Optional Celibacy in the Priesthood

[otjm]

I did not claim that celibacy contributed to the number of priests in Poland. All I stated was that a country with celibacy got plenty of priests.

And I did not say you did; however, the implication appears there.

In the end, the point is that one cannot justify changing that discipline because “it causes us to have less priests.” There are way too many factors, and we have seen time and time again where plenty of men were willing to join the priesthood, even when it did require celibacy. I think a priest who used to be in my parish had a good observation about the vocation crisis. He said “The real reason for why we have few priests now is not because of celibacy, the scandals, or any of the other usual suspects. It’s simply because we have too few devout and well catechized Catholics.”

I don’t believe anywhere that I have suggested that celibacy causes us to have less priests. It has been interesting to see the response there has been to the diaconate, and the very large number of married men who have been ordained. I have tilted at the issue of a call to priesthood with others; I still maintain that there are married men who feel they are called to the priesthood, and see that married men are being ordained, but only if they were converting Protestant ministers, and question why a Protestant minister, married, can be ordained, but not a faithful cradle Catholic married man. If one has not walked in those shoes, one should not presume to understand their size and feel. The Church has had married clergy for 2000 years; and the Roman Church has them now.

 

[Biedrik]

And I did not say you did; however, the implication appears there. I don’t believe anywhere that I have suggested that celibacy causes us to have less priests. It has been interesting to see the response there has been to the diaconate, and the very large number of married men who have been ordained. I have tilted at the issue of a call to priesthood with others; I still maintain that there are married men who feel they are called to the priesthood, and see that married men are being ordained, but only if they were converting Protestant ministers, and question why a Protestant minister, married, can be ordained, but not a faithful cradle Catholic married man. If one has not walked in those shoes, one should not presume to understand their size and feel. The Church has had married clergy for 2000 years; and the Roman Church has them now.

I think Brother JR has frequently made a point that is very important when talking about vocations. God does not call people to go where they cannot. He would not call men who would not be able to join the priesthood. If a married man in the Latin Church thinks he is called to the priesthood, then he is wrong not by any fault of his own, but because God is good and kind enough to not demand the impossible of him.

 

[otjm]

I think Brother JR has frequently made a point that is very important when talking about vocations. God does not call people to go where they cannot. He would not call men who would not be able to join the priesthood. If a married man in the Latin Church thinks he is called to the priesthood, then he is wrong not by any fault of his own, but because God is good and kind enough to not demand the impossible of him.

I have had my rounds with Bro. JR over this point. He and I disagree to some extent.

Let me preface a question: the call to the priesthood is made by the Church; we speak of individuals being called by God, and the individual has to discern the call and respond; and then after they have done this, the Church (through the bishop) has to discern also, and ultimately call (or not call).

Having said that, let me propose the following: Joe Cleancutkid Goes to Mass, prays hard, loves his wife and children, and really feels a longing, deep in his heart, that he should be a priest.

Right now we can agree the Church is not going to ordain Joe.

2 years from now, after much prayer and contemplation, and after a study of the diaconate, Benedict 16 tells the appropriate dicastery to determine what would need to be done to allow married Catholic men to be ordained, on a limited, experimental basis not to exceed three years worth of candidates.

The dicastery works on the issue, and 9 moths later delivers a proposal to the Pope.

After 6 months more of prayer, study and contemplation, Pope Benedict announces that on a very limited basis, over the next three years married men will be allowed to start the process of studying for the priesthood. All of this has been kept very quiet, although several rumors were floated and quickly quashed by the dicastery during that three year, three month period.

Joe continues to pray hard, love his wife and kids, and continues to feel the same longing.

Fast forward one year, and Joe is finishing his first year of study in Theology.

So: according to Bro. JR (and a couple of others), God could not have been calling Joe during that 3 year, 3 month period.

So where did Joe get this feeling? Oh, it was just emotions? And where did they come from?

And at the end of the three year, three month period, Joe’s feelings didn’t change; but now it is God calling, and not his emotions?

I can agree that if it is an impossibility (e.g. a woman feeling called -as some profess to feel) that the call is not from God.

However, Joe’s ordination is not an impossibility, as Eastern Catholic married men are being ordained and have been since the founding of the Church; and currently, Protestant married pastors who convert may be ordained. It is a legal improbability, but not a moral impossibility. Woman’s ordination is a moral impossibility.

It is not impossible for the Church to ordain a married man to the Roman rite; they are doing it now. It is an improbability, and a strong one at that. It is highly improbable that the Church is going to change any time soon. It is in no way impossible, as they are doing it now.

And men who have this longing in their heart are being ordained to the diaconate. I am not suggesting that all want to be priests, or even necessarily that many do. But we would be fools to say that none of them do. And I for one, with all due respect to Bro. JR, disagree that it is chalked off to just emotions, or the work of the devil. That borders a little too closely to deus ex machina or something akin to that, for my liking.

 

[Biedrik]

I have had my rounds with Bro. JR over this point. He and I disagree to some extent.

Let me preface a question: the call to the priesthood is made by the Church; we speak of individuals being called by God, and the individual has to discern the call and respond; and then after they have done this, the Church (through the bishop) has to discern also, and ultimately call (or not call).

Having said that, let me propose the following: Joe Cleancutkid Goes to Mass, prays hard, loves his wife and children, and really feels a longing, deep in his heart, that he should be a priest.

Right now we can agree the Church is not going to ordain Joe.

2 years from now, after much prayer and contemplation, and after a study of the diaconate, Benedict 16 tells the appropriate dicastery to determine what would need to be done to allow married Catholic men to be ordained, on a limited, experimental basis not to exceed three years worth of candidates.

The dicastery works on the issue, and 9 moths later delivers a proposal to the Pope.

After 6 months more of prayer, study and contemplation, Pope Benedict announces that on a very limited basis, over the next three years married men will be allowed to start the process of studying for the priesthood. All of this has been kept very quiet, although several rumors were floated and quickly quashed by the dicastery during that three year, three month period.

Joe continues to pray hard, love his wife and kids, and continues to feel the same longing.

Fast forward one year, and Joe is finishing his first year of study in Theology.

So: according to Bro. JR (and a couple of others), God could not have been calling Joe during that 3 year, 3 month period.

So where did Joe get this feeling? Oh, it was just emotions? And where did they come from?

And at the end of the three year, three month period, Joe’s feelings didn’t change; but now it is God calling, and not his emotions?

I can agree that if it is an impossibility (e.g. a woman feeling called -as some profess to feel) that the call is not from God.

However, Joe’s ordination is not an impossibility, as Eastern Catholic married men are being ordained and have been since the founding of the Church; and currently, Protestant married pastors who convert may be ordained. It is a legal improbability, but not a moral impossibility. Woman’s ordination is a moral impossibility.

It is not impossible for the Church to ordain a married man to the Roman rite; they are doing it now. It is an improbability, and a strong one at that. It is highly improbable that the Church is going to change any time soon. It is in no way impossible, as they are doing it now.

And men who have this longing in their heart are being ordained to the diaconate. I am not suggesting that all want to be priests, or even necessarily that many do. But we would be fools to say that none of them do. And I for one, with all due respect to Bro. JR, disagree that it is chalked off to just emotions, or the work of the devil. That borders a little too closely to deus ex machina or something akin to that, for my liking.

I see an easy answer to your hypothetical situation. Simply, God knew that the Pope would make this change, and moved Joe to think about it in advance, so as to prepare him. In the end, it makes absolutely no sense for God to be so cruel as to call somebody to where they could not go. He will not call me to be a nun, nor will he call a woman to be a monk. All such a useless call would do is cause distress to whoever feels it. It makes absolutely no sense for it to happen.

 

[otjm]

I see an easy answer to your hypothetical situation. Simply, God knew that the Pope would make this change, and moved Joe to think about it in advance, so as to prepare him. In the end, it makes absolutely no sense for God to be so cruel as to call somebody to where they could not go. He will not call me to be a nun, nor will he call a woman to be a monk. All such a useless call would do is cause distress to whoever feels it. It makes absolutely no sense for it to happen.

You are right; he will not call you to be what is impossible. However, a married priest in the Roman Church is not impossible, as they are ordaining them now. Just not cradle Catholics, and for them it is improbable, to the extreme, but not impossible.

And since when have you decided what “makes absolutely no sense"to God”? I have been around long enough to figure out that what makes no sense to me on more than one occasion, makes sense to God. A little more life experience, and you might figure that one out too. The same goes for cruelty. Your interpretation may be that it is cruelty; God may well have a purpose that will never be known to you.

Easy answers to complex questions are in the same category as simple answers to complex questions: they fail to address the issue adequately.

 

[1Yesusmen]

Groups that do not mandate celibacy are also having a shortage so your argument does not work.

****See americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3311
There is no shortage of priests in denominations that do not require celibacy. A cross-denominational research study published in America magazine concludes “the Catholic Church is unique [among religions] in several areas: the dwindling supply of priests, the increasing number of lay people per priest, the declining number of priests per parish, [and] the increasing number of priestless parishes” (Davidson 2003). While celibacy rules constrain the number of priests, they are not necessary. In a July 18, 1993 New York Times article, “Pope Seeks to Clarify Reasons for Celibacy” Pope John Paul II said that celibacy “does not belong to the essence of priesthood.”

125,000 left only to marry? Not for any other reason?

****Marriage was the most commonly cited reason for leaving.

Anyways, once a man is ordained he can not marry, Holy Orders is an impediment to marriage. This is dogma and can never change. The discipline in the Latin Church is only ordaining celibate men instead of including married men.

****Most of the apostles were married and we do not know if they married before or after their calls to ministry- had it been important, it would have been stated. Celibacy is a discipline, a man-made law, not a doctrine or dogma by any means.

 

[Cara_Serrano]

Hmmm. Given that the Church has had married clergy from the Apostles to today, it sounds more like you simply have never had the experience of a married clergy. I am not going to argue your point, but I find it strange that a married priest could in any way tempt you to “water down” your faith. A married priest certainly is not “watering down” his spiritual life.

Oh, and by the way - “follow his own sacrament” - there is absolutely nothing - nada - zip - whatsoever about priesthood that makes either marriage or celibacy “intrinsic” to it. While celibacy is considered a “higher” calling, it most definitely is not intrinsic to priesthood in any way, shape or form. What is intrinsic to priesthood is that the individual must be male. Whether he is married when ordained, or celibate, he “follows his own sacrament” by confecting the sacraments he is responsible for, leading his flock and bringing people to Christ.

And to pre-judge someone as to whether or not they are a good spiritual leader based on whether or not they are celibate of married is to misconstrue what makes for a spiritual leader. In the all too many years I have known priests, I have known too many celibate priests who did not make for good spiritual leaders - and at least one of them made for an extremely bad one. Celibacy is no guarantee.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. That helped clear up some points. I know there’s nothing in the Church that makes marriage or celibacy intrinsic to the sacrament. I was saying that celibacy seemed intrinsic to the life of Christ.

As for whether a married priest must water down his spiritual life, I think the jury is still out on that point. The time a priest devotes to family responsibilities and problems is time not spent on prayer and parish work. It does cause problems for Protestant pastors who are trying to do both jobs well, so I assume married Catholic priests would also struggle with these issues.

As far as prejudging, I do not judge him; I judged myself for my weakness. Given the choice, I will continue to chose a spiritual leader who most closely imitates Christ. For me, this would be a priest who has chosen to live celibately as Christ did. No judgement on anyone else.

 

[Cara_Serrano]

Hmmm. Given that the Church has had married clergy from the Apostles to today, it sounds more like you simply have never had the experience of a married clergy. I am not going to argue your point, but I find it strange that a married priest could in any way tempt you to “water down” your faith. A married priest certainly is not “watering down” his spiritual life.

Oh, and by the way - “follow his own sacrament” - there is absolutely nothing - nada - zip - whatsoever about priesthood that makes either marriage or celibacy “intrinsic” to it. While celibacy is considered a “higher” calling, it most definitely is not intrinsic to priesthood in any way, shape or form. What is intrinsic to priesthood is that the individual must be male. Whether he is married when ordained, or celibate, he “follows his own sacrament” by confecting the sacraments he is responsible for, leading his flock and bringing people to Christ.

And to pre-judge someone as to whether or not they are a good spiritual leader based on whether or not they are celibate of married is to misconstrue what makes for a spiritual leader. In the all too many years I have known priests, I have known too many celibate priests who did not make for good spiritual leaders - and at least one of them made for an extremely bad one. Celibacy is no guarantee.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. That helped clear up some points. I know there’s nothing in the Church that makes marriage or celibacy intrinsic to the sacrament. I was saying that celibacy seemed intrinsic to the life of Christ.

As for whether a married priest must water down his spiritual life, I think the jury is still out on that point. The time a priest devotes to family responsibilities and problems is time not spent on prayer and parish work. It does cause problems for Protestant pastors who are trying to do both jobs well, so I assume married Catholic priests would also struggle with these issues.

As far as prejudging, I do not judge him; I judged myself for my weakness. Given the choice, I will continue to chose a spiritual leader who most closely imitates Christ. For me, this would be a priest who has chosen to live celibately as Christ did. No judgement on anyone else.

 

[otjm]

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. That helped clear up some points. I know there’s nothing in the Church that makes marriage or celibacy intrinsic to the sacrament. I was saying that celibacy seemed intrinsic to the life of Christ.

I understand your comment; I simply disagree with it. If you are speaking with the physical life of Christ, then yes, since He was celibate, I would have to agree. But I think that is singling one issue of His life; he also had no home, was itinerant, relied on others for food and shelter, and managed to get Himself crucified.

Most priests are not and do not.

To me, what is intrinsic to the life of Christ is a life of prayer, a life of seeking union with the Father, a life of selflessness and self giving, a life seeking perfection spiritually, and is required of all of us, whether married or single, ordained or not.

As for whether a married priest must water down his spiritual life, I think the jury is still out on that point. The time a priest devotes to family responsibilities and problems is time not spent on prayer and parish work. It does cause problems for Protestant pastors who are trying to do both jobs well, so I assume married Catholic priests would also struggle with these issues.{/QUOTE]You have a very romantic notion of priesthood. Further, if done correctly, the time spent on family responsibilities and problems is a time of self sacrifice and giving, a form of prayer, and is focused as opposed to a rather diffused life that has no direct responsibilities. And, I seriously doubt the jury is still out; the Church has 2000 years of experience of married priests; it is not like this is something new. Most Roman Catholics are not even aware of the Eastern Churches, and if aware, have extremely limited experience of them.

And the same can be said of the life of deacons; the time they spend with their families is time they do not spend at a parish; and to further that, many have full time jobs as well as families. But to avoid a deacon because he is married is to miss the point.

And none of this accounts for those priests who have what are euphemistically called “jobs” - those with full time ministries to the poor, to the sick, those who are professors, and others who actually do something besides parish work. So this idea that the perfect priest is sitting in his parish office 24/7 is to a great extent fiction.
Cara Serrano;7299747:

As far as prejudging, I do not judge him; I judged myself for my weakness. Given the choice, I will continue to chose a spiritual leader who most closely imitates Christ. For me, this would be a priest who has chosen to live celibately as Christ did. No judgement on anyone else.

And, as noted, if you have not had the opportunity to even meet, let alone work with a married priest, then you are prejudging an issue.

I speak from the experience of getting to know the married priest we had (former Presbyterian minister, who died this summer) in our archdiocese. Had I the chance, I would have taken him for my pastor and spiritual director in a new York minute over some of the celibate priests I have known over the years. Not because he was married; but because he was so Christ-like.

I am not trying to berate you; I am trying to get you to think, and to see that you are pre-judging a situation you have not experienced.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Cara,
Just a point of clarification.

As for whether a married priest must water down his spiritual life, I think the jury is still out on that point. The time a priest devotes to family responsibilities and problems is time not spent on prayer and parish work. It does cause problems for Protestant pastors who are trying to do both jobs well, so I assume married Catholic priests would also struggle with these issues.

After reading this I get the idea that you believe a parish priest is either praying or doing parish work. Is that true?

A priest working in a parish, whether religious or secular, would have free time where they are neither praying nor doing parish work.

 

[JReducation]

Good grief! Why is this question so important to people who are not clergy? This sounds more like a battle on one side, to get what it wants. “I want to be married and be a Roman Catholic priest,” vs the other side who wants to preserve the tradition of mandatory celibacy.

In the end, the Church does not make laws on matters that are this serious based on the opinions from the laity. She makes these judgments based on reflection and guided by Tradition. The Tradition of the Roman Church is that men who are born into the Roman Church must be celibate to be ordained Roman Catholic priests. The ordination of married men in the Roman Church is the exception, not the rule.

This position is not going to change because the man in the pew lobbies for it. It takes a lot more than that to change things like this. I’m of the belief that those who think about this point too much will eventually become frustrated, because they are powerless to change the rule. Why set yourself up for frustration? Rome has spoken. There are so many other much more important issues in the world that the laity should be addressing. The March for Life is coming up in less than two-months. Let’s get 29 million Catholic Americans out there. That’s a bigger issue than celibacy and one that is in the proper domain of the laity. There are several other issues that have to be addressed.

The kindest suggestion that I can give to those who ask this question is, “Let it go.” St. Teresa prayed to accept the things that she could not change. All of us should do the same. The moderator should just close this subject. People get angry and say unkind things in a debate about something that is not going to change.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[otjm]

Good grief!

there are, I am sure, a multitude of reasons.

Some people see ministers converting and being ordained, and wonder why. Why, that is, if it is good enough for the Church to have ordained married priests, why is it limited to someone who started off not Catholic?

Some see an inherent dishonesty about the matter, since many, if not most of the married priests are relegated to positions other than as a pastor; as if the laity needed protection. Others see the process dishonest in itself.

Others see a need in the church, and while ordaining married men would not “cure” the crisis, they are intelligent enough to see that one more priest is one more priest than we had before.

Others see the see the massive influx of married men into the diaconate, and ask why some of them cannot be ordained priests.

And still others perceive that celibacy demanded is not the same as celibacy offered; and they are aware that celibacy is not intrinsic to the priesthood, and say “Why…”.

Why is this question so important to people who are not clergy? This sounds more like a battle on one side, to get what it wants. “I want to be married and be a Roman Catholic priest,” vs the other side who wants to preserve the tradition of mandatory celibacy.

Spoken like someone who has been removed far too long from the laity, and removed any longer from the issue. “to get what one wants” is a truly amazing put down of those men who seek to serve the Church. I am amazed that someone with a PhD in psychology could be that calloused and and dismissive.

In the end, the Church does not make laws on matters that are this serious based on the opinions from the laity.

Let’s see: hmmm. oh well, so much for Theresa of Avila.

She makes these judgments based on reflection and guided by Tradition.

This isn’t about Tradition. It is about tradition, and the tradition in the Roman Church is of two traditions, actually. One tradition, for about 1000 years, had both a married and a celibate clergy, and one tradition, of about 1000 years, had only a celibate clergy. However, that latter tradition has been broken, as it now again has a married and a celibate clergy, and there are bound to be more ordinations of married men as more ministers from the Anglican/Episcopalian faith come over.

The Tradition of the Roman Church is that men who are born into the Roman Church must be celibate to be ordained Roman Catholic priests. The ordination of married men in the Roman Church is the exception, not the rule.

Other than the fact that it is not Tradition, but rather tradition, we all have that part figured out.

This position is not going to change because the man in the pew lobbies for it. It takes a lot more than that to change things like this.

Maybe yes, maybe no. The ultimate decision will come from Rome. we may be sheep, but we are not dumb sheep; and for my two cents worth, it was the laity - and non=Catholics - who finally got some (not all; there are still some in the Curia who don’t get it) to start dealing honestly with sexual abuse. It took the laity to tell the clericalists (as in, those steeped in clericalism) that, no, you folks in the seats of decision are not going to handle this the way you have been handling this. The bishops and the Cardinals “knew better”. Sorry, but I am not buying into the "laity are sheep equals “dumb as,”.

I am well aware of the fact that the abuse issue is not the same as the issue of married clergy. I am not angry about the issue of celibacy only; nor am I frustrated. I see the deacons; I see their service. I see the inconsistency of ordaining some but not others. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to ordain convert ministers. It is a choice. And just as it is a choice, so is the choice to ordain married Catholic men.

Fifty years ago this was less of an issue than it is today, if for no other reason than that the Church is ordaining married men and they weren’t then. There is a clear movement in a direction away from an absolute mandatory rule of celibacy; that should be obvious to any observer. The question is, will it move further? It is the laity who will be the ones impacted, not those who are professed religious. Your opinion is certainly welcome, but it is not you who will be impacted. And that is why it is a valid discussion for the laity.

 

[AcolyteLector]

there are, I am sure, a multitude of reasons.

Some people see ministers converting and being ordained, and wonder why.

They’d sure better get on Wikipedia, Google, or CAF and find out why, huh.

Why, … why is it limited to someone who started off not Catholic?

Some see an inherent dishonesty … needed protection.

Cite evidence, or its anecdotal, hyperbolic, libelous malarkey.

Others see the process dishonest in itself.

Others … before.

Correction: we need good priests. Wise, holy, good priests. If they were well-suited to these aims in their original ministry, they will likely be in the Latin Rite, as well. If not better.

Others see the see the massive influx of married men into the diaconate,

Uh, … where? The diaconate is not exactly the most treasured of posts in the Church. It is usually a strain on the, in general, older and retired men who undertake to become permanent deacons. You don’t find men everywhere who have the emotional and financial stability needed for this office.

and ask why some of them cannot be ordained priests.

As I understand it: different office, different sacerdotal powers, different vocation.

Spoken … Theresa.

Pretty sure its about ‘rite’… at least in the sense that you mean it.

One tradition, …

we may be sheep, but we are not dumb sheep; and for my two cents worth, it was the laity - and non=Catholics -

… Sorry, but I am not buying into the "laity are sheep equals “dumb as,”.

So you consider the problem of sexual abuse by some individual ministers in the church to be tantamount to the ‘problem’ of the discipline of celibacy? Which other disciplines do you consider problematic, so that the ‘old, feeble-minded clerics’ occupying curial posts can strike them out by popular consensus?

Or let’s just go ahead and abrogate every discipline imposed by the Church on Her ministers, … and for every particular discipline we give them an apple fritter?

I am well aware of the fact that the abuse issue is not the same as the issue of married clergy.

Good that you’ve noticed–now I’m sure you’ll be kind enough to explain why you mention them in the same breath … :

I am not angry about the issue of celibacy only; nor am I frustrated. I see the deacons; I …
is a choice, so is the choice to ordain married Catholic men.

**… or not.

In any case, with all this ‘seeing’ and ‘noticing’ you’ve been doing, you haven’t apparently ‘seen’ that the diaconate is a separate office than the presbyterate, with separate powers and responsibilities. Accompanying this are different disciplines.

Will you soon decide, after having us abrogate the simple promises offered to his bishop by the secular cleric, that the vows constraining the regular clergy are far too austere?**

Fifty years ago this was less of an issue than it is today, if for no other reason than that the Church is ordaining married men and they weren’t then.

To clarify: it ordained married men back then, just as it does now. Back in the 50s-60s (in America, at least), laymen generally weren’t presumptuous enough to dictate the truth and good policy to the Church. Funny to think, I know. They also weren’t especially well-informed about the so-called sui juris Churches that parallel our own Latin Rite.

Growing up, I always assumed that the Eparchal see of a certain sui juris Church–which I am fortunate to say is in my home city–was simply another Orthodox branch, despite the term ‘Catholic’ suffixed to its title. You probably would, too. In fact, during the period when many of the Eastern European heartlands of the sui juris Churches were experiencing pronounced turmoil, and the Curial and intra/inter-Church authorities were making policies to provide for the possible tension that might arise between Eastern Catholics and Latin Rite Catholics in the US, their chief concern was confused Latin Rite Catholics: people like you. People who wouldn’t understand or be able to accept that different Churches within our Church followed different Rites and disciplines.

The English/Anglican Ordinate is not a whole 'nother animal. It follows a long pattern of the Holy See’s willingness to provide ecumenical relations and even total inclusion into the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ.

There is a clear movement in a direction away from an absolute mandatory rule of celibacy; that should be obvious to any observer.

So long as he is an ‘uninformed observer’.

The question is, will it move further?

Didn’t move in the first place, as far as I’m aware.

It is the laity who will be the ones impacted, not those who are professed religious.

** Well, actually, no. The laity, as the religious, will be those who are only ‘impacted’ tangentially. There is no evidence if** and/or how this will ‘impact’ the laity. Its all speculation so far as you’re concerned. If there is anyone who is impacted, it will be the clergy, most importantly the secular clergy and parish priests of the Latin Rite.

Brother J is not simply speaking as a religious. He’s speaking as a doctor of theology, an intelligent and sensitive man… as far as I can tell reading his treatise-like discussions on the Church on CAF… who has spent an unbelievably long time studying things central and peripheral to this subject.

Your opinion is certainly welcome, but it is not you who will be impacted. And that is why it is a valid discussion for the laity.

 

[AcolyteLector]

there are, I am sure, a multitude of reasons.

laity.

A priest in my parish is a widower and ex-USAF officer. He’s an excellent Father and an excellent father (apparently). This model would be much better suited than relaxing the discipline of clerical celibacy. If we were able to attract older, wiser types who perhaps had a vocation, this might ‘solve’ the deficit in ‘clerical manpower’.

Its only a question of awareness. Write to your bishop and tell him what I said, and maybe he’ll start an awareness campaign. Since you have so many damn opinions, I take it you’re pretty well-involved in your local parish in various ministries, so he should have no problem accepting your advice. Right?

 

[RaymondJensen]

I didn’t read all twenty pages. in fact i got less then half way done the first one.

My opinion (sorry if it’s long),

People (certain men rather) are called to priesthood, but here in the states there’s so much distraction by society that it’s hard to hear the call or to obey it. Maybe they just don’t believe or want to believe in the catholic faith. Maybe they have a life plan set up that includes a big prominent job or working towards a goal they think they can’t work towards as a priest. I personally am suffering from this “interference” that it’s hard for me to know whether I’m to be a secular priest or join a religious order, help autistic people or what I used to think I had to do, marry and have kids. Although it’s true that if priests could marry after ordination there might be more priests (and might be cause some people would probably leave the church saying it’s corrupted by society) then it still doesn’t address the real problem. It would be like drinking milk and honey to sooth a soar throat; the throat remains soar afterwords. What the best way to prevent the church from losing it’s priests is if there’s more parishioners i.e. if there’s more Catholics. Then some of the parishioners that wouldn’t be there before might decide to become priests.

 

[AcolyteLector]

It is apparent that there is a severe world-wide shortage of priests. Over 50,000 operating parishes in the world have no priest and no regular access to sacraments (Georgetown University, Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate 2009). While the number of Catholics in the world doubled between 1970 and 2006, growing from 653 million to 1.131 billion, the number of priests stayed about the same (Vatican Statistical Yearbook 2006). The gap between numbers of laity and priests has never been wider than it is today, though the mission of the Church has perhaps never been more needed. Globally, national leaders speak of a third world war, reports of terrorism and genocide fill the nightly news; hunger, critical illnesses, homelessness, and poverty abound.

Mandating celibacy contributes to the priest shortage in at least three ways: i) it deters candidates from the priesthood, ii) it means that priests who marry are dismissed from active ministry, (125,000 priests have left to marry in the last 50 years (Sipe 2008, p545) and iii) it contributes to a problematic clerical culture that is not conducive to retaining priests.

The KIngdom has begun here now (not just in the future) and optional celibacy is necessary for the sake of it now.

You may not know this, but there are provisions in the 1983 code of Canon Law for the preference of secular Latin Rite clergy, over Eastern Catholic clerics, in certain cases. I’m neither a canonist nor a theologian, but the article in the Canon Law journal in which I read this, presented this issue as a ‘problem’ of clerical inequality. One justification for this was that the Latin Rite clergy had accepted the discipline of celibacy.

This adds a certain ‘elite-ness’. The Latin Rite secular clergyman is the only type of parish priest–who, by and large, based on the constraints of the position, demands that the ascetic life of the early Christians is brought into the suburban world of the American parish. It ensures a basic standard of sacrifice: so that the men who we revere as ‘Father So-and-so’ is, at the very least, a man who has made an important sacrifice to earn this respect. Just look at the bloated ministers of the heretics in their megachurches–they live an un-apostolic existence, but still claim a right the Gospel’s truth and force. He is a ‘Father’ to us, because he has no children of his own.

Furthermore–since your approach to this ‘problem’ is obviously very worldly–there are worldly reasons for maintaining the discipline of celibacy. There are the ever-valid economic reasons for keeping the priesthood the way it is: Thomas Reese S.J.'s tome, ‘Archbishop’, reaffirms the findings of several studies that the Roman Catholic style of clerical organization is the most cost-effective in America. During the period that this study was conducted, there was a cost-per-cleric gap that ran into the tens of thousands between Catholic secular clergy and the next-least-expensive denomination (the Lutherans, if memory serves).

We do not want to add more mouths to the parish payroll, when the role of the priest is already–many say–lacking the centrality that it has traditionally held. There is an abundance of auxiliary ministers in many parishes, but only the priest and his kin will be supported by parish funds. People will begin to ask about this, too–why is the priest even necessary, the parishioners will ask?

There are also the further… how shall we say… existential properties of celibacy–two interesting explications of which can be found in Nietzsche’s ‘Genealogy of Morals’, as well as Pope Benedict XVI’s interview with Peter Seewald while he was head of the CDF. The gist was that priests who accept the discipline of celibacy act as guarantors to the ideas and worldview that they affirm at the pulpit: they transfer all value that can supposedly be attained with posterity, by becoming personally ‘eternal’ by securing one’s bloodline, into the Kingdom of Heaven by a moral priesthood.

The problem of ‘priest-to-laity’ discrepancies is difficult to quantify. The ministry of a priest will always be under strain for more time. This is one of the first documented periods in the Church where there is a ‘problem’ with the low entry-rate at seminaries: historically, it has been the exact opposite. Some bouts of anti-clericalism–in Spain during the 19th century, for instance–have been attributed to a Catholicism over-saturated in clerics. We don’t know how far the moral crisis of the 1960s-1970s is to blame for this current problem, which–I should mention–been gradually resolving itself. We don’t know how this ‘problem’ will impact Catholic practice. Ultimately, if we add thousands of new priests to our clergy–what good would this do, if they are not men who would give everything–even the ‘immortality’ that is contained in progeny–to be a Second Christ?

The suggestion that the Kingdom has begun now and that we ‘need’ optional celibacy for the sake of it is wrong and heretical to the best of my understanding.

 

[JReducation]

there are, I am sure, a multitude of reasons.

Some people see ministers converting and being ordained, and wonder why. Why, that is, if it is good enough for the Church to have ordained married priests, why is it limited to someone who started off not Catholic?

This has been explained by the Vatican. Anyone can pick up the documents or read them on the Vatican website.

Some see an inherent dishonesty about the matter, since many, if not most of the married priests are relegated to positions other than as a pastor; as if the laity needed protection. Others see the process dishonest in itself.

I have never heard anyone call it dishonest. It is inaccurate the married clergy are not pastors. However, it is true that the few married priests that we have require a better salary than what they can earn as pastors. Therefore, they usually hold positions that pay such salaries.

Others see a need in the church, and while ordaining married men would not “cure” the crisis, they are intelligent enough to see that one more priest is one more priest than we had before.

It is dangerous to ordain priests just to increase the numbers. The Church did this after the discovery of the Americas to supplement the secular clergy and almost destroyed three religious orders in the process. The Franciscans ended up with a surplus of priests and the Dominicans and Jesuits ended up running parishes. All three were out of compliance with the vision of their founders. As a result, after Pefectae Caritatis demanded that they return to their roots, those priests did not want to leave those parishes. They had to be ordered to do so. They became disenchanted and left both the priesthood and the religious life. Others were asked to leave, by their superiors, because they had lost their identity as Franciscans, Dominicans or Jesuits. They had become parish priests.

We also had an explosion of men ordained as secular priests, after WW II. These men later got into a lot of trouble. We want more priests. We do not want to ordain based on need, but on calling. Christ only calls through the Church.

Others see the see the massive influx of married men into the diaconate, and ask why some of them cannot be ordained priests.

The call to the order of deacon is a distinct vocation. This is the same thing that was done to many religious communities when people believed that religious men should be “more” and ordained them to the priesthood. It was a disaster. They made very unhappy priests. Many left and others ended up being suspended. In my own Fanciscan family we have granted hundreds of dispensations from the priesthood to friars who said that they never wanted to be priests. They wanted to follow in the footsteps of St. Francis. They believed that you had to be a priest to be a Franciscan. Later, they saw other friars with doctorates in theology, running parishes, running missions, serving in the streets, as religious, but not ordained. They realized that this was the life they wanted. We don’t want to do this to our deacons.

And still others perceive that celibacy demanded is not the same as celibacy offered; and they are aware that celibacy is not intrinsic to the priesthood, and say “Why…”.

It is freely offered. No one is forced to become a priest.

Spoken like someone who has been removed far too long from the laity, and removed any longer from the issue.

That only applies if one believes that religious men are disconnected from the world. Have you ever buried an aborted child? I have done it many times.

“to get what one wants” is a truly amazing put down of those men who seek to serve the Church. I am amazed that someone with a PhD in psychology could be that calloused and and dismissive.

It’s not meant that way. It’s meant to remind us, me included, that we cannot have everything that we want. That’s not how the Church works.

Let’s see: hmmm. oh well, so much for Theresa of Avila. This isn’t about Tradition.

But it is. It has always been Tradition that the sacraments are governed, administered and administrated by the hierarchy. Governance comes with the power of orders, especially the order of bishop and the Office of Peter. If the bishops, in communion with the pope, declare that Christ only calls celibate men to the priesthood in the Roman Church, then that’s the way it is. Christ does not usurp Peter’s authority. That’s Sacred Tradition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[notredame_999]

I cannot believe the disrespect OTJM is getting for his views. The fact is mandatory clerical celibacy is not a dogma, not matter how much some of you people want it to be. I would even go a step further and say that any catholic who believes mandatory clerical celibacy is a dogma is a heretic, because they are discounting the validity of the ordination of converted protestant ministers and also discounting the validity of our eastern catholic brothers and sisters who have been in communion with Rome since the crusades (like the maronites).

John Paul II even said celibacy is not intrinsic to the priesthood. Historically St. Patrick of Ireland was the grandson of a priest and the son of a deacon. Now maybe these men were continent after ordination, maybe the were not, but St. Patrick’s lineage proves that a married priesthood did exist at some point in the west.

OTJM, the eastern catholic churches, and even the orthodox churches believe in the married priesthood- but they also believe in the beauty of celibacy. This should be pointed out. Reading some of these responses you would think OTJM was making a full out assault on celibacy…that is not true.

 

[AcolyteLector]

I cannot believe the disrespect OTJM is getting for his views. The fact is mandatory clerical celibacy is not a dogma, not matter how much some of you people want it to be. I would even go a step further and say that any catholic who believes mandatory clerical celibacy is a dogma is a heretic, because they are discounting the validity of the ordination of converted protestant ministers and also discounting the validity of our eastern catholic brothers and sisters who have been in communion with Rome since the crusades (like the maronites).

John Paul II even said celibacy is not intrinsic to the priesthood. Historically St. Patrick of Ireland was the grandson of a priest and the son of a deacon. Now maybe these men were continent after ordination, maybe the were not, but St. Patrick’s lineage proves that a married priesthood did exist at some point in the west.

OTJM, the eastern catholic churches, and even the orthodox churches believe in the married priesthood- but they also believe in the beauty of celibacy. This should be pointed out. Reading some of these responses you would think OTJM was making a full out assault on celibacy…that is not true.

I found so many objectionable things in OTJM’s single statement, that for the first time in my time at CAF, I ran over the character-limit writing a reply to someone.

No one here is saying that clerical celibacy is a dogma, as you (probably) can read for yourself. If you think that being concerned about an important part of our tradition is ‘heretical’, it sounds to me like you’re a ‘cafeteria traditionalist’–keep only the parts that suit you, eh?

 

[notredame_999]

I found so many objectionable things in OTJM’s single statement, that for the first time in my time at CAF, I ran over the character-limit writing a reply to someone.

No one here is saying that clerical celibacy is a dogma, as you (probably) can read for yourself. If you think that being concerned about an important part of our tradition is ‘heretical’, it sounds to me like you’re a ‘cafeteria traditionalist’–keep only the parts that suit you, eh?

The pope could change mandatory clerical celibacy if he wanted to. Anyone who claims that he can’t is a heretic- because they are implying that there are no exceptions to the rule. As we know with the eastern catholic churches there have been exceptions to the rule going all the way back to the crusades. That is what I was saying.