On the Issue of Celibracy for Priesthood (alternate perspecitve)

[CHH]

I understand how much emphasis that Paul placed on celibracy in terms of devotion to God. I think it is valid that priests and bishops have to be celibrate whether married (Eastern-Rite priests) or not (Latin-Rite clergy and Eastern-Rite bishops). However, I do find it weird with the Latin-Rite priesthood system that dates back to the medieval ages. Young males are taught celibracy priesthood that starts at a young age of seventeen or eighteen. First of all, I think this is very difficult for males at those ages and Paul did tell us that marriage is perfectly fine for those who cannot hold to celibracy. I do recognize that some people do not have issues with celibracy even starting from late adolescence. On the other hand, it is actually quite realistic for males in the late thirties and beyond to hold to celibracy after secular life and marriage. Therefore, they are probably the largest pool for priesthood not late adolescents. Also lifetime priesthood celibracy starting from adolescence seems not be the case in the early church. Rather, people in the early church who became bishops and priests under celibracy usually are above their thirties.

I wonder if the Latin Rite should reforrm its seminary system so that it focuses on training clergy drawn from middle age male laity not late adolescents. In my personal opinion, I think the pedophile crisis in the clergy is caused by this problematic medieval seminary system.

I do not want to go against papacy or anything. I just want to have an intellectual discussion.

 

[DavidFilmer]

CHH:

I think the pedophile crisis in the clergy is caused by this problematic medieval seminary system.

I was waiting for that. I started wondering, as I approached the end of the post, if I would be dissapointed. But, no.

An adult male who preys on little boys is sick in the head. If a priest wants to disobey his vows, there are PLENTY of adult women willing to participate (ask any young priest - they get hit on ALL THE TIME.)

Changing celebacy or recruiting policies won’t cure sickos. The Church has realized the need to be more proactive in keeping these sickos out of Seminary in the first place (at any age), and quickly addressing the situation when one slips through.

 

[asquared]

you are confusing celibacy (the state of being unmarried, and by definition of not being sexually active) with continence (refraining from genital sexual activity at certain times or for life; sublimating sexual drive and energy in other worthy pursuits) and chastity (respect for the human body and sexuality and ordering sexual activity to one’s state in life, i.e. sex within marriage only and ordered to its procreative and unitive purposes).

All Christians are called to chastity, at all times, in every state of life.

Those who cannot or should not marry are called to perpetual continence, and married people are called to continence at times for purposes of devotion, health, or when pregnancy must be avoided or postponed because of grave reasons.

The discipline of the priesthood has recognized the value of the charism of celibacy from the earliest days of the Church. In its prophetic role the Church continues to emphasize the value of celibacy as a sign of contradiction in this era of unrestrained sexual license and the evils it has brought on society. Celibacy is not a condition of employment, it is a gift that enables the priest to fully carry out his vocation.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Married Byzantine rite Priests do not have to be celibate. They are married and can and do have sex within their marriage.

Now there are some, if not most (or all), who practice continence within that marriage the night before celebration of the Divine Liturgy. This is one of the reasons why daily Divine Liturgy outside of the monastery is not part of the Byzantine traditions.

But a married man that is ordained a priest in the Byzantine rite is not celibate.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

But a married man that is ordained a priest in the Byzantine rite is not celibate.

Technically, no married person is celibate, even if continent.

Although the two words almost mean the samething in everyday parlance, the historical usage differentiates between the two.

To be celibate is to be unmarried.

To be continent is to not have sex.

Theoretically, a couple could marry and never consumate their marriage. And still they would not be celibate, because they are married.

So it is technically impossible for a married man to be celibate, and to speak of a non-celibate married man is a redundant phraseology.

But I get your point, and I know that you know the difference. I was just pointing this out for the other psoters who might not.

This alone is the source of much confusion.

 

[puzzleannie]

ByzCath:

Now there are some, if not most (or all), who practice continence within that marriage the night before celebration of the Divine Liturgy. This is one of the reasons why daily Divine Liturgy outside of the monastery is not part of the Byzantine traditions.

But a married man that is ordained a priest in the Byzantine rite is not celibate.

yes we all know that, that is why we are differentiating among celibacy, continency and chastity

a person who is inherently disordered with regard to sexuality and its related desires will struggle with chastity all his/her life. Such a person faces huge challenges in aquiring the virtue and discipline of chastity, and the charism of celibate chastity in particular. such a person is not called to either the married or priestly vocation, with the huge additional challenges and demands those states of life entail

 

[Carl]

CHH

I like very much your suggestion that the Church should draw more heavily on the more mature population for candidates to the priesthood. Many men in their forties and fifties do not have the sex drive of younger men and make more mature priests. They can still give twenty to thirty years of their lives to the Church and are less likely to drop out from burnout.

I’m sorry to say I have met too many priests who seem emotionally stuck in in their adolescent years because they left the world too young in order to enter the seminary and did not get properly “seasoned” for life.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Carl:

CHH

I like very much your suggestion that the Church should draw more heavily on the more mature population for candidates to the priesthood. Many men in their forties and fifties do not have the sex drive of younger men and make more mature priests. They can still give twenty to thirty years of their lives to the Church and are less likely to drop out from burnout.

I too think this is a good idea but I also understand the bishops and religious orders.

Their issues deal with retirement. I know the religious orders would be on the hook for care. I am not sure with the bishops, as a diocesean priest is really just an employee, but there are still issues with retirement there. Also relocation to parishes.

And we can not forget the educational requirements either.

There is no simple/quick answer.

 

[AmandaCatherine]

CHH:

In my personal opinion, I think the pedophile crisis in the clergy is caused by this problematic medieval seminary system.

For purposes of discussion I think it is important to point out a couple of things.

First, if you read the bishops report on the abuse, the majority of victims were young men. A pedophile preys on pre-pubescent children. I think the media has been lumping all the victims together as children, because they don’t want to get into the issue of homosexuality. So if there is a crisis, I think it could be more properly called a homosexual one.

Also, about pedophilia cases–the rates of abuse of children are much lower among priests than they are among other groups of people, such as teachers. Phillip Jenkins has written an interesting book Pedophiles and Priests, which is very interesting for anyone who wants to learn about the topic. By saying this, I am certainly not saying that we should be complacent about these horrible sins, but to point out that we should not be led by media hype into making a false connection between pedophilia and a rule of celibacy.

Unfortunately, we live in a very sex-obsessed society in which many people find the idea of denying any of their urges to be very strange indeed, and the priesthood is an obvious target for people with that agenda. It is very difficult for anyone, clergy or laity, to live pure lives in our culture of death, but for a start we should not receive our moral formation from secular media. We have the Church to help us, and the sacraments.

I guess that is more than :twocents:

 

[ahimsaman72]

CHH:

I understand how much emphasis that Paul placed on celibracy in terms of devotion to God. I think it is valid that priests and bishops have to be celibrate whether married (Eastern-Rite priests) or not (Latin-Rite clergy and Eastern-Rite bishops). However, I do find it weird with the Latin-Rite priesthood system that dates back to the medieval ages. Young males are taught celibracy priesthood that starts at a young age of seventeen or eighteen. First of all, I think this is very difficult for males at those ages and Paul did tell us that marriage is perfectly fine for those who cannot hold to celibracy. I do recognize that some people do not have issues with celibracy even starting from late adolescence. On the other hand, it is actually quite realistic for males in the late thirties and beyond to hold to celibracy after secular life and marriage. Therefore, they are probably the largest pool for priesthood not late adolescents. Also lifetime priesthood celibracy starting from adolescence seems not be the case in the early church. Rather, people in the early church who became bishops and priests under celibracy usually are above their thirties.

I wonder if the Latin Rite should reforrm its seminary system so that it focuses on training clergy drawn from middle age male laity not late adolescents. In my personal opinion, I think the pedophile crisis in the clergy is caused by this problematic medieval seminary system.

I do not want to go against papacy or anything. I just want to have an intellectual discussion.

It should reform.

 

[mercygate]

ahimsaman72:

It should reform.

With respect to the average age of seminarians these days, the “reform” has already taken place. Many men are being ordained in their mid-forties. The new Priest in our parish has been ordained for only six years, and my guess he is nearly 50. Great guy.

Perpetual Deacons are also sometimes ordained to the Priesthood after they are widowed,and since many men pursue the Diaconate only after their children are grown, it’s a pretty mature demographic to start with.

 

[CHH]

I felt that I learnt quite a bit from everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut. The vocabulary clarification helped quite a bit.

Chastity is definitely very important in Christian life.

As usual, the media creates a false impression on the issue of priesthood abuse. The media is trying not to show negative connotations on the issue of homosexuality as seen in the priesthood issue. What I have read on some websites is that certain seminaries teach things contrary to the CC’s teachings like male priests could have intercourse with other male priests. That is pretty bizarre and totally in contrary with the Christian faith. Aren’t the bishops suppose to review the contents taught at the seminaries?

ByzCath pointed out that there is the issue of education involved in priesthood. I think that there are a lot of qualified possible candidates with really good understanding of theology out there.

Mercygate, thanks for telling me about the present situation. I hope for the best.