If priestly celibacy is not a dogma, why can't it be changed?

[RyanBlack]

I never said here weren’t other reasons…I simply pointed out that there are also **practical **ones. Which are not small.

No, they aren’t small, but neither are they insurmountable, as many married Eastern Catholic and Orthodox priests have demonstrated for centuries.

 

[MacQ]

In this case, the reference was to the Eastern Catholic Churches, which are in communion with the Pope.

I see…that wasn’t clear in the post I replied to, which was from a new catholic asking why norms would differ among catholic churches (Aren’t we all catholic?) Seemed to me she was unaware that not all catholic churches are united.

 

[RyanBlack]

I see…that wasn’t clear in the post I replied to, which was from a new catholic asking why norms would differ among catholic churches (Aren’t we all catholic?) Seemed to me she was unaware that not all catholic churches are united.

Maybe so. I didn’t understand the question in the same way. Of course, certain norms differ among catholic churches that are in fact united.

 

[MacQ]

No, they aren’t small, but neither are they insurmountable, as many married Eastern Catholic and Orthodox priests have demonstrated for centuries.

I suppose they are surmountable. I would note I don’t see a groundswell call for them to be surmounted, however. I don’t know of any priests who are agitating to get married, and I don’t know any laity who wishes their priests were married.
Most of the agitation about it, amusingly, comes from outside the church…from people who aren’t catholic, aren’t priests, and never intend to be either.

 

[RyanBlack]

I suppose they are surmountable. I would note I don’t see a groundswell call for them to be surmounted, however. I don’t know of any priests who are agitating to get married, and I don’t know any laity who wishes their priests were married.
Most of the agitation about it, amusingly, comes from outside the church…from people who aren’t catholic, aren’t priests, and never intend to be either.

I am an advocate of allowing married men to be ordained among the Eastern Catholic Churches, where we’ve often been denied that aspect of our tradition. Whether or not it’s done in the Latin Church isn’t particularly my concern. When I raise these points in threads, it’s generally either in response to comments that demonstrate misinformation about the history of married clergy, misinformation or complete ignorance of the Eastern married clergy, or comments that seem to me not to acknowledge the effective ministry of married Eastern priests, or sadly, even seem to denigrate married Eastern priests.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

We’re all “catholic”, but we are not one united Church…there are still many differences between the eastern rite (orthodox) and western (roman rite) churches. The Eastern Church doesn’t recognize our Pope, for example. Different liturgical calendars, and…different norms for priests and bishops.

I am referring to Eastern Catholics, not Eastern Orthodoxy. Eastern Catholics allow married Priests.

 

[MacQ]

I am an advocate of allowing married men to be ordained among the Eastern Catholic Churches, where we’ve often been denied that aspect of our tradition. Whether or not it’s done in the Latin Church isn’t particularly my concern. When I raise these points in threads, it’s generally either in response to comments that demonstrate misinformation about the history of married clergy, misinformation or complete ignorance of the Eastern married clergy, or comments that seem to me not to acknowledge the effective ministry of married Eastern priests, or sadly, even seem to denigrate married Eastern priests.

I never denigrate the practices of other traditions. If anything I posted sounded that way, it was certainly not intended.
Since you advocate for it, does that mean you want to become a priest in your rite?

 

[MacQ]

I am referring to Eastern Catholics, not Eastern Orthodoxy. Eastern Catholics allow married Priests.

There are a number of Eastern Rite churches…many are called “Orthodox”.
The point is still the same. They have traditions that vary from the western (Roman) Catholic rite. In some, the priest may be married, but the bishops cannot. It varies.
My point was that not all “catholics” are part of the Roman Catholic Church, and do not adhere to its practices…most do not recognize our Pope as their leader…though we are close bretheren to be sure, and all catholic.
I thought that’s what you were asking.

 

[RyanBlack]

I never denigrate the practices of other traditions. If anything I posted sounded that way, it was certainly not intended.
Since you advocate for it, does that mean you want to become a priest in your rite?

I didn’t intend to accuse you of denigrating married priests, but I have encountered that before. As far as my becoming a priest in my particular Church, that’s not something I’m pursuing at this time. I would love to be a priest, but I don’t think that my bishop is inclined to ordain married men. There are other reasons as well.

 

[malphono]

I am an advocate of allowing married men to be ordained among the Eastern Catholic Churches, where we’ve often been denied that aspect of our tradition. Whether or not it’s done in the Latin Church isn’t particularly my concern. When I raise these points in threads, it’s generally either in response to comments that demonstrate misinformation about the history of married clergy, misinformation or complete ignorance of the Eastern married clergy, or comments that seem to me not to acknowledge the effective ministry of married Eastern priests, or sadly, even seem to denigrate married Eastern priests.

Very much the same as I would have said, but you beat me to it.

 

[Abu]

RyanBlack #32
why does Holy Scripture itself (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2-5, Titus 1:6) presume that a married priesthood was not exceptional, and perhaps even the norm at the time the NT was written?

False. That confused view of Scripture is often found among Protestants, and has been thoroughly refuted by the eminent testimony presented in the studies identified, and shows the lack of understanding of the reality from the beginning.

In fact, in 1 Tim 3:2, “St. Paul declares that a deacon, presbyter or bishop must be a ‘husband of one wife’, the reason being that a second marriage after widowhood was a sign that a man could not live in the dedication demanded of a cleric.” (Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised by Fr Peter Joseph, 2001, The Saint Austin Press, p 580). The same applies exactly as St Paul reiterates in Titus 1:6.

So the celibacy required for priests is from the time of the apostles, the Apostolic Norm, and obligatory, as confirmed by all scholarship, and by the Fathers and Popes. Any relaxation of this norm is strictly limited and confined to exceptional circumstances.

Major research has been undertaken into this controversy by scholars Cardinal Stickler, Father Cochini S.J., as well as Stefan Heid. What they all assure us of is that continence is the norm for the priesthood both East and West from the beginning of the Church’s history. Among the aforementioned, Stickler provides the most succinct and easy to understand presentation of the subject. He demonstrates that if a man was married prior to ordination, both he and his spouse took a vow of perpetual continence, this applied from the lower clerical ranks up to Bishop. In the West, the Council of Elvira in the fourth century makes direct reference in Canon 33 to this renunciation of the martial rights and notes that this meant no begetting of children. The penalty for violating this vow is removal from the clerical ranks. If a priest violated this solemn promise and begot a child it was considered adultery. As Stickler points out, Saint Jerome — who knew many Bishops, Fathers and monks throughout the East — testifies in his writings that continence is the norm in the Eastern Church and that married men who were ordained would separate from their wives. The same Council of Elvira, in Canon 27, as well as Nicea, in Canon 3, gives even further specifications: that a Bishop and priest is only permitted to have a blood sister, mother, aunt, or a daughter who is a consecrated virgin dwelling under the same roof. This excludes a wife. The Eastern change was a manipulation of early canons, and the canon from the Synod of Carthage (390) had declared perpetual continence.

Fr Anthony Zimmerman refers to *Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy *“which argues cogently from the sources that the tradition of clerical celibacy began with the apostles. If that is true, then opponents of obligatory celibacy oppose not the pope, but the twelve apostles. The book, written by Christian Cochini, S.J. (translated from French, Ignatius Press, 1990), merited this remarkable encomium from the late Henri Cardinal de Lubac: ‘This work is of the first importance. It is the result of serious and extensive research. There is nothing even remotely comparable to this work in this whole 20th century.’ And Curator of the Vatican Library, Fr. Alfons M. Stickler (later Cardinal) wrote: ‘This authoritative work is fully in accordance with the tradition of the Society of Jesus in the area of high-level scientific apostolate’ (Foreword to Cochini’s book).”

Father Thomas McGovern, a priest of the Prelature of Opus Dei in Dublin, is the author of Priestly Celibacy Today.
He writes: “…as John Paul II [now Saint] affirms in his 1992 document, Pastores Dabo Vobis, on the formation of priests, there is a great need today to present and explain the charism of celibacy “in the fullness of its biblical, theological and spiritual richness”.

“Indeed Pope John Paul II has referred to ‘a systematic propaganda which is hostile to celibacy’ and ‘which finds support and complicity in some of the mass media’.”
christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/ncrinterview.htm

 

[Abu]

MacQ #48
not all “catholics” are part of the Roman Catholic Church, and do not adhere to its practices…most do not recognize our Pope as their leader…though we are close bretheren to be sure, and all catholic.

There are no faithful Catholics, whether of the Roman Rite or Eastern Rites, who do not proclaim Christ’s Vicar the Pope as the head of His Church and who do not assent to all that She teaches.

 

[RyanBlack]

False. That confused view of Scripture is often found among Protestants, and has been thoroughly refuted by the eminent testimony presented in the studies identified, and shows the lack of understanding of the reality from the beginning.

In fact, in 1 Tim 3:2, “St. Paul declares that a deacon, presbyter or bishop must be a ‘husband of one wife’, the reason being that a second marriage after widowhood was a sign that a man could not live in the dedication demanded of a cleric.” (Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised by Fr Peter Joseph, 2001, The Saint Austin Press, p 580). The same applies exactly as St Paul reiterates in Titus 1:6.

So the celibacy required for priests is from the time of the apostles, the Apostolic Norm, and obligatory, as confirmed by all scholarship, and by the Fathers and Popes. Any relaxation of this norm is strictly limited and confined to exceptional circumstances.

Major research has been undertaken into this controversy by scholars Cardinal Stickler, Father Cochini S.J., as well as Stefan Heid. What they all assure us of is that continence is the norm for the priesthood both East and West from the beginning of the Church’s history. Among the aforementioned, Stickler provides the most succinct and easy to understand presentation of the subject. He demonstrates that if a man was married prior to ordination, both he and his spouse took a vow of perpetual continence, this applied from the lower clerical ranks up to Bishop. In the West, the Council of Elvira in the fourth century makes direct reference in Canon 33 to this renunciation of the martial rights and notes that this meant no begetting of children. The penalty for violating this vow is removal from the clerical ranks. If a priest violated this solemn promise and begot a child it was considered adultery. As Stickler points out, Saint Jerome — who knew many Bishops, Fathers and monks throughout the East — testifies in his writings that continence is the norm in the Eastern Church and that married men who were ordained would separate from their wives. The same Council of Elvira, in Canon 27, as well as Nicea, in Canon 3, gives even further specifications: that a Bishop and priest is only permitted to have a blood sister, mother, aunt, or a daughter who is a consecrated virgin dwelling under the same roof. This excludes a wife. The Eastern change was a manipulation of early canons, and the canon from the Synod of Carthage (390) had declared perpetual continence.

Fr Anthony Zimmerman refers to *Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy *“which argues cogently from the sources that the tradition of clerical celibacy began with the apostles. If that is true, then opponents of obligatory celibacy oppose not the pope, but the twelve apostles. The book, written by Christian Cochini, S.J. (translated from French, Ignatius Press, 1990), merited this remarkable encomium from the late Henri Cardinal de Lubac: ‘This work is of the first importance. It is the result of serious and extensive research. There is nothing even remotely comparable to this work in this whole 20th century.’ And Curator of the Vatican Library, Fr. Alfons M. Stickler (later Cardinal) wrote: ‘This authoritative work is fully in accordance with the tradition of the Society of Jesus in the area of high-level scientific apostolate’ (Foreword to Cochini’s book).”

Father Thomas McGovern, a priest of the Prelature of Opus Dei in Dublin, is the author of Priestly Celibacy Today.
He writes: “…as John Paul II [now Saint] affirms in his 1992 document, Pastores Dabo Vobis, on the formation of priests, there is a great need today to present and explain the charism of celibacy “in the fullness of its biblical, theological and spiritual richness”.

“Indeed Pope John Paul II has referred to ‘a systematic propaganda which is hostile to celibacy’ and ‘which finds support and complicity in some of the mass media’.”
christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/ncrinterview.htm

I said nothing in my post as to whether continence was required (although I’m very skeptical about any claim to prove a universal requirement of continence that goes to the time of the Apostles themselves–I doubt that we can know one way or the other with certainty). I stand by what I wrote. Both Tim. 3:2-5 and Titus 1:6 clearly show that there were bishops with families, and I see no reason to believe that all of them were widowers. I’m open to the possibility that they were held to a requirement of continence, and I’m open to the possibility that they were not. I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone else knows with certainty either. Claims of certitude on either side of the argument are agenda-driven, in my opinion.

 

[babochka]

The difficulty with married priests is well illustrated by this:
**A Bishop’s Experience with Married Priests
VATICAN CITY, OCT 22, 1999 (ZENIT).- **At the Synod of Bishops for Europe Bishop Virgil Bercea of Oradea Mare of the Rumanians, is young, joyful, strong in faith, polite, candid, clear-thinking and certain. Like other countries of Eastern Europe, Rumania has Catholic priests of the Eastern rite who are married.
“Celibacy is not a problem for us, it is a choice,” Bishop Bercea said. “I think the debate that has taken place in the West is characterized by ignorance on the subject. In our Church, 20% of the priests of the Greek-Catholic rite are married, while the others, of the Latin rite, are celibate. In my diocese, I have married priests with children and, in general, they have more problems than the others, as those who are celibate can dedicate themselves full-time to the mission, while those who are married must give part of their time and concern to guide and support a family. I understand them and help them, but it must be admitted that family life is a huge commitment.” [My emphasis].

This does not give a complete picture, of course. There are advantages and disadvantages to celibacy and to the married priesthood. This addresses one of the undeniable difficulties, but does nothing to address the advantages of having married priests, nor the disadvantages of a celibate priesthood.

Each has its place, in the proper context.

 

[babochka]

Sarcasm is not helpful here. To clarify: A monk may be either a brother or priest. The ministerial priesthood is in the person of Christ, whether he is living monastic or diocesan life. The priest is celibate because Christ was celibate. A spiritual mission, not a mission of natural fatherhood, but spiritual fatherhood. Thus the celibate priesthood is always the ideal, continuing the mission of Christ, offering himself completely to his bride, the church.

I didn’t detect sarcasm in the response. I think the point that he was trying to make is that, in the east, the ideal of celibacy is lived out in the monastic life. Having a married priesthood in no way denies the beauty of the celibate life.

 

[angelic06]

I see…that wasn’t clear in the post I replied to, which was from a new catholic asking why norms would differ among catholic churches (Aren’t we all catholic?) Seemed to me she was unaware that not all catholic churches are united.

I do not blame you (or my fellow Latin Catholics) for not knowing about the Eastern Catholics (who are in full communion with the Holy Father, unlike the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox). If your Catholic Christian formation was anything like mine, the instructors did not do a high quality job of explaining the Eastern Catholics. Granted there was no Eastern Catholic church near us to serve as an example for us students even if they did discuss Eastern Catholicism (Eastern Catholics are only about 2-3 % of Catholics world wide, depending on whose figures you use). But what they did say, to their credit, namely on married priests, sparked my initial interest in the ECs.

Most Catholics do not know that the Holy Catholic Church is a communion of 22 (or 23, if you include the ones without their own hierachies) churches, all in communion with Pope Francis and his successors as successor to St. Peter in Rome. Each have their own governing hierarchs (patriarchs, major archbishops, metropolitans, etc.).

As for your question as to the differing norms, these differing norms actually show the catholicity (universality) of the Holy Church, for they show that the apostles and their successors and collaborators went out to proclaim the Gospel to “all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the +Father and of the +Son and of the +Holy Ghost”.

And our Lord says, “Behold, I am with you, even unto the end of the age.”

 

[babochka]

Dad not being there: he’s presiding over a funeral or a wedding or at a deathbed instead of at little Johnny’s soccer game. Pretty much every day.

Do you have any actual experience with married priests? You make a lot of assumptions.

Priests have schedules and off-duty time, married or celibate. They also have boundaries. Of course, there are emergencies, but emergencies don’t happen every day. For the most part, life is pretty routine.

My husband used to ski occasionally with our former priest. The same priest went golfing on his day off. Our current pastor, who is married, can’t join him skiing. He is generally unavailable because he coaches his daughter’s soccer team.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

If someone were to ask why is it that Eastern Catholicism allow married men to become Priests but Western Catholicism doesn’t? Aren’t you all Catholic? How would you explain it simply in layman’s terms without referring to sources and in depth theological history.

Just asking for when the topic arises.

 

[Abu]

RyanBlack #53
I stand by what I wrote. Both Tim. 3:2-5 and Titus 1:6 clearly show that there were bishops with families, and I see no reason to believe that all of them were widowers. I’m open to the possibility that they were held to a requirement of continence, and I’m open to the possibility that they were not. I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone else knows with certainty either. Claims of certitude on either side of the argument are agenda-driven, in my opinion.

The essential fact which is attested by the eminent priest scholars who know the facts, are that ALL the married were required to live in continence as priests or bishops. So every false interpretation is altering that fact. Anyone who claims “I don’t know” is not open to the truth as so emphatically now revealed. Everyone else “knows”, when open to the truth.

“….the* Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests*, issued in 1994 by the Congregation for the Clergy. Section 59 affirms the above interpretation of the Timothy and Titus passages. It also cites several of the early councils which mandated continence for married as well as unmarried clergy. It added that “the Church, from apostolic times, has wished to conserve the gift of perpetual continence of the clergy and choose the candidates for Holy Orders from among the celibate faithful (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 7:5, 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:2-12, 5:9; Tit. 1:6-8)”. Married men who with their wives had professed perpetual continence before ordination would be counted among the “celibate faithful.”
cuf.org/2003/05/priestly-celibacy-is-here-to-stay-the-history-of-priestly-celibacy

babochka #54
This addresses one of the undeniable difficulties, but does nothing to address the advantages of having married priests, nor the disadvantages of a celibate priesthood.

Nowhere does the Church recognise any “advantages” to married priests – they are permitted under certain circumstances – and emphatically taught as an inferior state to that of celibacy.

The Magisterium teaches:
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,[57] and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Finally, We and Our Predecessors have often expounded it and earnestly advocated it whenever occasion offered. But recent attacks on this traditional doctrine of the Church, the danger they constitute, and the harm they do to the souls of the faithful lead Us, in fulfillment of the duties of Our charge, to take up the matter once again in this Encyclical Letter, and to reprove these errors which are so often propounded under a specious appearance of truth.
(Sacra Virginitas, Encyclical Of Pope Pius XII, 1954)

The superiority of the state of virginity or celibacy for the love of God is taught infallibly (Council of Trent, D.S. 1810), and Vatican II affirms this. “The crucial factor is the leading of a celibate life for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 19:12). One can be unmarried for any number of reasons, good, bad or indifferent.” Catholic Thinking, John Young, Cardinal Newman Catechist Centre, 1990]

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

The essential fact which is attested by the eminent priest scholars who know the facts, are that ALL the married were required to live in continence as priests or bishops. So every false interpretation is altering that fact. Anyone who claims “I don’t know” is not open to the truth as so emphatically now revealed. Everyone else “knows”, when open to the truth.

“….the* Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests*, issued in 1994 by the Congregation for the Clergy. Section 59 affirms the above interpretation of the Timothy and Titus passages. It also cites several of the early councils which mandated continence for married as well as unmarried clergy. It added that “the Church, from apostolic times, has wished to conserve the gift of perpetual continence of the clergy and choose the candidates for Holy Orders from among the celibate faithful (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 7:5, 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:2-12, 5:9; Tit. 1:6-8)”. Married men who with their wives had professed perpetual continence before ordination would be counted among the “celibate faithful.”
cuf.org/2003/05/priestly-celibacy-is-here-to-stay-the-history-of-priestly-celibacy
Nowhere does the Church recognise any “advantages” to married priests – they are permitted under certain circumstances – and emphatically taught as an inferior state to that of celibacy.

The Magisterium teaches:
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,[57] and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Finally, We and Our Predecessors have often expounded it and earnestly advocated it whenever occasion offered. But recent attacks on this traditional doctrine of the Church, the danger they constitute, and the harm they do to the souls of the faithful lead Us, in fulfillment of the duties of Our charge, to take up the matter once again in this Encyclical Letter, and to reprove these errors which are so often propounded under a specious appearance of truth.
(Sacra Virginitas, Encyclical Of Pope Pius XII, 1954)

The superiority of the state of virginity or celibacy for the love of God is taught infallibly (Council of Trent, D.S. 1810), and Vatican II affirms this. “The crucial factor is the leading of a celibate life for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 19:12). One can be unmarried for any number of reasons, good, bad or indifferent.” Catholic Thinking, John Young, Cardinal Newman Catechist Centre, 1990]

Strange to contemplate that in making such a statement, Pius is teaching that he, all past, and all future popes spring from an inferior state of life, and that the vast majority of Christ’s faithful similarly live in an inferior state of life.