J
joandarc2008
Guest
And if they do not have the charism of celibacy then they are not called as a calling comes from God and is confirmed by His Bride, the Church, who has made Her choices very known.
- Status
A
AcolyteLector
Guest
Look, when I pointed out that laymen are living up to its synonymous euphemism (the outspoken amateur), I didn’t mean that active, vocal lay persons should have their tongues sliced out. Only that when people who are intellectually remote and generally unconcerned with the problems at hand, want to ‘weigh in’ on an issue, they’d better be ready to listen to the experts first. Not that I’m an expert–as I said, I’m not even in seminary, yet.
A salient example of this problem in practice: when the Crisis first broke, I had a discussion while in a grocery line with a woman who ‘KNEW’ exactly what to do in order to FIX the Church. She proposed that we ‘replace all of the priests with nuns, because mothers and women would never let that sort of thing happen to children’. Guess she hadn’t heard about the spate of mothers who, in a bout of depression (or whatever…) kill their entire brood of children, and bury them… or the existence of legalized abortion. A few seconds into my rejoinder, I discovered that she wasn’t joking or being extreme–she cut me off, so that she could finish explaining her fool-proof re-making of the Catholic World.
Many of our responses to the Crisis will mirror this woman’s: it will reflect one perspective within the universal Church. Its not surprising that an ex-seminarian from the 60s-80s is lobbying for an end to mandatory celibacy and anti-clericalism, as a kind of solution.
Clericalism can have its pitfalls, we get it. Curial officials and monsignors are corruptible, true, but you have to consider the alternative: do you think that the Church would still reflect and champion the same truths today, if it let under-educated insolent ex-seminarians and would-be seminarians dictate its policies? No.
I also don’t think the Holy See is as clerical and monolithic as you for some reason believe it to be: if you closely examine the history of the Church, you’ll see that the course of Her history has been shaped by different combinations of the prelates, the episcopate, the presbyterate ‘on the ground’, religious orders, the State, the Church’s people, &c. Even within the Church there is enough disagreement to prevent a ‘father-knows-best’ atmosphere. Very rarely does the Church line up in a linear fashion, and march off somewhere–and when it does, it is usually in dark times when there is a unequivocal right and wrong.
Furthermore, I don’t think you understand that you’re conflating several ‘problems that you perceive’ (I don’t know, maybe you consider them to be mutually contingent, &c.) and its coming across as though you don’t understand the causes/effects, and their relationships that are involved here.
I also don’t think its fair to yourself that most of the evidence you bring to bear is anecdotal. Its too easy for everyone reading this to wave aside stories about people you ‘know or may have met’. It must be frustrating that so many people are contradicting your points, which you believe are verified by the experiences that you’ve had. So, in the future,
I’d advise that if you want the board to take something seriously, maybe find a study or something comparable to confirm what you’ve noticed.
9
907John
Guest
This is actually interesting to me. I’ve seriously considered becoming a priest recently but decided that I couldn’t handle the celibacy (that is not for me, I’m sure of that).
Why are the other denominations short of priests? Is it salaries or employment stability? I’ve not heard of shortages outside of Catholicism and High-Anglicanism, and certainly not in the non-conformist churches.
O
otjm
Guest
So I take it that if the law were to change, suddenly what was not a call from God now is? What was it before - a fantasy? Indigestion? the work of the devil?
Sorry, we disagree.
O
otjm
Guest
The main-line denominations, such as Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. have all seen a fall-off in attendance similar to what the Catholic Church has seen, all since Vatican 2 era. There are numerous factors which have caused this; some interesting comments can be found in The Catholic Church at the End of an Age, by Ralph martin; he has some interesting insights.
And just as there is a fall-off in attendance, the pool of candidates for ministers shrinks also. It is not simply due to the shrinking size of the congregations, but that certainly is a factor.
and if you are referring to Eastern churches in union with Rome, some of the same issues which have impacted the Roman Church have impacted them. They are also subject to influences relevant to their own countries.
O
otjm
Guest
I am not lobbying for it as a solution. If you read my posts carefully, you would pick that up.
That has nothing to do with the discussion.
I am really curious as to your age and background.
Personally, I am not invested in you agreeing with me. I find you bringing forth your opinions without even the substantiation I provide to mine. One does not have to have a study to quote when one has done the study oneself. The fact that I have not written a tome or published a paper in some journal appears to be your stumbling point; I have put forth what I have found, and I have actually talked with priests - and far more than one or two. If you choose to disbelieve my statements, then our discussion is pretty much at a dead end. This forum is a place to chat, to learn and to share. I have shared. You seem to be dismissive of it; that’s fine, because as I said, I have nothing invested in convincing you. I state my opinion and give you sourcing material. You state yours. And that is about as far as any of it will go.
Best wishes and prayers if you enter a seminary.
I am taking a new job as of tomorrow morning which will require my relocating 80+ miles from my current home, so this will most likely be one of my last posts.
A
AcolyteLector
Guest
I am not lobbying for it as a solution. If you read my posts carefully, you would pick that up.
**No, no, I fully appreciate that you’ve been careful to hedge the Crisis and the present discussion of optional celibacy. But–despite your caveats–it is still too ambiguous for you to say this (i.e., the ‘culpability’ of celibate priests in the Crisis) in the same breath, as when you’re speaking about celibacy.
Its just not clear what you’re suggesting anymore, after several pages of heated posts, because so much of it is insinuation.**
That has nothing to do with the discussion.
I beg your pardon, but your treatment of the issue of the Holy See’s position on celibacy has been fraught by two concerns: (1) a distrust of the prelates, and (2) a petition for the greater involvement of an undifferentiated body of lay persons.
I am really curious as to your age and background.
Why? I guess I should have put this less clumsily, as you’ll now jump down my throat over my diction.
Personally, I am not invested in you agreeing with me.
Well, OK I guess…
I find you bringing forth your opinions without even the substantiation I provide to mine.
**I don’t really write my opinions on here. I’ve told two anecdotes (the USAF officer ret.who is a priest in my parish and the grocery woman), but neither were central to my arguments.
You bring your experiences to bear in several ways, which is commendable and I enjoy reading the experiences of older CAF members, but you expect us to somehow appreciate the impact of these stories (ex: the priestly (dis)satisfaction with celibacy)… this would be a lot more compelling** if it were accompanied by some statistics.
In fact, there exist studies to the contrary, that priestly job/life satisfaction rates are far higher than their correligionists. Granted, I don’t really agree with the methodology used for these studies because it doesn’t adequately take into account that priests have a different relationship with their ‘employer’, generally higher level of education, and the rest.
What I mean to say is that you probably have valuable things to contribute here, but your style of contribution pretty much sabotages that value. Sorry.
One does not have to have a study to quote when one has done the study oneself.
Sorry, friend–even the Bible has citations.
The fact that I have not written a tome or published a paper in some journal appears to be your stumbling point; I have put forth what I have found, and I have actually talked with priests - and far more than one or two.
Sure, granted. I’m not an academic snob, I am just giving fraternal advice on how to make your points a little more compelling.
I\f you choose to disbelieve my statements, then our discussion is pretty much at a dead end. This forum is a place to chat, to learn and to share. I have shared. You seem to be dismissive of it; that’s fine, because as I said, I have nothing invested in convincing you. I state my opinion and give you sourcing material. You state yours. And that is about as far as any of it will go.
**Well… when your points impugn the character of dozens, even hundreds, of men whom you have never met (the ‘cabal’ of prelates, that we have to make our voices heard by), I don’t think its unreasonable to ask you provide a little bit of evidence besides ‘conversations’ you’ve had.
Remember, you basically want to alter one of the most distinctive features of an ancient, worldwide office… I only want to maintain an all-inclusive status quo. This is not a difficult argument for me, but for you it requires a high burden of proof. :/**
Best wishes and prayers if you enter a seminary.
Thanks…
I am taking a new job as of tomorrow morning which will require my relocating 80+ miles from my current home, so this will most likely be one of my last posts.
J
joandarc2008
Guest
Yes, unless because a man that cannot deny the flesh for a calling does not have a calling.
If you remember correctly in the first few centuries of the Church one could only have one Confession in their lifetime as well - the Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium - not the selfish “I wants”
O
otjm
Guest
The fact that they could have only one confession was seen for the error that it was.
and any man who is married and truly sacramental knows and understands the denial of the flesh. If you are intimidating that all the married Eastern Church priests and the Roman Church married priests are somehow less priestly because they are married, you are trying to push water uphill with a pitchfork. The Church doesn’t hold that; you might want to reconsider your position. To say that a man who cannot deny the flesh (meaning, it would seem according to you, anyone who is not celibate) does not have a calling is to dismiss the reality that the Church has seen fit to say they do have a calling.
There is a tendency to romanticize celibacy. It can be a truly awesome gift, charism and witness. But to cast marriage as a refusal to deny the flesh is to come awfully close to refusing to acknowledge what a sacramental marriage is, and requires. It further comes all too close to equating marriage as the sexual congress, and celibacy as refusing sexual congress, which minimizes both the sacrament of marriage and the charism of celibacy.
J
joandarc2008
Guest
Excuse me - he does not have a calling to the Latin Rite. Now - he may have a calling to the Eastern Rite. But since this thread is on optional celibacy one can assume that you are speaking of the Latin Rite since there is not optional celibacy in the priesthood except in rare circumstances where conversion has taken place and the Church has conferred the calling which is Her Right.
And by the way - Optional celibacy really does not exist in the Eastern Rite either. If the spouse dies prior to the priest it is no longer an option. He cannot remarry.
1
1Yesusmen
Guest
Peter and most of the apostles were called both to marriage and priesthood.
39 popes were called to both priesthood and marriage.
100 formerly protestant ministers have been called to both priesthood and marriage.
For 1200 years after Christ, thousands of priests and bishops were called to marriage and priesthood to the extent that many priests were children of priests.
The call to marriage is certainly compatible with priesthood in the Latin/ Roman rite of the Catholic Church.
39 popes were called to both priesthood and marriage.
100 formerly protestant ministers have been called to both priesthood and marriage.
For 1200 years after Christ, thousands of priests and bishops were called to marriage and priesthood to the extent that many priests were children of priests.
The call to marriage is certainly compatible with priesthood in the Latin/ Roman rite of the Catholic Church.
A
AcolyteLector
Guest
Pointless trivia.
You’re not grappling with the issues behind clerical celibacy in the Latin Rite, you’re naming exceptional cases without reference to or explanation of the exception that made them possible.
I really expect to see the same text bytes repeated for another two dozen pages, at the rate we’re going!
B
Biedrik
Guest
I’ve been watching this debate for a bit, and I have had a question come to mind. I’ve never seen it come up in a debate about celibacy. Simply, would repealing mandatory celibacy make for better priests? I always see people argue about whether it would be feasible, whether it would give an increase in vocations, or some other such stuff. But I rarely see many consider if it would actually provide better holier priests. So…what does the pro-optional celibacy side have to say?
1
1Yesusmen
Guest
That sounds wonderful! Let’s hope so!!!
1
1Yesusmen
Guest
Having both a married and celibate priesthood would take advantage of the many varied gifts people have and allow these gifts to enrich the church. In his Theology of the Body reflections July 7, 1983, Pope John Paul II acknowledges this:
The gift received by persons who live in marriage is different from the one received by persons who live in virginity and choose continence for the sake of the kingdom of God. All the same, it is a true gift from God, one’s own gift, intended for concrete persons. It is specific, that is, suited to their vocation in life. We can therefore say that the Apostle stresses also the action of grace in every person—in one who lives in marriage no less than in one that willingly chooses continence.
In contrast to those who see divine love and human love as separate and in conflict with one another, Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen reflects that human love is divine: “[A couple’s] commitment to one another is so complete that it transcends the limits of time and extends into eternity. Even when a spouse dies, their communion continues (Hunthausen 1982, 234). In his first exhortation as pope, Deus Caritas Est (God is Love), Pope Benedict XVI affirms that love between a couple “joins body and soul inseparably”:
Let us first of all bring to mind the vast semantic range of the word “love”: we speak of love of country, love of one’s profession, love between friends, love of work, love between parents and children, love between family members, love of neighbour and love of God. Amid this multiplicity of meanings, however, one in particular stands out: love between man and woman, where body and soul are inseparably joined and human beings glimpse an apparently irresistible promise of happiness.
Kathleen and Thomas Hart observe that sexuality is not just one of God’s greatest gifts but also “one of the places where God gives self” (Hart 1983, 90-1 ).
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I guess you’d have to look at Protestant denominations and Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox. All have married clergy. Are their seminaries being flooded by married men? There might be an initial influx of new seminarians in the Roman Rite if mandatory celibacy is lifted, but in the long term I do not see it as being a huge difference to the number of vocations. Being a priest is a demanding vocation, and admittedly the pay is not that good. Some married men may not be willing to sacrifice finances of their family.
1
1Yesusmen
Guest
Bishop Wilton Gregory, like other members of the hierarchy, has argued that a married priesthood will not help the priest shortage since Protestant churches, which do allow clergy to marry, are also short of clergy. But in fact research has found “a growing shortage of Catholic priests but an increasing supply—some analysts say an oversupply—of clergy in most Protestant denominations” (Davidson 2003 America magazine “Fewer and Fewer”). Similarly, research by Richard Schoenherr found that “the current clergy shortage is a distinct Catholic crisis” (Schoernherr 1993, 6). Other arguments are that seminary numbers are declining because couples are having fewer children, parents aren’t encouraging children to become priests, and there is a crisis in faith. But even if family size did make a difference, there is no shortage of young men, given exponential population growth. If parents are no longer encouraging their children to become priests, then an important question is why. Blaming the shortage of priests on a crisis in faith makes little sense if we consider that deacon and lay vocations are flourishing.
Cozzens asks us to consider what would happen if institutions limited applications to medical school, law school, or government leadership positions to celibates only; “wouldn’t it severely constrain the quality and quantity of candidates?” (Cozzens 2009).
A
AcolyteLector
Guest
Actually,–responding to your assertion that we’ve had married priests longer than celibate priests–this is manifestly untrue. Who is the High Priest, again? And was he married?
Which is not to say that our holy priests should automatically adopt the lifestyle and example of Jesus, our Lord, as a normative standard for their priesthood.
Only that there have been celibate priests in the Christian tradition longer than married priests.In my view, the biggest mistake that people have made in this discussion is to confuse the practice of ‘the Church as a whole’ with the practice of ‘a Rite within the Church’. We’re not discussing whether the Church should discard mandatory celibacy, we’re talking about whether the Latin Rite should discard mandatory celibacy.
Currently, there are two separate traditions at work: a fully celibate Latin Rite hierarchy (including a few exceptions, all of which have very specific justification in every case), and a mixed celibate and married presbyterate in the Eastern Churches–with the upper officers of the Church exclusively celibate and predominantly monastic. In fact, the para-diocesan bodies–such as monasteries, &c.–are exclusively celibate. So the figure of the married priest and seminarian of the Eastern Church stand alone as the only examples of married clergy in the entire Church.
[That is, outside of the permanent diaconate, within the clergy; and the Third Orders–both of which we will exclude from the present post, as this invites confusion and lack of specificity.]
I have never seen a ‘Devil’s Advocate’ attempt to impose mandatory celibacy on the Eastern Churches, so I think it would be amusing if someone argued that this should happen, drawing on examples of Latin Rite celibacy and the precedents of celibate priesthood. I imagine there would be similar outrage to that caused by all of these people who want to use all of these anachronisms as precedents for optional celibacy.
A
AcolyteLector
Guest
The Devil’s Advocate might say…: With the overwhelming emphasis on clerical celibacy, why don’t we simply impose the discipline of celibacy on the seminarians of the Eastern Churches? Let’s sweep aside the unreformed practice of ordaining married priests–this is clearly a vestige of ancient, pre-Christian elements. After all, it was the celibate Latin Rite clergy (and religious orders with celibate clerks, friars, and brothers–the ordained members of which were celibate) who found the strength within themselves to ‘make safe the World for Christ’. The great works, cathedrals, missions, and evangelisation were accomplished by celibate clergy and religious. The celibate Latin Rite clergy represents the most refined priesthood in the Christian world–the half-married, half-celibate priesthood of the Eastern Churches was simply a way to preserve a familiarly ‘Eastern Orthodox’ customs (read: disciplines and standards), until the time when the Church can fully bring them around to the heights achieved by the Latin Rite.
Still the Devil’s Advocate: Look at most Eastern Rite parishes in America. What’s the Mass schedule like there?–one Sunday a month, but bake sales every Friday (‘Who doesn’t like BAKLAVA!?’). When there is a service, it resembles a social club for old people. Even the parish hall reflects the incompleteness of this church as a place for Christian worship: pastoral scenes of some pretty valley in the Caucuses or somewhere like that–this is less a parish, and more a way for emigres to hang on to communal memories and a collective past that was wrenched from them by some generic ‘People’s Labour Front’.
No social justice works in this parish; no patristics classes; only the bake sale and the delicious Baklava–when there is a convert, its usually some half-fallen-away Catholic or Agnostic who wants Christianity, but a Christianity exotic enough to make it exciting. As bad as Roman Catholics practice has deteriorated, the Eastern Churches have it worse. The parishioners of such a parish would consider themselves lucky if their children and grandchildren had married a nice Italian,/Irish/Latino/Filipino/Ivorian/&c-American. and carried on their faith in a Roman Catholic parish, under ‘a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom’.
Even the diocesan priest carries the spiritual liability of parochialism and ‘grounded particularism’ that afflicts the pater familias–harkening back to its feudal origins as benefice, the pastor’s relationship with his parish represents yet another degree between men and Christ. The natural evolution between the diocesan priest, bound to his parish and diocese, is unsurprisingly the religious priest who may minister anywhere in the world that his superior sends him–and is bound only by the form of his charism.
[/end Devil’s Advocate monologue]
This movement to end mandatory celibacy is such a textbook case of people reacting irrationally to policy change. It is crystal clear that the entry of married Protestant ministers into our faith as priests was only a special exception, with good reasons to justify this procedural anomaly. But no one pays any care to the reasons behind it, they just co-opt the figure of married ex-Protestant priests who are now on our side of the Tiber and add it to their argument. And, of course, all of the dummies who don’t know Adam from Eve take this at face value.
You want to talk about Protestant infiltration!–not that its their fault, it just gives ammunition to Catholic reactionaries who oppose well-intentioned ecumenical endeavors like the pastoral provisions. Sheesh.
Still the Devil’s Advocate: Look at most Eastern Rite parishes in America. What’s the Mass schedule like there?–one Sunday a month, but bake sales every Friday (‘Who doesn’t like BAKLAVA!?’). When there is a service, it resembles a social club for old people. Even the parish hall reflects the incompleteness of this church as a place for Christian worship: pastoral scenes of some pretty valley in the Caucuses or somewhere like that–this is less a parish, and more a way for emigres to hang on to communal memories and a collective past that was wrenched from them by some generic ‘People’s Labour Front’.
No social justice works in this parish; no patristics classes; only the bake sale and the delicious Baklava–when there is a convert, its usually some half-fallen-away Catholic or Agnostic who wants Christianity, but a Christianity exotic enough to make it exciting. As bad as Roman Catholics practice has deteriorated, the Eastern Churches have it worse. The parishioners of such a parish would consider themselves lucky if their children and grandchildren had married a nice Italian,/Irish/Latino/Filipino/Ivorian/&c-American. and carried on their faith in a Roman Catholic parish, under ‘a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom’.
The Devil’s Advocate continues… : The fact of the matter is this–the married person and the figure of Jesus Christ are two different birds. Look at the aim of the father, the virtues of the father: he takes care of his children, especially materially. When the Ancient Israelites beseeched God the Father for something, it was usually material sustenance or protection. The father of the family guides and protects his family–if he must, with a heavy hand. He provides for his family–if he must, at the expense of others. With Fatherhood as one’s aim, all other virtues are yoked to the work of providing for ones progeny and partner. It is a zero sum game, which requires him to work for ‘his own’, at the exclusion of others. It breeds tribalism, particularism. This is what is at the heart of the family, inclusion by exclusion.
It is something achievable, that can be virtuous–but the virtues are different from that of Jesus Christ’s figure in the Gospels. Jesus Christ and the Christian tradition re-center this framework of the family on the entire world: no man is rejected or left on the wayside–Samaritan or no, leper or no. Familial love is transfered–ideally–to all. It is inclusion without exclusion. One’s ‘own’ is the world and its poor. Dissipation of one’s resources can easily come about, by attempting to care for one’s ‘own’–hence, why the Church’s best servants are poor themselves. The celibate priest is the only state of life that allows one to truly follow Jesus’ normative standard. The system currently followed by the Eastern Churches is only one of ‘hierarchical inertia’, that is only saved from feudal corruption by the celibacy of its bishops–at the very best, the married priests can only aspire to the ideal of Christian manhood. It preserves the territories of the Eastern Churches from utter heresy and schism, for the time when they will be able to have a priesthood which, like the rest of the Church, demands celibacy for its priests. The pater familias and presbyter are two existentially distinct categories, the experience of the world by one is necessarily unreachable by the other–the one works for the benefit of his family, the other for the salvation of souls throughout the world.Even the diocesan priest carries the spiritual liability of parochialism and ‘grounded particularism’ that afflicts the pater familias–harkening back to its feudal origins as benefice, the pastor’s relationship with his parish represents yet another degree between men and Christ. The natural evolution between the diocesan priest, bound to his parish and diocese, is unsurprisingly the religious priest who may minister anywhere in the world that his superior sends him–and is bound only by the form of his charism.
[/end Devil’s Advocate monologue]
This movement to end mandatory celibacy is such a textbook case of people reacting irrationally to policy change. It is crystal clear that the entry of married Protestant ministers into our faith as priests was only a special exception, with good reasons to justify this procedural anomaly. But no one pays any care to the reasons behind it, they just co-opt the figure of married ex-Protestant priests who are now on our side of the Tiber and add it to their argument. And, of course, all of the dummies who don’t know Adam from Eve take this at face value.
You want to talk about Protestant infiltration!–not that its their fault, it just gives ammunition to Catholic reactionaries who oppose well-intentioned ecumenical endeavors like the pastoral provisions. Sheesh.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
The Eastern Churches have always had both married secular priest and celibate priests, so neither has been longer than the other.
Both have been around for the whole time of the Church.
- Status