Celibacy in the Catholic Priesthood

[G_S]

This is a very complicated topic which I only partially touched upon in my posting. To be more specific: I should have said that perpetual continence was the norm for the early Church. A priest, bishop, or deacon was expected, if married, to no longer have relations with his wife. She did not have to be dismissed but could live with her husband in a brother/sister relationship. Celibacy, technically, means the unmarried state. Because of this confusion, many people assert that celibacy is a late invention since the time came when married priests had to dismiss their wives and married men were no longer accepted as candidates for priesthood. The change was necessitated because of there being too many Mac Taggarts (son of the priest!) cropping up. The fact remains that the allowance for a priest or a deacon to have relations with his wife as in the Eastern Church practice was a relaxation of discipline dating to the Council of Trullo in 692.

 

[otjm]

My understanding is that mandatory celibacy for the priesthood in the Latin Rite, was officially declared about 800 years ago. At the Lateran Council. Much of it was prompted by inheritance and Church property.

I wonder if the mandate should be lifted? However, there would have to be a drastic change in the ministry of the priesthood, for it to work.

The one thing that keeps me from jumping on board of the married priest bandwagon, is that you know here in the United States, that if a married priest and his wife were to divorce, the ex-wife’s lawyers would be coming after the Church for property and money.

Jim

No, not any more than they would if the guy worked for General Motors; they would not be expecting to get part ownership in an assembly line plant.

Actually, there would be no requirement for any drastic changes in ministry, as the Roman rite already has a married clergy. The source is from ministers of Protestant churhces who have converted and seek ordination. The primary source is the Anglican/Epsicopalian church, then Lutheran and Methodist; there is one Presbyterian (he is in our Archdioces and was ordained by now cardinal Laveda). I do not know of any from non-denomenational/fundamentalist/evangelical churches, though it is possible there may be one or two.

And the issue of divorce is no greater than among the married deacons we have.

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

The fact remains that the allowance for a priest or a deacon to have relations with his wife as in the Eastern Church practice was a relaxation of discipline dating to the Council of Trullo in 692.

Then by Orthodox standards, the discipline indicated by the Council of Trullo did NOT have ecumenical standing, for the simple reason that the Church did NOT universally follow the canon you say was formulated there concerning continence… iow, it would seem to be a ruling that simply did not “take” in the whole Church, and this alone would cause it to fail the catholocity standard…

Arsenios

 

[G_S]

Then by Orthodox standards, the discipline indicated by the Council of Trullo did NOT have ecumenical standing, for the simple reason that the Church did NOT universally follow the canon you say was formulated there concerning continence… iow, it would seem to be a ruling that simply did not “take” in the whole Church, and this alone would cause it to fail the catholocity standard…

Arsenios

Well, that’s true and is precisely what the Catholic church is constantly being accused of by the Orthodox. Note a couple of things, however. Trullo was before the Schism and its ruling was what Vatican II did in regards to deacons – of which I am a beneficiary. Trullo has actually been accepted by Rome by the very fact that it was tacitly accepted in the first place and has been implicitly accepted at least for the Eastern Rite churches as each of them reunified with Rome. And so, at least from the first moment an Eastern church reunified, Trullo has been accepted by Rome as a valid discipline for priests and deacons of the East.

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

Well, that’s true and is precisely what the Catholic church is constantly being accused of by the Orthodox.

Rome seems to like the authority of the heads, and Orthodoxy that of the catholicity of the whole, when it come to determining what councils are to be followed, and which ones not… We like to point to rulings by minor councils that have ended up being universally followed, and regarding them as binding, whereas we have disregarded wholesale some top-level councils [Florence comes to mind] because the Church found them unacceptable… So that we take the whole Church as our standard of Truth, and not just the heads of it…

Note a couple of things, however. Trullo was before the Schism and its ruling was what Vatican II did in regards to deacons – of which I am a beneficiary.

Well, some good comes forth!

Trullo has actually been accepted by Rome by the very fact that it was tacitly accepted in the first place and has been implicitly accepted at least for the Eastern Rite churches as each of them reunified with Rome.

Would that not be a condition[whether implicit or explicit] of their becoming united with Rome?

And so, at least from the first moment an Eastern church reunified, Trullo has been accepted by Rome as a valid discipline for priests and deacons of the East.

Forgive me, I did not follow that line of thought… Are you referring to the Byzantine Roman Catholic Churches?? Haven’t they have always been unified with Rome? *

Yet with all this, was it not the Roman and western Church that was having the greatest historical problem with sexual immorality in the priesthood towards the end of the first millennium? And was not this the reason for their insistence on celibacy for the priesthood, in order to get their own house in order? The eastern Church has had plenty of sin in its priesthood, but normally in a much more isolated manner, and not in the wholesaleness of incontinence that characterized Rome during that period… That plus the laicization of the clergy - Such that Rome had to take control BACK of Her western Church that had virtually fallen into the hands of the secular rulers of the European nations… And then had to justify the move on the basis of Canon… When actually it was a matter of a more local, rather than ecumenical, need…

Arsenios*

 

[G_S]

Rome seems to like the authority of the heads, and Orthodoxy that of the catholicity of the whole, when it come to determining what councils are to be followed, and which ones not… We like to point to rulings by minor councils that have ended up being universally followed, and regarding them as binding, whereas we have disregarded wholesale some top-level councils [Florence comes to mind] because the Church found them unacceptable… So that we take the whole Church as our standard of Truth, and not just the heads of it…

Well, it depends on how you look at it. Many Orthodox like the pentarchy model which is certainly a “head” model. In fact, the issue in the early council was not whether there was unanimous agreement but whether the five patriarchal sees – especially Rome – agreed with the ruling. Sometimes the effort to get the bishop of Rome to agree led to his being kidnapped and even dragged through the streets. Florence became moot because the laity refused to receive it when the Eastern bishops returned home. But, remember, it was post-schism and is really not a model for anything.

Well, some good comes forth!

Presuming I don’t become a rogue deacon. But, thank you.

Would that not be a condition[whether implicit or explicit] of their becoming united with Rome?

Yes and no. Rome could have said the discipline would be the same as in the West but the effort to unify would have been much more difficult and perhaps nearly fruitless.

Forgive me, I did not follow that line of thought… Are you referring to the Byzantine Roman Catholic Churches?? Haven’t they have always been unified with Rome? *

Hmmm. I think only the Maronites have unbroken communion with Rome, but I’m not certain about that.

Yet with all this, was it not the Roman and western Church that was having the greatest historical problem with sexual immorality in the priesthood towards the end of the first millennium? And was not this the reason for their insistence on celibacy for the priesthood, in order to get their own house in order? The eastern Church has had plenty of sin in its priesthood, but normally in a much more isolated manner, and not in the wholesaleness of incontinence that characterized Rome during that period… That plus the laicization of the clergy - Such that Rome had to take control BACK of Her western Church that had virtually fallen into the hands of the secular rulers of the European nations… And then had to justify the move on the basis of Canon… When actually it was a matter of a more local, rather than ecumenical, need…

I think we all need to be careful when trying to figure out who was more immoral a thousand years ago. Rome took control back from the secular rulers but Orthodoxy fell so deeply into caesaro-papism. Moscow being the third Rome meant that the czar ran the show and made many religious decisions having to do with faith, discipline, and practice. Rome was never held hostage in such a way.

Arsenios*

 

[cor]

One minor quibble: in the West (I don’t know about the East), deacons may occasionally marry after ordination. The example that comes to mind is the deacon with several small children who is suddenly widowed. Sometimes the Church will allow him to marry again (despite his clerical status – and in fact keeping that status) for the sake of having a helpmate to assist with the children. Needless to say, this is a very rare occurrence, and it isn’t a right; it’s an occasional dispensation.

Also, priests who are laicized are usually (if not always) released from the obligation of celibacy. The majority of priests are laicized at their own request (only relatively rarely is it involuntary). A laicized priest while still holding the character of holy orders as a priest, does not possess the “clerical state”; he’s “reduced” to the “lay state”

 

[Aramis]

One minor quibble: in the West (I don’t know about the East), deacons may occasionally marry after ordination. The example that comes to mind is the deacon with several small children who is suddenly widowed. Sometimes the Church will allow him to marry again (despite his clerical status – and in fact keeping that status) for the sake of having a helpmate to assist with the children. Needless to say, this is a very rare occurrence, and it isn’t a right; it’s an occasional dispensation.

Of the deacons I have known who were widowed, one has remained celibate since his widowing, and the other laicised and then granted permission to remarry. Neither had small children at the time. The remarriage still required Papal approval.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Of the deacons I have known who were widowed, one has remained celibate since his widowing, and the other laicised and then granted permission to remarry. Neither had small children at the time. The remarriage still required Papal approval.

When I was in discernment for the diaconate, I questioned the wisdom in forcing a deacon who had been married all of his life, but finds himself widowed, why he should be forced to live a celibate life? Its one question I could not answer for myself, if my wife died, would I be able to live in an unmarried state?

I didn’t go on to become a deacon so the issue never came up in real-time.

Jim

 

[Texas_Roofer]

My understanding is that mandatory celibacy for the priesthood in the Latin Rite, was officially declared about 800 years ago. At the Lateran Council. Much of it was prompted by inheritance and Church property.

I wonder if the mandate should be lifted? However, there would have to be a drastic change in the ministry of the priesthood, for it to work.

The one thing that keeps me from jumping on board of the married priest bandwagon, is that you know here in the United States, that if a married priest and his wife were to divorce, the ex-wife’s lawyers would be coming after the Church for property and money.

Jim

I heard the practice began in some regions (around Spain) about 200 years earlier, and the problems associated with children (& wives) were reduced to the point celibacy became the standard. I always wished the Church would allow some alternate standard say 60 years old with 10 years of service as a Deacon, no children under 20, to become a Priest in addition to conventional Priest. Their tenure would be short however it might supply many Priests with little risk. It seams it would also help Deacons.

 

[PST]

In the early Church when men who were to become priests were required to abstain from intercourse with their wives, was this because of an erroneous idea of sexuality or of women? In other words, were woman back then seen as “unclean” or was sexual intercourse? I ask this not in criticism of the whole Church, because obviously these were cultural errors, but more out of curiosity to know the thinking behind this law. I would love (name removed by moderator)ut from anyone who knows anything about this. Thanks!

 

[Grace_Angel]

Why? Probably because Christ asked His Apostles to leave their families and come follow Him?

I dont think so Bob. I think it more likely because Jesus Himself was celibate and a “high priest” for the Kingdom. We in the catholic church believe that the priest is an alter “Christi” and as another Christ he emulates his Lord in all things. The bride of the priest is his Church, Just like the bride of Christ is the Church, the New Jerusalem.
Grace Angel.

 

[G_S]

I heard the practice began in some regions (around Spain) about 200 years earlier, and the problems associated with children (& wives) were reduced to the point celibacy became the standard. I always wished the Church would allow some alternate standard say 60 years old with 10 years of service as a Deacon, no children under 20, to become a Priest in addition to conventional Priest. Their tenure would be short however it might supply many Priests with little risk. It seams it would also help Deacons.

The tradition of perpetual continence is apostolic. The law of celibacy – i.e., the prohibition of marriage – came later. The model you suggest is called the viri probati, proven men, model. If I’m not mistaken, an Aleut deacon whose wife was past child bearing age was ordained as a priest. The non-Aleut/Inuit speaking priest came to the island only once or twice a year if the weather cooperated. The Aleut priest is only allowed to function as a priest on his island. I have also heard there was an Inuit deacon and one or two Australian Aboriginal deacon who were ordained as priests for similar reasons and with similar restrictions. [Some avid web surfers might try to confirm this.] If this is done elsewhere, it might, at first, be done mostly for small, isolated aboriginal and tribal groups and even in prisons or the military. [When I turn sixty, I will have been a deacon for twenty-five years.]

 

[Aramis]

The tradition of perpetual continence is apostolic. The law of celibacy – i.e., the prohibition of marriage – came later. The model you suggest is called the viri probati, proven men, model. If I’m not mistaken, an Aleut deacon whose wife was past child bearing age was ordained as a priest. The non-Aleut/Inuit speaking priest came to the island only once or twice a year if the weather cooperated. The Aleut priest is only allowed to function as a priest on his island. I have also heard there was an Inuit deacon and one or two Australian Aboriginal deacon who were ordained as priests for similar reasons and with similar restrictions. [Some avid web surfers might try to confirm this.] If this is done elsewhere, it might, at first, be done mostly for small, isolated aboriginal and tribal groups and even in prisons or the military. [When I turn sixty, I will have been a deacon for twenty-five years.]

I doubt highly the Aleut; My dad asked about the possibility of progression to the priesthood prior to his ordination, and the Archdiocese has only had permanent deacons for about 30 years. (My dad was one of the earlier classes. Just celibrated his 25th anniversary of Ordination.)

On the other hand, many of the Alaska Native deacons ARE assigned as PASTOR, even though they are not priests. Priests arrive on circuit to provide consecration and confession. One sister has been granted preaching faculties and assigned as Pastor due to the lack of deacons! (She’s on the road grid, but I forget where.)