religious community tries to accommodate to the needs of the parishioners. But when those needs interfere too frequently with the life of the community, those needs have to be sacrificed.

What is the difference between a priest who is married and a priest who is a consecrated religious? They each have a family and they each have priorities. Your defense of celibacy is based on the false premise that a celibate priest does not have to make such choices. This is not true.

The only celibate priest who has no family: religious or marital, is a diocesan priest. And, in many places, diocesn priests have parents, siblings and sometimes children for whom they have to care.

I have a neighbor who is a diocesan priest. He is celibate. He was married and has children. He has to care for his daughter. He is a pastor, but is on duty three hours a day and he’s gone home to care for his daughter.

Do we now refuse to ordain men who are members of religious orders? Should we refuse to ordain men who are widowers and have children? Should we refuse to ordain men who have elderly parents that need them?

The argument for celibacy in the Roman Church is a theological argument and an argument of discipline, not pragmatics. Please don’t make mislead people into believing that a priest is on call 24/7 because he’s celibate. That’s not true and has never been true.

Those priests who are secular priests, who have no family and do not have the obligations of the consecrated life, have the freedom to make themselves available 24/7, if they want to do so. The Church does not expect that of them. That’s why they are called secular. They have a private life of their own.

I have a young friend who is a secular priest who works from 7:00 am to about 9:00 pm. But that’s his choice. His pastor and bishop do not demand that of him. His duty begins at 8:00 am and he’s off at 4:30 pm. Outside of that time, everything else is by appointment. He chooses to give his time in the evenings. It is not expected of him.

Let us not lead people to expect what they should not expect. Unless you are in danger of death, the priest is not obliged to be available to you outside of his normal office hours, except when it is pre-determined such as a meeting or an appointment. Those priests who belong to religous communities can only schedule such meetings and appointments at those times when they have no duties inside the religious house. It’s like being married.

If one of my guys made it a habit to miss community functions to attend to his ministry, I would be on his back like a tick on a dog. As superior, it is my job to ensure that the religious life is lived 24/7. I’m like the wife.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Layman]

Sorry. Celibacy is NOT a defining feature of Catholicism. There are and ALWAYS have been married priests in the Catholic Church. Celibacy was later invoked as a disciplinary norm in certain Catholic Rites.

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

Saying:

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

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

I define Modernism as:

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

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

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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

Saying:

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

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

I define Modernism as:

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

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

Only problem is that a celibate priesthood is not doctrine, it is discipline.

 

[Layman]

Sure. It’s just that a previous poster mentioned if I knew what Modernism was.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Sure. It’s just that a previous poster mentioned if I knew what Modernism was.

Ok, just wanted to make sure that you were not saying that someone who is promoting the married priesthood is a modernist because he is promoting a change in doctrine.

As for myself, I am not on the side promoting a the married priesthood for the Latin Church. This is something that is going to have to be addressed with the Anglician Ordinates that are being set up but I could see the Vatican allowing them to continue their tradition and keeping the current discipline for the rest of the Latin Church.

I find that in the Latin Church that some (if not many) of those who are promoting the married priesthood are also for things such as priestesses (women priests, just using the real word for it) and other doctrinal and dogmatic changes, but you can not lump everyone into this category, you must test them to see if they fall into it, afterall, we should not judge them based solely on this one belief and support of a disciplinary change.

I am a promoter of the married clergy in the Byzantine Church, here I find that most (if not all) who promote this in my Church are traditionalists and want a return to our traditions.

Its just that these two groups do not have a meeting of the minds because they are coming at it from different directions, one wants a change to tradition (though it is only a discipline) and the other wants a return to tradition.

What I also find an issue is when one tries to state that celibacy is a “defining” charcteristic of the priesthood. This can not be true if there is even one married priest. This can not be true when the Eastern Churches allow for a married priesthood as the norm.

 

[Layman]

What I also find an issue is when one tries to state that celibacy is a “defining” charcteristic of the priesthood. This can not be true if there is even one married priest. This can not be true when the Eastern Churches allow for a married priesthood as the norm.

I say it is a defining feature of the Roman Catholic priesthood.

In most Roman Catholic’s and non-Catholic’s minds, R.C. priests are celibate.
In practice, the great majority of Roman Catholic priests are celibate.
If a Roman Catholic man wants to become a priest, he must be unmarried and promise to remain celibate.

 

[Layman]

Had a thought over the weekend. Is it the case that any Roman Catholic priest can become a Bishop but only celibate monks can in Orthodoxy? I don’t know what the rule is in Eastern Catholicism.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I say it is a defining feature of the Roman Catholic priesthood.

In most Roman Catholic’s and non-Catholic’s minds, R.C. priests are celibate.
In practice, the great majority of Roman Catholic priests are celibate.
If a Roman Catholic man wants to become a priest, he must be unmarried and promise to remain celibate.

A Roman Catholic priest is a Catholic priest, just as a Byzantine Catholic priest is a Catholic priest.

I do not see how they can have different definitions. They may have different requirements but not different definitions.

There are also married Roman Catholic priests today, so how is their priesthood defined differently?

And your definition is flawed. You said “he must be unmarried”, that is untrue. Widowers may be ordained to the priesthood. I guess technically you could call them unmarried but the ones I have known would disagree with you on that.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Had a thought over the weekend. Is it the case that any Roman Catholic priest can become a Bishop but only celibate monks can in Orthodoxy? I don’t know what the rule is in Eastern Catholicism.

It is the same for the Eastern Catholics but the rule is not just monastics. Priests who are widowers can also be considered.

 

[Layman]

A Roman Catholic priest is a Catholic priest, just as a Byzantine Catholic priest is a Catholic priest.

I do not see how they can have different definitions. They may have different requirements but not different definitions.

There are also married Roman Catholic priests today, so how is their priesthood defined differently?

And your definition is flawed. You said “he must be unmarried”, that is untrue. Widowers may be ordained to the priesthood. I guess technically you could call them unmarried but the ones I have known would disagree with you on that.

[My emphasis, above]

I think you are splitting hairs. Celibacy is the norm for Roman Catholic priests. What have Eastern Catholic rules got to do with it? The R.C. church allows exceptions to the rule but it has not changed the rule for Roman Catholics. ‘The exception proves the rule’.

You said that “technically a widower is unmarried, but …” I’m afraid I’m going to stop heeding you after that statement. Marriage stops after the death of a spouse.

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

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

I find it surprising, in the light of tradition, that people even argue for a change in the celibacy rule.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Layman:
[My emphasis, above]

I think you are splitting hairs. Celibacy is the norm for Roman Catholic priests. What have Eastern Catholic rules got to do with it? The R.C. church allows exceptions to the rule but it has not changed the rule for Roman Catholics. ‘The exception proves the rule’.

You said that “technically a widower is unmarried, but …” I’m afraid I’m going to stop heeding you after that statement. Marriage stops after the death of a spouse.

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

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

I find it surprising, in the light of tradition, that people even argue for a change in the celibacy rule.

I do not disagree with any of this, I just disagree with celibacy as being part of the definition of secular priesthood

 

[malphono]

I do not disagree with any of this, I just disagree with celibacy as being part of the definition of secular priesthood

Oh no … we agree.

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