J
JReducation
Guest
This may help. It makes reference to other documents too.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_train_en.html
- Status
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_train_en.html
M
mercer87
Guest
That document looks to be the root of the “priest is married to the Church” stuff that’s floating around.This may help. It makes reference to other documents too.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_train_en.html
“The ecclesiological significance, also derived from the Christological one, operates on a twofold practical level, that is to say, education in human love and supernatural love in the practical form of self-giving. On the one hand, the priest, in relation to Christ, is as it were an expression of the ecclesial community; he represents his bride the Church in faithfulness to the unique bridegroom, a faithfulness that the priest lives in virginity and in the absolute gift of himself. But, as regards the ecclesial community, the priest is also the ikon of Christ the bridegroom, being totally given to serving and loving the brethren. Such ‘freedom’ in loving makes him particularly suitable for exercising his priestly ministry with all the demands it makes, for he can devote all his human and emotional energies to it: hearing and preaching the word of God, dedication to prayer and the celebration of the sacraments. At the same time, celibacy lived in the integration of his affectivity makes him more free, open-hearted, available, universal, to serve the brethren with fresh and lively energy, frequently repaid by the love of the community and, should he be called, to express the greater love of the gift of his own life, as may be required by the supreme demands of the imitation of Christ, for the sake of the Church.” So instead of your wife, you’re married to your parishioners?
I will say that there is something to this, as my girlfirend and I are practicing celibacy until we are married, and it strengthens our bond because we are building the foundation of our relationship on things outside of sexuality. This is not to say we aren’t sexually attracted to each other, because we are. And I am not saying that celibacy should not be valued and cherished as a virtue of sacrifice and devotion. But to make it a requirement for ordination for lifelong Catholics but not for converting Protestants reeks of inconsistency at best. Is this truly what the Spirit calls for, or is it the stubborness and the hardness of the hearts of men that demands this discipline?
I thank you for your responses as I try to work through this. It has troubled me for years and it still weighs on me.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Just a note of clarification here.
You and your girlfriend are practicing chastity. That is you are refraining from sex out side of marriage. You are living chastity according to your state in life, that state is being single.
Celibacy means that one does not marry.
Many confuse these.
M
mercer87
Guest
Thanks for the clarification. The more you know…
The more you know…
H
Hesychios
Guest
No danger of that.
By example, Holy Orthodoxy has a very strong tradition of celibate clergy, but it is an option. We honor and cherish our celibate clergy.
Also, we regard monasticism as an important component of a healthy vibrant church.
These traditions may be endangered by secularism, materialism, international politics and wars… but they are not endangered just because they are considered a freely chosen option.
M
Madaglan
Guest
I think it would be great if, down the road, married men in the Latin Church could be ordained priests. I know it already happens on a limited basis with married Protestant clergy who enter the Latin Church.
Unfortunately, the situation is such that mandatory clerical celibacy is used as a banner by many Catholics against more liberal Catholics who advocate priests being allowed to marry, women priests, etc. If the discipline on mandatory clerical celibacy were to change, after the Vatican continually has asserted it, the change would be perceived by many Catholics as a capitulation, and there likely would result greater momentum towards changing other positions as well. “We got them to change their position on mandatory clerical celibacy. If we can do this, we can get them to change on a male-only priesthood.” And so on.
Unfortunately, the situation is such that mandatory clerical celibacy is used as a banner by many Catholics against more liberal Catholics who advocate priests being allowed to marry, women priests, etc. If the discipline on mandatory clerical celibacy were to change, after the Vatican continually has asserted it, the change would be perceived by many Catholics as a capitulation, and there likely would result greater momentum towards changing other positions as well. “We got them to change their position on mandatory clerical celibacy. If we can do this, we can get them to change on a male-only priesthood.” And so on.
M
mercer87
Guest
That I think is one of the greater problems. The conservative and liberal Catholics are fighting their political battles, and young men get caught in the crossfire because each side is so bent on claiming victory over the other. Neither side seems to want to discuss the issue itself (with some exceptions) and instead wants to draw up more and more outlandish scenarios (the priesthood will be destroyed from within, there will be no clergy problems anymore, etc.)
I would not say that changing the discipline of celibacy would be the same as changing the doctrine (defined as such by Pope John Paul) of ordaining women to the priesthood. The Holy Father stated quite clearly that the authority to ordain women was not granted to them by Christ, and I accept it. However, the teaching on celibacy has been much more vague and hazy. Celibacy is a discipline demanded by humans, not Christ. Christ asked us to value celibacy, but He did not command it as a condition to follow Him in his priesthood. As we see, Eastern Catholics allow married men to enter the priesthood, while still valuing and cherishing celibacy as a great virtue, as do the Orthodox. I think it would be arrogant to say the least if we assert that married Eastern Catholic and Orthodox priests do not truly follow Christ in his priesthood because they share their faith and talents with their wives and children.
O
otjm
Guest
I, too, like mercer87 struggled with this issue; but I struggled with it in 1964 while in the seminary.This may help. It makes reference to other documents too.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_train_en.html
My impression then, and now, it that the theological justification that has appeared in various documents in the Roman rite are just that - justification, as opposed to explanation. Left out is any discussion of the fact that the Church for 2000 years has had both a married and a celibate clergy. It (the documentation) leaves one with the distinct feeling that Rome sees no way to impose mandatory celibacy on all rites, but would do so if they could (the documentation is notably lacking in any consideration that the Roman rite is not the only rite of the Church, and that the language used flies in the face of reality leaving one to consider that somehow, the Eastern rite traditions are somehow failing to meet the bar).
While I agree that the call comes from the Church, it helps to remember that the actual call comes from the Holy Spirit, but there is no guarantee the Church will respond.
It seems that the whole justification for celibacy only is that it started a long time ago in response to specific issues, and it continued for a long time, and somewhere along the line, rather than taking a total look at the issue - including the Eastern practice - what we had was a hardening up of attitudes with a complimentary justification for those attitudes.
I originally thought that there was an issue bordering on some old heresies, that sex was somehow dirty and those who were celibate were above such borderline sinfulness. What has struck me since, is the wonder if a goodly portion of this is fear based - fear, that if they (the celibate clergy and in particular those who justify or promote such justification) may actually be fearful of looking inward, and realizing that they are living lives of one charism - priesthood - while living lives without the other charism - celibacy. The two are completely distinct charisms and one can have one without the other.
And as an observation, I watched any number of priests leave the priesthood subsequent to Vatican 2 and get married.
As to the issue of sacrifice, I have personally talked with priests who feel that married people make far more sacrifices than they (the priests) do.
I do not wish to in any way denigrate celibacy as a charism that can be a tremendous witness. But I think that if the Church truly wants to lift up celibacy as a charism, that it needs to do so clearly and distinctly and I disagree that making priesthood celibate only does so. Those who have the charism should rejoice in it. And those who don’t should not be required to pretend they do.
For all the questions that are posed about a priest getting a divorce, how about the unasked question - the witness to marriage that a married priest can give?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
While I agree with this it is still a fact that we can not know whether or not that we have a Call without the Church’s response.
Yes, the Church is filled by fallible men and some will miss calling some and will call some without a call, but again, how can we know that a Call is present without the Church doing the actual Calling?
O
otjm
Guest
Considering who the Church has ordained in the last 60 or so years, I am not sure if I want to wade in on that question. I agree that you are not going to be ordained if the Church does not call you. But I seriously doubt that the Holy
Spirit is going to be restrained by a disciplinary rule; the net effect is that the disciplinary rule may well be getting in the way of the work of the Spirit.
The short of it is that because of the disciplinary rule, we do not have to answer the question because the Church has simply said it will not be answered. Not that it does not have an answer, just that it will not be answered.
And perhaps the inverse of it is evidence enough; it would be a joke to say that all who are called by the Church to be ordained have the charism of celibacy. Some have it, some don’t but live their lives in celibacy; some don’t have it and don’t live their lives in celibacy - and I am speaking of those priests who have left the priesthood to be married. And among those I include my brother.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I have to disagree with you here. Why would the Holy Spirit place a Call on someone who He knows will not be able to answer the Call becuase it goes against the discipline of the Church.
Not only does the Holy Spirit work by Calling individuals, He also works though the Church.
You can not place the power upon the Holy Spirit in one area while totally divorcing the power from Him in another.
And this may be the movement of the Holy Spirit.
I chose to trust the Holy Spirit and the Church. You can not separate them.
O
otjm
Guest
Let me try it from another direction: the Holy Spirit may well call and individual; but I do not presume that the individual has both the charism of priesthood and the charism of celibacy. The two are separate, distinct, and one does not require the other. So a partial answer may be that individual are being called, and have been called by the Church to be ordained who did not have the charism of celibacy.
As an aside, it is my understanding ( and I may stand corrected) that the call we are referring to is made at the point that the individual is ready for orders (or at the point of being a transitional deacon). The point becomes moot (and I don’t think there is a conflict between the Holy Spirit’s call and the Church’s) as those who are already married will never get into seminary to start the process towards ordination. Why would the Holy Spirit call someon He knows cannot answer? I don’t have a phone line…
; however, the Spirit moves where the Spirit will; our time is not God’s time, and it may well be that the calling of men already married is what will prompt the Church to reivew the issue in a different light. I might not hold my breath…I agree. And I do not totally divorce Him from other areas. I see an inequity - it is perfectly fine to have married priests if they are in one of the “Eastern rites” (said with a tone of disdain, as they are obvioulsy not quite as good as the Roman rite), because, well, after all, they never did really measure up, did they? I mean, after all, their theology is far more mystical oriented and way too little on solid, rational… you get the drift. Oh, and it is perfectly ok to ordain married men who were not Catholic - one of our Protestant brethern - but why, for the life of me it is ok for them but not for Catholics I cannot understand. Nope, maybe I am blind, or stubborn, or just not “getting it”, but I have met too many Catholics, either married or wishing to be married, who also have felt a call to the priesthood. And that call - not the official one by the Church - is what starts the process. However, it is stopped at the seminary door if you just happen to be inconveniently Catholic from birth.
I do not choose to separate them; I just find what is going on to be lacking in equity and appearing to lack in justice, something the Church preaches. Perhaps its practice could use some work.
D
Dr_Mark_Sayers
Guest
First - as to one of Br David’s observations:
I understood Aquinas’ methodology to be that philosophy illuminates what reason, without aid of revelation, can identify as either possible or at least not impossible. Accordingly, rules of logic place some limits on natural or philosophical theology (hence his answer to the dilemma of God’s omniscience about future actions and the possibility of our freely willing future actions is to limit God’s knowledge in that regard).
Aquinas’s methodology Similarly, one risks lapsing into a circular and invalid argument when saying that the Holy Spirit would not confer a call to vocation on someone that the current discipline of the Church could not suffer to ordain. If that were the case then the Holy Spirit’s inspiration of the faithful would not permit any variance from current discipline - yet the original phenomenon of the mendicant orders challenged contemporary disciplines of poverty and cenobitic life within the Church. (Indeed, so at odds was their vision from the contemporary discipline that they faced years of adversity and censure - albeit more so early Franciscan fratelli than the Dominicans). Does it follow that St Francis and St Dominic were not prompted by the Holy Spirit some 800 years ago?
This proposition is not in conflict with the agreed proposition: the Holy Spirit and the Church are one and cannot be separated. This is because Francis and Dominic were faithful sons of the church even if with a different vision from the then curia of the church.
Second, as to one of ojtm’s observations:
Some time back I posted a reference to my memory from a reading many years ago of a 12th century episcopal council in either Spain or France which issued anathema against parish clergy who did not marry lest their celibacy be construed as support for Manichaeist/Catharist heresies of the day. A married parish clergy (as distinct from regular clergy in the religious orders) was a way of identifying the orthodox from the celibate Catharist. I have yet to track down the particulars of that council and do not see any response from other contributors.
On the assumption my memory serves correct, what lesson does that council offer us today? Ironically for those who advocate a married clergy, it may mean that in a Western culture so infused with sexual reference that celibacy is a hallmark of priesthood.
I understood Aquinas’ methodology to be that philosophy illuminates what reason, without aid of revelation, can identify as either possible or at least not impossible. Accordingly, rules of logic place some limits on natural or philosophical theology (hence his answer to the dilemma of God’s omniscience about future actions and the possibility of our freely willing future actions is to limit God’s knowledge in that regard).
Aquinas’s methodology Similarly, one risks lapsing into a circular and invalid argument when saying that the Holy Spirit would not confer a call to vocation on someone that the current discipline of the Church could not suffer to ordain. If that were the case then the Holy Spirit’s inspiration of the faithful would not permit any variance from current discipline - yet the original phenomenon of the mendicant orders challenged contemporary disciplines of poverty and cenobitic life within the Church. (Indeed, so at odds was their vision from the contemporary discipline that they faced years of adversity and censure - albeit more so early Franciscan fratelli than the Dominicans). Does it follow that St Francis and St Dominic were not prompted by the Holy Spirit some 800 years ago?
This proposition is not in conflict with the agreed proposition: the Holy Spirit and the Church are one and cannot be separated. This is because Francis and Dominic were faithful sons of the church even if with a different vision from the then curia of the church.
Second, as to one of ojtm’s observations:
Some time back I posted a reference to my memory from a reading many years ago of a 12th century episcopal council in either Spain or France which issued anathema against parish clergy who did not marry lest their celibacy be construed as support for Manichaeist/Catharist heresies of the day. A married parish clergy (as distinct from regular clergy in the religious orders) was a way of identifying the orthodox from the celibate Catharist. I have yet to track down the particulars of that council and do not see any response from other contributors.
On the assumption my memory serves correct, what lesson does that council offer us today? Ironically for those who advocate a married clergy, it may mean that in a Western culture so infused with sexual reference that celibacy is a hallmark of priesthood.
O
otjm
Guest
I was going to comment about your last sentance, but decided I would prefer to remain a member in good standing. Let’s try this: celibacy can be a veil to some.
And to the parish priest who gives witness through his marriage to the sanctity of life, and the freedom to love that NFP gives, we have a witness to those who prefer designer children and don’t “get it” about the issue of abortion.
D
Dr_Mark_Sayers
Guest
I apologise if I have caused offence. I would be mortified to learn that I have caused any personal distress.
I was not advocating a position nor attempting any cheap polemical point. I was simply making an observation about a logical possibility that may arise from that particular council if one looks to the intention behind its decree as opposed to the face value or form of words used by it. I think the form of words used by that council has to be addressed by those completely against the idea of a married parish clergy and, for the sake of intellectual honesty, I have to acknowledge a potential challenge to my own views that may arguably arise when considering the intention behind that decree.
I do not disagree with you re: the witness that a married parish clergy could give as a role model for married life. This is so if only because one of the complaints one often hears to the effect of how would a celibate priest know about the challenges of married life.
On that point: perhaps my life is a poor example but if I correctly understand one of your earlier observations from your brother from his time in active parish ministry as a priest, then - Yes: I agree that married life can involve far more sacrifices than that of the priest. In fact, I would argue that married life, as a matter of necessity, must involve greater sacrifices and would draw on some canticles of St John of the Cross regarding Christ’s sacrifice for his spouse as paradigmatic of married life. However, I do note that in my experience, I am now far less emotionally exhausted and work far less hours as a private person then I ever did as a priest in active ministry. I fear that, at least in the parishes where I served, the community can prove a very demanding “bride”.
Accordingly, even if discipline changed and/or retrospective changes permitted a priest such as myself (now married) to return to active ministry, I would have to think twice before doing so: there may be fewer parishioners to serve across more parishes under the care of one priest (at least in the region where I live) but the atmosphere and demands of those few parishioners seem far more intense.
I was not advocating a position nor attempting any cheap polemical point. I was simply making an observation about a logical possibility that may arise from that particular council if one looks to the intention behind its decree as opposed to the face value or form of words used by it. I think the form of words used by that council has to be addressed by those completely against the idea of a married parish clergy and, for the sake of intellectual honesty, I have to acknowledge a potential challenge to my own views that may arguably arise when considering the intention behind that decree.
I do not disagree with you re: the witness that a married parish clergy could give as a role model for married life. This is so if only because one of the complaints one often hears to the effect of how would a celibate priest know about the challenges of married life.
On that point: perhaps my life is a poor example but if I correctly understand one of your earlier observations from your brother from his time in active parish ministry as a priest, then - Yes: I agree that married life can involve far more sacrifices than that of the priest. In fact, I would argue that married life, as a matter of necessity, must involve greater sacrifices and would draw on some canticles of St John of the Cross regarding Christ’s sacrifice for his spouse as paradigmatic of married life. However, I do note that in my experience, I am now far less emotionally exhausted and work far less hours as a private person then I ever did as a priest in active ministry. I fear that, at least in the parishes where I served, the community can prove a very demanding “bride”.
Accordingly, even if discipline changed and/or retrospective changes permitted a priest such as myself (now married) to return to active ministry, I would have to think twice before doing so: there may be fewer parishioners to serve across more parishes under the care of one priest (at least in the region where I live) but the atmosphere and demands of those few parishioners seem far more intense.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I will post further on your reply later after I have read it and digested it a bit but this caught my eye.
There is no equity at all in vocation. No one has a right to be ordained or accepted into vowed religious life. Therefore there is really no issues of justice there either.
Now the treatment of those in formation may have justice issues and there may be a justice issue when a bishop or religious superior uses personal reasons for not calling, but maybe not, the Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways.
M
mercer87
Guest
I don’t think that anyone is deluding themselves by saying a priest’s labor is not emotionally and physically exhausting. I know it is a very demanding job. A priest must balance the spiritual and temporal needs of the parish, comfort and help repentant sinners, provide a proper celebration of the sacraments, help the sick, and even watch people die. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. I think there are some who need someone they unequivocally trust to gently guide them when they suffer doubts or a lack of confidence or a lapse in judgement. Not all, but some. I don’t believe that people who are celibate can’t be happy or effective. That’d be nonsense. But does the call to the priesthood really entail a call to celibacy?
M
mercer87
Guest
I agree that nobody has a right to ordination. However, I think the justice issue he’s referring to is that certain groups of married people are granted at least an opportunity to be judged and ordained, while Latin Rite Catholics by birth are stopped before they start. It reeks of insincerity and faithlessness to the discipline the Church uses to turn at least hundreds of men away from the seminary door without any consideration or discernment.
The Holy Spirit does work in mysterious ways, and I doubt He makes broad sweeping “black or white” restrictions that would get in His own way should He call certain men to the priesthood.
J
JReducation
Guest
As I read the argument for the ordination of married men to the priesthood in the Latin Church and the complaint of the injustice because married converts have been admitted to Holy Orders, there is one thing that comes to my mind. I think that we have to remember that the number of married converts that have been admitted to Holy Orders is small and this is an indult, not the rule. Not every married minister who converts and has applied for Holy Orders has been accepted. More have been turned down than accepted. This has been done on a case by case bais. The rule still stands. If you want to be a secular priest in the Latin Church, you must be single or widowed. Obviously this question does not apply to those who request admission to religious life. Even in Secular Orders such as Carmelites, Dominicans, and Franciscans, any secular member of these orders who wishes to be a priest, must be single or widowed.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
Dr_Mark_Sayers
Guest
Re the use of ‘equity’ type language in this converstation.
If it is correct that it impermissible or useless to even discuss the issue of optional celibacy in the priesthood, then how do we reconcile that prohibition with the phenomenon of many people saying that they subjectively experience a call to priesthood? Especially if some of the people who say they have that experience are people who currently cannot be ordained, eg women/married men.
Is it a blunt fact that such people are thrown into a world where that subjective sense of calling to priesthood is a cross they have to bear? Or is it that it is a source of energy for them to be active in other ministries?
We could parse the experience of those people by saying that a subjective sense of calling is only part of the equation of a vocation because, as is quite clear in both the ritual and theology of ordination/consecration, it is the church which calls forth the candidate and stamps, as an action of the Holy Spirit, the mark of vocation. However, is that sufficiently compassionate or sensitive to their situation as it risks being patronising and effectively telling them that they are mistaken?
We could also parse the experience of those people by saying that perhaps their experience is a stirring of the Holy Spirit to expand our horizons/disciplines but this risks descending into a polemic against the hierarchy of the church. Also, it may be unseemly of us to diminish the pain of those who feel held out from ministry by facts beyond their control (eg gender) by saying that they are simply being “used” as a way of pushing the current envelope of the definition of candidacy for ordination.
I am minded of some religious orders that impose maximum age limits on those who seek to join them, eg. being under the age of 45. I acknowledge the practicalities and some of the policy objectives behind the age limitation - but how do we, as the church, respond to a widower of 50 years of age and his sense of being called to religious life? It risks feeling that an arbitrary, disciplinary limitation is imposed on the generosity of a man who might have another 30-40 years of service in him. A limitation that is imposed both to the loss of the community he may have served and to the individual. Is this the sense in which ‘equity’ is used? If so, I understand it and do not think it is a Trojan horse for equal opportunity or proportional representation in the priesthood.
Perhaps the key issues to address are these:
If it is correct that it impermissible or useless to even discuss the issue of optional celibacy in the priesthood, then how do we reconcile that prohibition with the phenomenon of many people saying that they subjectively experience a call to priesthood? Especially if some of the people who say they have that experience are people who currently cannot be ordained, eg women/married men.
Is it a blunt fact that such people are thrown into a world where that subjective sense of calling to priesthood is a cross they have to bear? Or is it that it is a source of energy for them to be active in other ministries?
We could parse the experience of those people by saying that a subjective sense of calling is only part of the equation of a vocation because, as is quite clear in both the ritual and theology of ordination/consecration, it is the church which calls forth the candidate and stamps, as an action of the Holy Spirit, the mark of vocation. However, is that sufficiently compassionate or sensitive to their situation as it risks being patronising and effectively telling them that they are mistaken?
We could also parse the experience of those people by saying that perhaps their experience is a stirring of the Holy Spirit to expand our horizons/disciplines but this risks descending into a polemic against the hierarchy of the church. Also, it may be unseemly of us to diminish the pain of those who feel held out from ministry by facts beyond their control (eg gender) by saying that they are simply being “used” as a way of pushing the current envelope of the definition of candidacy for ordination.
I am minded of some religious orders that impose maximum age limits on those who seek to join them, eg. being under the age of 45. I acknowledge the practicalities and some of the policy objectives behind the age limitation - but how do we, as the church, respond to a widower of 50 years of age and his sense of being called to religious life? It risks feeling that an arbitrary, disciplinary limitation is imposed on the generosity of a man who might have another 30-40 years of service in him. A limitation that is imposed both to the loss of the community he may have served and to the individual. Is this the sense in which ‘equity’ is used? If so, I understand it and do not think it is a Trojan horse for equal opportunity or proportional representation in the priesthood.
Perhaps the key issues to address are these:
- Assuming there are no mental health or personality issues involved and a person experiences a subjective sense of calling to priesthood (assuming it to be a work of the Holy Spirit) - then how can the church avail itself of that generosity and discern whether a true vocation exists and call forth into action that desire to serve in circumstances where, whether due to age/martial status/gender, the current discipline does not permit ordination.
- If the church does not want to even want call forth that vocation and nurture it into action (becuase it opts not to change its discipline and trusts that this decision to not change the discipline is a work of the Holy Spirit), then what responsibility or obligation -if any- does it have to pastorally care for a person who faces that dilemma?
- Status