Optional Celibacy in the Priesthood

  • Thread starter Thread starter Don9of11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr. Sayers,
I’m one of those seminarians. Only I was actually discerning the priesthood, not marriage. Things happen in God’s time. After I left the seminary and some years later I began to wonder if it wasn’t the diaconate that I actually felt called to and that has been around 25 years now almost since I began thinking about becoming a deacon instead of a priest. I’ve been married 20 years now, married in my late 20’s. I’m very glad that the Church is opening the doors wide to the Anglicans.
 
At some point Catholics have to learn to accept that we have a centralized system of government in the Church. The Church is not a democracy and there are few areas of Catholic life where our opinion really matters or is wanted. I’m the formation director for my community and I always tell our novices this. There are opinions, which are stimulating for conversation. But those sharing them must remember that it’s just that, conversation and it’s not going anywhere, because there are rules, mandates and disciplines that only those in authority have the power to change. Within the Church, people in authority have certain rights and privileges that come with the office.

I say this with as much respect as possible, because I believe that often our emotions drive our conversation to the point that we forget that this thread and this topic is only that, a conversation. The discipline of celibacy for secular clergy has been part of the Roman Rite for a very long time. Every case of a married man who is ordained is an exception, not the rule. The rule will only change, if and when those in authority decide that the discipline does not contribute to the holiness of the Church. Notice that the question is not whether it’s necessary for the holiness of the Church. The question is always, “Does it contribute to the holiness of the Church?”

The Church looks for that which helps us respond to the universal call to holiness. Celibacy certainly does contribute to the holiness of our clergy. Is it necessary for their holiness? No. The proof is in the Eastern Rites. Does it contribute? Yes.

As a Church, we would be foolish to get rid of anything that contributes to holiness.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
That’s my position Br. JR.

Celibacy is an ancient tradition/discipline that does bring holiness to the Church. I know that a married clergy does not equal more holy or less. But in either case if the clergy and if married family are transformed that is what brings holiness. But if we lose the celibate priesthood we’ll lose a remarkable wonderful order of men willing to sacrifice to the extreme for Christ. Even if the discipline was ever lifted it would probably need to be done over a long period of time. But I suspect that if this is going to change, which is not really a change to me, shows the pastoral wisdom of our holy father no matter what he chooses. I seriously doubt this happens at the level some hope. I believe that the ones pushing for this the most are also pushing for existing priests to be able to marry. I do not believe that would be wise because marriage is very difficult in the beginning as couples learn to live with each other. Throw a pastoral care role in there and it could be disasterous. Even Protestant ministers don’t’ start out in pulpit or pastoral roles typically.
 
Marriage and Holy Orders are not mutually exclusive sacraments. It’s pretty obvious. We have married deacons in the Roman Church and married deacons and priests in the Eastern Churches, as well as the Orthodox Churches. It does work. It’s not a problem of pragmatics. It’s an issue of tradition and discipline.

I just read the new Apostolic Constitution regarding the re-incorporation of the Anglicans. It’s very clear that the discipline of celibacy is not part of this program. The Constitutions makes a provision for the ordination of married Anglican clerics. It does not make any provisions for the ordination of married men who are Catholics or even for married Anglican men. Only those who are already clerics will be considered for ordination as married men. All others will have to follow the same rules that other Roman Catholics follow. If they join one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, then they can be married and apply for Holy Orders. There is no question in the Constitution that celibacy is not to be touched in the Roman Church. This is just a pastoral provision.

I bring up the Anglicans, because it’s a perfect example of the Church’s strong and on-going position on celibacy. Neither the Sacred Congregation for the Faith nor the Sacred Congregation for Priests are willing to discuss it, much less the Holy Father. I wouldn’t hold my breadth on this. I understand that it’s not an infallible position. But it’s one of authority and discipline. Those two words are very important in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

This is probably one of the many attractions that the Anglicans find in Catholicism. It’s called, “order”. To put it in modern sociological language, it’s called “systems”. There are certain systems that are not easily changed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Regarding Br JR’s most recent contributions to this thread: so, what of my dilemma? When this topic arises, do I try a crash course in canon law? Or am I to say that the church is not a democracy and we should accept that the Pope is appropriately channeling God’s will? I am at a loss…?

I think that perhaps the reason I am at a loss is that I am not sure that, at least when discussing matters of discipline, we ought to resort to Aquinas’ methodology that our natural reason cannot explain revealed truth. (A la Wittgenstein: that whereof we cannot speak, we ought remain silent.) Surely discipline ought be explicable by reference to reason?
 
Dr_Mark_Sayers said:
Regarding Br JR’s most recent contributions to this thread: so, what of my dilemma? When this topic arises, do I try a crash course in canon law? Or am I to say that the church is not a democracy and we should accept that the Pope is appropriately channeling God’s will? I am at a loss…?

I think that perhaps the reason I am at a loss is that I am not sure that, at least when discussing matters of discipline, we ought to resort to Aquinas’ methodology that our natural reason cannot explain revealed truth. (A la Wittgenstein: that whereof we cannot speak, we ought remain silent.) Surely discipline ought be explicable by reference to reason?
Click to expand...
Your question has a lot of legitimacy. I don’t think that there is patten answer for every situation where the question about celibacy may come up. There are situations where you have the time and the right audience to explain the history of the discipline of celibacy and why the Church believes that it contributes to her holiness. Those are the real answers. It’s a long established discipline becaus . . . (as we have posted in previous posts) and the Church will hold on to it, because it contributes to her holienss.

When you have no time or an audience who just wants to debate the point, because they have already made up their mind that madatory celibacy needs to go, I would not bother to engage in an explanation of the history or the holiness of celibacy. They don’t want to hear it. So why bother? I’m giving you a real answer that comes from our holy Father St. Francis who never bothered to explain when people had already made up their minds. His policy and practice was to simply say, “It is what it is. Grow up or suffer the consequences.” Of course he used the language of his time.

But in reality, there are some people who really want to understand. They do deserve an explanation. Canon law is not the actual explanation. Canon law was not written to explain disciplines. It was written to regulate them. Observe that you do not find the word “love” in canon law. It does not attempt to define love. Unless you can define love, you can’t explain celibacy in context.

You should really begin by explaining love and the fact that in the Kingdom of God men and women are not given in marriage. Therefore, the discipline of celibacy developed in anticipation of the Kingdom of God, where love is not exclusive, as it is in marriage. Once you ahve explained that, then you can explain that once it was well established in the Roman Church, the Magisterium came along and confirmed as part of our tradition. First came the Gospel teaching on the Kingdom, then came the practice, and finally the formal discipline. It all happened because it contributes to the holiness of the Church The presence of a celibate clergy speaks to the world of what is to come in the Kingdom of God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Dr_Mark_Sayers said:
Regarding Br JR’s most recent contributions to this thread: so, what of my dilemma? When this topic arises, do I try a crash course in canon law? Or am I to say that the church is not a democracy and we should accept that the Pope is appropriately channeling God’s will? I am at a loss…?

I think that perhaps the reason I am at a loss is that I am not sure that, at least when discussing matters of discipline, we ought to resort to Aquinas’ methodology that our natural reason cannot explain revealed truth. (A la Wittgenstein: that whereof we cannot speak, we ought remain silent.) Surely discipline ought be explicable by reference to reason?
Click to expand...
My short(er) answer is that there is not a good clear answer, at least one eminating from Rome.

When one looks at the answers which have been given, there appears to be a thread of “black and white” running through it; it seems to be given as if the question posed were “Why can’t we do away with celibacy” and the response is “we are not going there”. I am not convinced that those following the Magisterium are asking such a question; but having read responses from Rome, it seems that is what is heard in the upper echelons of the Church. It may be that some on the fringes suggest such, but they are on the fringes; those in the mainstream seem to be ignored.

Coupled with that, and the clear history of the last 45 or so years of how many priests have left to get married, I am left to wonder if the issue of allowing married men to be ordained is not a threat to at least some clergy. It goes back to that issue in psychology; some of the most “over the top” responses to a question are often indicative of a deeper disturbance. Or, “methinks thou protesteth too much”.

The short of it - whether or not there is a crisis in the priesthood numbers wise, and whether that crisis is local or world-wide pervasive - is not a consideration (and perhaps should not be). But your feeling that there is an element of unfairness afoot (and contrary to what was said in other posts herein, re: actions of the Holy Spirit) and needs to simply be acknowledged. Mandatory celibacy in the Roman rite came somewhere in the middle ages; at least in part as a reaction to issues with married clergy and other related issues; It has become firmly entrenched with a theological construct that is at minimum at odds with the reality of the Church as a whole, and an abysmal slap in the face to the Eastern rites, is at best paltry and impoverished in its grasp of the sacrament of Holy Orders and serves as a blanket answer and wall against further discussion, and at this time and place is not going to be answered.

And coupled with that is that any change in the Church does not come swiftly; the Church tends to think in eschatalogical terms time wise, and 20, 30, 50 years or more tend to be seen as a mere “blink of the eye”.

We, maybe not a shorter answer.
 
I thank Br JR and ojtm for their sensitive responses to my call for help.

Without commenting on how understandable or legitimate it is for many lay people to feel a sense of unfairness about the exception to the rule under discussion, I have found it difficult to respond to them in a way that doesn’t make me sound like a mindless, (literally) apologetic mouthpiece. I am particularly grateful to Br JR in that regard.

I suppose we’ve probably digressed on this thread from the general question with which it began: The theological-cum-pastoral viability of optional celibacy for diocesan/secular clergy. Instead, the focus of late has been on the exception to the rule which seemingly proves the rule. I recall Ratzinger (as he then was) eulogizing on Rahner’s death that, amongst other things, the Spirit in the World (the latter’s doctoral thesis in philosophy) may goes where it wills but the Spirit of God conforms to the principle of non-self contradiction: maybe that is how to understand priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church - it could be other than it is but it is what it is.

Methodologically, I suppose it follows that it is only if we think within the confines of the theology of priesthood as we have it and, using that content, can arrive (if only inferentially) at an endorsement for the viability of optional celibacy that we can feel comfortable that we are living within our tradition and not importing from extraneous sources. Note: the focus here is on the theology rather than the history of presbyteral ministry which (as ojtm observes) already contains content of married secular/diocesan clergy. Indeed, as I have noted previously, there were episcopal councils of the 11th century that insisted on married parochial clergy in order to dispel the taint of dualist Catharism/Manichaeism.

One possibility - I have recently been reading Roger Scruton’s call that ‘forgiveness’ be a central focus of our secular, democratic discourse (many of his articles on the theme are embroided by artwork on the theme of the prodigal son). If reconciliation with/of the other, embracing the other, is a key sacramental ministry of the priest then perhaps that can serve as a paradigm both for the dignity of celibate clergy and those who have the different charism of married life. This is because the presbyteral ministry, in its very composition, could then be seen as embracing all the charisms/duties/virtues of chastity/celibacy/married life and community to which religious and lay people are variously called.

What I like about this possibility is that it means the priesthood could both serve as a sign of contradiction to the overly-sexualised content of much of Western society and also serve as testimony to the dignity (charism? - probably an inappropriate technical use of the word) sacrament of marriage.
 
Dr_Mark_Sayers said:
I thank Br JR and ojtm for their sensitive responses to my call for help.

Without commenting on how understandable or legitimate it is for many lay people to feel a sense of unfairness about the exception to the rule under discussion, I have found it difficult to respond to them in a way that doesn’t make me sound like a mindless, (literally) apologetic mouthpiece. I am particularly grateful to Br JR in that regard.

I suppose we’ve probably digressed on this thread from the general question with which it began: The theological-cum-pastoral viability of optional celibacy for diocesan/secular clergy. Instead, the focus of late has been on the exception to the rule which seemingly proves the rule. I recall Ratzinger (as he then was) eulogizing on Rahner’s death that, amongst other things, the Spirit in the World (the latter’s doctoral thesis in philosophy) may goes where it wills but the Spirit of God conforms to the principle of non-self contradiction: maybe that is how to understand priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church - it could be other than it is but it is what it is.

Methodologically, I suppose it follows that it is only if we think within the confines of the theology of priesthood as we have it and, using that content, can arrive (if only inferentially) at an endorsement for the viability of optional celibacy that we can feel comfortable that we are living within our tradition and not importing from extraneous sources. Note: the focus here is on the theology rather than the history of presbyteral ministry which (as ojtm observes) already contains content of married secular/diocesan clergy. Indeed, as I have noted previously, there were episcopal councils of the 11th century that insisted on married parochial clergy in order to dispel the taint of dualist Catharism/Manichaeism.

One possibility - I have recently been reading Roger Scruton’s call that ‘forgiveness’ be a central focus of our secular, democratic discourse (many of his articles on the theme are embroided by artwork on the theme of the prodigal son). If reconciliation with/of the other, embracing the other, is a key sacramental ministry of the priest then perhaps that can serve as a paradigm both for the dignity of celibate clergy and those who have the different charism of married life. This is because the presbyteral ministry, in its very composition, could then be seen as embracing all the charisms/duties/virtues of chastity/celibacy/married life and community to which religious and lay people are variously called.

What I like about this possibility is that it means the priesthood could both serve as a sign of contradiction to the overly-sexualised content of much of Western society and also serve as testimony to the dignity (charism? - probably an inappropriate technical use of the word) sacrament of marriage.
Click to expand...
The sacrament of marriage, properly understood, is most definitely a charism. And certainly not all are granted it. Celibacy also is a charism; and not all are granted this gift either.
 
Mandatory celibacy is causing the priest shortage. 125,000 priests have left to marry in the last 50 years. The Catholic Church is the only Christian Denomination in the U.S. that has a shortage of Clergy.

Bishop Wilton Gregory has said that a married priesthood will not help the Catholic priest shortage because the Protestant church, which allows a married clergy, also has a shortage.

However, a Purdue University study by James D. Davidson reported in the December 1, 2003 issue of America magazine found that since 1981 all Protestant denominations registered an increase in clergy of 3 to 35 %.

Only the Catholic Church registered a hefty 22% decrease. (See this article for the complete research results…

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3311)

Let us choose as Jesus chose, celibacy as an option, not a mandate.
 
rsantos said:
Mandatory celibacy is causing the priest shortage. 125,000 priests have left to marry in the last 50 years. The Catholic Church is the only Christian Denomination in the U.S. that has a shortage of Clergy.

Bishop Wilton Gregory has said that a married priesthood will not help the Catholic priest shortage because the Protestant church, which allows a married clergy, also has a shortage.

However, a Purdue University study by James D. Davidson reported in the December 1, 2003 issue of America magazine found that since 1981 all Protestant denominations registered an increase in clergy of 3 to 35 %.

Only the Catholic Church registered a hefty 22% decrease. (See this article for the complete research results…

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3311)

Let us choose as Jesus chose, celibacy as an option, not a mandate.
Click to expand...
The shortage of priests has many causes my friend. Celibacy is only one cause and has had the least impact. Let’s go through the list of why you have less priests in our parishes. These are just off the top of my head.
  1. Priests leaving to marry. Get that one out of the way.
  2. Burn-out
  3. Religious orders deciding that they are not going to ordain as many men, because they (the religious orders) do not need so many priests among their ranks
  4. Social changes where man puts secular interests over faith
  5. Increase in the number of Catholics around the world
  6. Catholics are not longer concentrated in Catholic ghettos. Suburbia came into existence; therefore, Catholic priests had to be redistributed
  7. Inadequate formation in seminaries
  8. Birth control and abortion have reduced the number of births per family, therefore reducing the pool for the Church to choose from
  9. The academic requirements were increased after 1965; prior, only some countries required that priests have degrees in theology or divinity. Today they must all have at least an advanced degree in divinity
  10. Many religious orders closed parishes in order to serve the poor in other ministries, because the Church mandated that they return to the vision and mission of the founders, which was not a parrochial vision and mission
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
rsantos said:
Mandatory celibacy is causing the priest shortage. 125,000 priests have left to marry in the last 50 years.
Click to expand...
While the second sentence may be correct ( I don’t know about the count, but certainly we have lost a large number of priests who have been laicized and then got married; and others who have been laicized and then did not get married; and we have lost some who did not bother to get laicized).

However, mandatory celibacy is not causing the shortage. It is certainly open to question how many of the priests who did quit and then get married, would have gotten married and then applied to the diocese to be accepted in seminary if the rule had been relaxed. Without some sort of survey to that issue, it is pure conjecture. But this is not causing the shortage. Otherwise, explain the rather high level of vocations peaking somewhere in the 1950’s, when celibacy was the only option?

Further, there are far more issues at play concerning vocations than just the issue of celibacy. Catechesis is the first one to come to mind; it fell into the toilet in the early 70’s, and then someone flushed… why would anyone become a priest when they have no real clear idea what the Church, or faith is about?

It is easy to reduce a problem to one cause; it is rarely consistent with the facts. The average family size of 3+ and approaching 4+ children changed viciously; we are not under 2+ unless one considers the immigrants - Hispanic and Vietnamese - which brigh that number up. That, too has had an impact on the number of vocations; and coupled with that is the fact that the primary impetus for vocations, or against it, comes from the family.

Add to that the fact that in the 1950’s there were very few divorces; with the advent of no-fault divorce that number changed rapidly, again attacking the integrity of the family, which in turn needs to be the breeding ground of vocations. What boy, with no father present, is going to be stable enough in his emotional and psychological growth in a split (and often recombined) family that vocation will enter his thoughts?

The list goes on…
 
rsantos said:
Mandatory celibacy is causing the priest shortage. 125,000 priests have left to marry in the last 50 years. The Catholic Church is the only Christian Denomination in the U.S. that has a shortage of Clergy.

Bishop Wilton Gregory has said that a married priesthood will not help the Catholic priest shortage because the Protestant church, which allows a married clergy, also has a shortage.

However, a Purdue University study by James D. Davidson reported in the December 1, 2003 issue of America magazine found that since 1981 all Protestant denominations registered an increase in clergy of 3 to 35 %.

Only the Catholic Church registered a hefty 22% decrease. (See this article for the complete research results…

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3311)

Let us choose as Jesus chose, celibacy as an option, not a mandate.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the greatest cause of priests is the lack of discernment among Catholics. of course the enemy will give the idea to get an imediate solution which is the attack on celibacy. It is not for us to get desperate and then to try to change the Church. If that was so, we probably wouldnt have the Church any longer. we have had many desperate situation, I know we are going through a real bad one, but why attack celibaby? The priests need our support on celibacy now and days and not we must not support arguments against. those who are against celibacy are worldly people who lack wisdom and discernment and knowledge of God. This is another attempt to put God last in our lives. why sacrifice for our Lord, not many are doing this anymore is if Love thy God with thy heart, mind and soul was something of the past. foolish people, how can we escape from the wrath of God?
 
wisdomseeker said:
Perhaps the greatest cause of priests is the lack of discernment among Catholics. of course the enemy will give the idea to get an imediate solution which is the attack on celibacy. It is not for us to get desperate and then to try to change the Church. If that was so, we probably wouldnt have the Church any longer. we have had many desperate situation, I know we are going through a real bad one, but why attack celibaby? The priests need our support on celibacy now and days and not we must not support arguments against. those who are against celibacy are worldly people who lack wisdom and discernment and knowledge of God. This is another attempt to put God last in our lives. why sacrifice for our Lord, not many are doing this anymore is if Love thy God with thy heart, mind and soul was something of the past. foolish people, how can we escape from the wrath of God?
Click to expand...
Perhaps but there has not been an adequate articulation of why the latin rite has mandatory celibacy when the other rites do not. Most of the arguments given have to do with time management which is ridiculous. lets just be honest about it and say our latin fathers had a negative view of sex, and felt it made a man unclean to handle the eucharist.

And then you have Vatican II. Which totally contradicts this theory by allowing LAY FEMALE SEXUALLY ACTIVE EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS to handle the eucarist. Doesn’t make any sense. At least the SSPX are consistent.
 
notredame_999 said:
Perhaps but there has not been an adequate articulation of why the latin rite has mandatory celibacy when the other rites do not. Most of the arguments given have to do with time management which is ridiculous. lets just be honest about it and say our latin fathers had a negative view of sex, and felt it made a man unclean to handle the eucharist.

And then you have Vatican II. Which totally contradicts this theory by allowing LAY FEMALE SEXUALLY ACTIVE EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS to handle the eucarist. Doesn’t make any sense. At least the SSPX are consistent.
Click to expand...
and just where does VII allows for lay women ext. minister to give out Eucharist?
and just because the east have married priests, it doesnt mean that the Latin right has to follow the same thing.
 
wisdomseeker said:
and just where does VII allows for lay women ext. minister to give out Eucharist?
and just because the east have married priests, it doesnt mean that the Latin right has to follow the same thing.
Click to expand...
Ok maybe Im wrong. Maybe Vatican II didnt allow lay female “extraordinary ministers of holy communion.” What did allow this then?

Your’re right the latin rite doesn’t has to follow the east, but lets not pretend its a dogma.

And yes, “extraordinary minsters of communion” either male or female, do diminish the significance of cellibacy in the latin rite. The whole reason why celibacy was adopted in the latin rite was because vaginal intercourse was seen as making a MAN unfit to handle the eucharist. So when you have “extraordinary ministers” who are not celibate handling the Body of Christ, it is theological confusion.
 
notredame_999 said:
Ok maybe Im wrong. Maybe Vatican II didnt allow lay female “extraordinary ministers of holy communion.” What did allow this then?

Your’re right the latin rite doesn’t has to follow the east, but lets not pretend its a dogma.

And yes, “extraordinary minsters of communion” either male or female, do diminish the significance of cellibacy in the latin rite. The whole reason why celibacy was adopted in the latin rite was because vaginal intercourse was seen as making a MAN unfit to handle the eucharist. So when you have “extraordinary ministers” who are not celibate handling the Body of Christ, it is theological confusion.
Click to expand...
I strongly recommend that you read Pope John Paul’s writings on Theology of the Body and study how he explains celibacy. You’ll find that it has nothing to do with sex being dirty.

In addition, it is not true that celibacy was adopted because sex was considered dirty. Celibacy was adopted by many secular men who learned the value and holiness of the discipline from religious brothers. The brothers had been practicing celibacy long before Jesus. They take their origins from the Qumran, which may have given birth to men like John the Baptist and the early Carmelites, who were Jewish celibate brothers and hermits and entered the Church at the time of her birth, along with the first generation Jewish Christians.

Celibacy has been around and has been considered to be a disireable discipline by many. This included many secular men who did not have a call to live the consecrated life of a religious. The Church of Rome acknoledged the great spiritual value of celibacy and adopts it as a requirement for ordination to the diaconate. In recent years, it is not longer a requirement for ordination to the diaconate, unless the man is going to request ordination to the second order of the sacrament, presbyter.

The Roman Church did not mandate celibacy because sex was bad, but because celibacy was holier. This was declared an infallible doctrine by the Council of Trent.

What is not a doctrine is the requirement. The holiness of celibacy is a dogma, for the entire Church, Roman and Oriental. The Roman Church chooses to make this higher discipline mandatory for presbyters and widowed deacons. She does so out of our shared belief that celibacy is a holier way of life.

As we can see, handling the Eucharist has nothing to do with this. We have married deacons. They are not restricted as to when they may have intercourse with their wives. Yet, a deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion in the Roman Church. We have always had married acolytes. Acolytes have always been alllowed to handle the Eucharist, since before the Middle Ages. They transported it when it had to be done. They exposed the Blessed Sacrament when necessary and reposed it.

I don’t see where people get the idea that the celibacy requirement had to do with sex being dirty.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I strongly recommend that you read Pope John Paul’s writings on Theology of the Body and study how he explains celibacy. You’ll find that it has nothing to do with sex being dirty.

In addition, it is not true that celibacy was adopted because sex was considered dirty. Celibacy was adopted by many secular men who learned the value and holiness of the discipline from religious brothers. The brothers had been practicing celibacy long before Jesus. They take their origins from the Qumran, which may have given birth to men like John the Baptist and the early Carmelites, who were Jewish celibate brothers and hermits and entered the Church at the time of her birth, along with the first generation Jewish Christians.

Celibacy has been around and has been considered to be a disireable discipline by many. This included many secular men who did not have a call to live the consecrated life of a religious. The Church of Rome acknoledged the great spiritual value of celibacy and adopts it as a requirement for ordination to the diaconate. In recent years, it is not longer a requirement for ordination to the diaconate, unless the man is going to request ordination to the second order of the sacrament, presbyter.

The Roman Church did not mandate celibacy because sex was bad, but because celibacy was holier. This was declared an infallible doctrine by the Council of Trent.

What is not a doctrine is the requirement. The holiness of celibacy is a dogma, for the entire Church, Roman and Oriental. The Roman Church chooses to make this higher discipline mandatory for presbyters and widowed deacons. She does so out of our shared belief that celibacy is a holier way of life.

As we can see, handling the Eucharist has nothing to do with this. We have married deacons. They are not restricted as to when they may have intercourse with their wives. Yet, a deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion in the Roman Church. We have always had married acolytes. Acolytes have always been alllowed to handle the Eucharist, since before the Middle Ages. They transported it when it had to be done. They exposed the Blessed Sacrament when necessary and reposed it.

I don’t see where people get the idea that the celibacy requirement had to do with sex being dirty.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
*Dear Br. JR,

I believe the reason is because when the life of celibacy is said to be holier than the married life people think that it is because of sex. If that is the reason that the married life is less holy then sex must be dirty because it causes the married life to be less holy than the life of celibacy. Does that make any sense?*
 
simple_soul said:
*Dear Br. JR,

I believe the reason is because when the life of celibacy is said to be holier than the married life people think that it is because of sex. If that is the reason that the married life is less holy then sex must be dirty because it causes the married life to be less holy than the life of celibacy. Does that make any sense?*
Click to expand...
Actually, the reason has nothing to do with sex. As Catholics, we believe that the celibate life is holier than the married life because it’s a much more intimate communion with Christ and it’s a much more literal representation of his life on earth.

Christ himself was celibate. Secondly, because he was celibate, his relationship with the Father was not mediated through a spouse, as is the relationship of married people. Married people find God through each other. Grace comes to them through each other. The celibate man or woman lives in a one-on-one relationship with God. There is no human mediator.

Additionally, the celibate man or woman gives back to God the greatest gift that God has given to us, our sexuality. You see, sexuality is very holy. Were it not holy, it would not be a worthy gift to give back to the Father.

As a celibate man, I give to God the only thing that I own, my manhood. I put it totally at his disposal. Everything else that I have in my possession can be taken away; but no one can take away the fact that I am a man, that I can be a husband, that I could even be a father. That is mine to give.

Just as Christ said to Pilate, “No one takes my life. I lay it down.” I, as a celibate man, can say, “No one takes my manhood. I lay it down.” With that surrender, I also surrender everything that is part of being a man: the intimacy of marriage and the joys of fatherhood.

There are many religious and secular priests too, who were married and have children. After the death of their spouses, they have made vows of celibacy, some in a religious community and others as secular clergy. It’s still the same thing. They lay down their lives freely. No one takes it away from them. They are free to remarry and to have more children, if God sends them. But this is not what Christ calls for. He calls them to be physically like him. They mirror Christ, not only in his virtue and ministry, but also in their own bodies. They surrender the body to the Father, to be used for the redemption of the world, just as the Father used Jesus’ body for the redemption of the world.

Remember, you can only give to the Father what is worthy of the Father. To give him our sexual bodies implies that they are a worthy gift. Only when one understands the beauty of marriage and bringing children into the world does one fully understand the power and holiness of celibacy. When you understand the sacredness of marriage and parenting, when you think of giving it away instead of using it, which is your right to do so, then you understand the holiness of celibacy and why the Church wishes to ordain only men who can give such a great gift.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top