Optional Celibacy in the Priesthood

[otjm]

Not to put words in OP’s mouth (or ‘Reply box’, as the case may be), I think that he was making a statement only about Latin Rite Catholics interested in the priesthood but attempting to evade the celibacy discipline by agitating for ‘optional celibacy’.

I’m all for remembering the descendants of Byzantine/Eastern Catholics and their holy priests, but I’m not sure it should be invoked at the drop of a hat or because some Latin Rite’er can’t deal with the celibacy requirement…

Contrary to a rather bizzare opinion, no one is trying to evade anything. You might try to actually read some of the posts herein, since it would appear you have not.

 

[otjm]

This just is not a good comparison or parallel. A deacon is never in the position to act in persono Christi. The Sacraments where the priest needs to do this are needed at times in danger of death. It would be very tough for a parish to swallow for the priest to not be able to attend to these end of life duties due to their duties concerning their vows of marriage - which when one ways the weight of a vow over the weight of a solemn promise. It is an impossible position for a mere mortal to find himself in.

Actually, it is an extremely good parallel, because the issue is not about acting in persona Christi; it is about the fact that we have married ordained men joining the ranks of deacon by the thousands, not working in a parish 24/7, and the parishes being able to adjust to that fact. A point you seem to have missed.

I would think that most posters herein are aware of what a priest does and what a deacon does; I kinda figured that out about 50 years or so ago.

And your issue about a priest, being married, and not being able to assist someone with the Sacrament of the Sick because he is married simply fascinates me - doctors certainly used to be able to deal with crisis issues when needed; so did attorneys. If they, who do not act in persona Christi, can come to the aid of someone in dire straights, then it is a cute little red herring that a married priest could not do so.

And lets be honest; how many of those call are there per year? 2? 5? I seriously doubt there are a lot more. Most often, the Sacrament of the Sick is administered during the day or evening, not during the “midnight hours”.

 

[otjm]

I was merely stating that being forced to tediously point out the modal relationships of what we’re discussing… ex: that the Pope can change the discipline of celibacy, but this fact in itself says almost nothing meaningful about whether he should… is depressing.

If you find it depressing, I am sure there is a counselor available who can assist you with the issue, and there are some pretty good meds out there which can help. No one has forced you anywhere; you joined in this thread on your own accord. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, and as a seminarian incipient, the issue of celibacy is an important one. I would never counsel anyone considering the priesthood to presume, hope or wish that celibacy will be lifted as a requirement. I don’t think that if it were to be lifted, that there would be much likelihood it would be done in my lifetime (and if I were to gauge that time by my existing parent, that would translated into 40+ more years). The fact that I think it will not be lifted any time soon does not mean there is no legitimate discussion of the issue, or that it may not be lifted some time in the future. I would also assume that the Church, if it did choose to lift the rule to allow married Catholic men to be ordained, would also adhere to the 2000 year practice of not allowing unmarried priests to marry.

Its depressing because we’re obviously talking around each other, if 20+ pages into the discussion one of the original posters returns to the discussion to inform us that what we’re talking about is ‘possible’. Uh-duhhhh

Long threads tend to run that way. If that is an issue, you should avoid them for your mental health.

Its not that I can’t ‘take it’, this tediousness–far from it–but I hate to think that we’re just blasting each others positions with harangues about the ‘Byzantine dead’ and not saying anything of appreciable value as a response.

“blasting” and “harangues”… Hmmm. I don’t think it has quite reached that stage; perhaps the tediousness and the resulting depression is coloring it that way.

Now, I hope to say something that might clarify why I disagree with your assertion that ‘they have changed the standards for Latin Rite celibacy in our clergy’.

1. I begin by assuming that you’re referring to the English Ordinariate and the clergy that have come over to us from the Anglican/Episcopalian churches.

I am not. That is but one part; first, they ordained Anglican/Episcopal ministers - well, they were sort of like us but not exactly. Then they ordained Lutherans; well, they were a bity like us and a bit like the Anglican/Episcopal group, but not exactly. Then Methodists; well, they were sort of an off-shoot of the Anglican/Episcopal group but not exactly, then they ordained a Presbyterian; and he was sort of like the Methodists, but not exactly. And by the way, he was an awesome, fantastic priest (he died this last summer).

The English Ordinariate will certainly have the potential to bring in more (I saw in Our Sunday Visitor a note that 5 bishops have indicated they are crossing the Tiber - praise God!) but there is nothing I have heard of that has indicated that Rome intends to limit any future ordinations of married Protestant clergy to only that group. They certainly have not done so to date.

but I think that the reasons for the establishment of the English Ordinariate and the transfer of clergy are mainly an ecumenical issue. You, on the other hand, seem to consider this strictly a personnel issue.

Some of it is clearly related to an ecumenical issue. Not all of it appears so; ministers who have come over and been ordained have not all brought their congregations along. The Ordinariate obviously makes room for that as an issue but it has not been the deciding issue in others.

So, the establishment of these procedures to transfer clergy might be the answer to the question of ‘How do we bring these extra-ecclesial (but still in almost complete agreement with our Church) clerics into our Church, when they inquire about transferring?’ rather than ‘How do we connivingly rustle up extra clerics, at whatever any cost besides compromising our corrupt ‘Men’s Club on the Tiber’?’

Considering that a significant portion of those previously ordained were not part of the Ordinariate issue, do you think you might want to tone that down a bit? Or should I just write it off to youthful enthusiasm?

1. If you treat this question in its ecumenical form, you will understand that there is a very limited exception being made in the Church’s preference for clerical celibacy. This is an accommodation being made for a very small number of ministers. Nowhere, in our entire Church in the entire world, is a section of our Church being swamped, en masse, by married clergy… except in its traditional form in the Eastern Rites.

Well, thank you for that erudite analysis of the Eastern Churches. Swamped, eh?

3.1. Therefore, you must recognize that swelling the ranks of our clergy and adjusting the Church’s policies on celibacy are both secondary… even tertiary concerns in this issue.

Swelling the ranks. My oh my, such erudition. Particularly when “increasing” might have done the job without the snide overtone.

 

[otjm]

3.2. It doesn’t take Goedel’s mind to see that this so-called ‘precedent’ for waiving the discipline of celibacy is not in fact a precedent, at all.

Oh, The I am sure you will tell me why it is not a precedent; particularly in light of the fact that I am not speaking about the Ordinariate in particular.

It is like having a great dam set up, and then altering the dam by a few inches in order to allow a half-dry pool to release some of its water, as well. Then, arguing that the entire dam should be demolished because there was a precedent in doing so. Its summer and dry, and we need water in the summer, right? So do we demolish the dam or install a pump to help us get enough water to last until its no longer dry…

Ah, finally, we get to the point. Allowing married Catholic men to be ordained would be “demolishing” the rule of celibacy; that is one step away with “doing away with celibacy”, which seems to be the response one gets when one tries to have an intellectual discussion of the issue, and the illogical extreme is thrown back as a response. If the rule that men must be celibate to be ordained is changed, that is hardly a “demolishing” of the rule. and, as a matter of fact, it has been changed in limited circumstances; and the fact that the Church has changed it certainly indicates that it can be changed further. Celibacy will not be done away with. Nor will the Church be “swamped” with married clergy should the rule be changed further; that is within the decisions to be made by each individual bishop. Should the rule be changed, no bishop would be required to ordain any particular married men any more than they would be required to ordain any particular celibate men. They ultimately choose who they will ordain.

Ordaining married men over the last several decades is not a precedent? It is hardly an isolated incident. It is also not particularly an ecumenical movement, as it has applied to the individuals who were not bringing in their congregations - they came solo. Pray tell, what does it take to make something a precedent?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Actually, it is an extremely good parallel, because the issue is not about acting in persona Christi; it is about the fact that we have married ordained men joining the ranks of deacon by the thousands, not working in a parish 24/7, and the parishes being able to adjust to that fact. A point you seem to have missed.

The issue as I see it is that so many people view the priest as being avalible 24/7. That a priest works in a parish.

How are we going to pay married priests in the Roman Church? Are they going to be pastors or are they just going to help out in a parish and need to have a “second” job?

Its that deacons have not been billed as a replacement for priests.

There are some deacons who do work at the parish full time. In one diocese I know of the deacon and his family actually live in the rectory as there is no resident priest for that parish.

 

[AcolyteLector]

If you find it depressing, …help.

**I wouldn’t attempt to ‘outdo’ me in meanness, friend. Though, it is personally encouraging that the only edge you think you can gain on me in this argument is by getting snappy.

In any case, I think you can read from context that I wasn’t speaking in clinical terms when I stated that it was ‘depressing’ that after several months, and nearly two dozen pages of text… an active participant returns to the discussion to tell us that what we’re discussing
is possible.

Notre_dame999’s statement that was directed at no one; contradicting no one, and apropos of nothing. I think a lot of people would read that and breath a sigh of apathy. Once again, we’re discussing policy: something that usually deals in likelihood and efficacy–assuming the possible as a given or starting point.
**

No one has forced you anywhere; you joined in this thread on your own accord.

Reading things like this make me feel like leaving of my own accord.

You … to marry.

** … alright? I’m discerning, but I only stated that to emphasize that I don’t want to set myself up as any kind of authority.**

Long threads tend to run that way. If that is an issue, you should avoid them for your mental health.

Not really, sorry. I’d actually prefer you to stop treating this is like a personal dispute, and start addressing my points. But if you’re incapable of this for any reason, I suppose I’d re-direct the conversation to your own opinions: do you consider it a fruitful discussion when a month later and you’re still pretty much saying the same things?

Have you considered that this might be the case because your remarks like this derail the discussion with snarky little personal attacks?

You might make yourself a more effective person, and raise your low standards for discussions if you remedy this.

“blasting” and “harangues”… Hmmm. I don’t think it has quite reached that stage; perhaps the tediousness and the resulting depression is coloring it that way.

**My point–clear as it was, but I will explain it for your benefit–was that we’re obviously not getting anywhere.

This thread has become meandering, tedious, and fruitless because you’re not willing to carry your weight in the argument and respond to my points–not to my character and ‘mental health’… which, if I’d have to judge, is considerably better than yours, if you don’t think it is depressing that this dialogue is stagnant after 20+ pages! **

I am not. … last summer).

**OK, so basically a range of Protestants who want to join the Church. As well as their congregations who were similarly inclined.

So you recognize that this is explicitly, incontrovertibly an issue of clergy and congregations who want to join the Church, and the response of the Church to facilitate a humane pathway into the Church for other Christians? It is not in reference–explicitly and incontrovertibly–to bolstering the Church’s flock (which, according the statistics office, is painfully outpacing the Church’s attempts to provide effective ministry) and clergy.**

Its not Shaka Zulu and his Zulus, or Indonesian Muslim headhunters and their chief. Its Christian clergy and their congregations. This is not the Middle Ages, and it is not a colossal ecumenical leap to let these people join the Church.

The … appears so;

’Appears’? I challenge you to found this insinuation on something other than a vague notion of how you think the Church works.

ministers … enthusiasm?

**On the contrary.

I only alter one part of my original assertion: rather than specifically mentioning the English Ordinariate, I expand this to include every minister brought in under the pastoral provision, which is precisely what you meant.

So, I advise you that it would be prudent to discontinue this line of reasoning, as its been proven… once again: explicitly, incontrovertibly… that it is an ecumenical issue, without reference to celibacy or to personnel. If you’d like to say that there are ulterior motives for the ‘pastoral provision’ policies, you’re pretty much accusing the prelates of being dishonest and in bad faith in how they deal with other denominations and our own clergy (to have double standards).

So, followed to its conclusion, I would say that you’re assertions–should you persist–are unfounded and libelous. :\ **

Well, thank you for that erudite analysis of the Eastern Churches. Swamped, eh?

**I see you’ve bought a thesaurus, good for you. However, I wasn’t presenting an ‘analysis’ of the Eastern Churches, I was pointing out that your bombastic portrait of the Church supposedly incorporating married clergy in large numbers and somehow diluting the standards of celibacy and altering our expectations for clergy is not true or relevant for almost all of the Church, anywhere. … EXCEPT in the ecclesiastical territories of the Eastern Churches, where the standards for celibacy–needless to say–are different. **

Swelling … overtone.

**You might want to get more mileage out of that thesaurus, and use a different, similarly latinate word besides ‘erudite’, as you’ve just used that above to belittle something equally inconsequential to my central point.

Try engaging the issues, and not myself next time, and I guarantee you’ll make more effective points in this dialogue.**

 

[AcolyteLector]

Oh, The I am sure you will tell me why it is not a precedent; particularly in light of the fact that I am not speaking about the Ordinariate in particular.

**I guess there’s nothing I can tell you, huh. If my discernment turns me towards marriage (or the Latin Rite accepts celibacy for its clergy, HAHA), I hope my children don’t resemble you in temperament. **

Ah, finally, we get to the point. Allowing married Catholic men to be ordained would be “demolishing” the rule of celibacy; that is one step away with “doing away with celibacy”, which seems to be the response one gets when one tries to have an intellectual discussion of the issue, and the illogical extreme is thrown back as a response. If the rule that men must be celibate to be ordained is changed, that is hardly a “demolishing” of the rule. and, as a matter of fact, it has been changed in limited circumstances; and the fact that the Church has changed it certainly indicates that it can be changed further. Celibacy will not be done away with. Nor will the Church be “swamped” with married clergy should the rule be changed further; that is within the decisions to be made by each individual bishop. Should the rule be changed, no bishop would be required to ordain any particular married men any more than they would be required to ordain any particular celibate men. They ultimately choose who they will ordain.

No, sorry.

Ordaining married men over the last several decades is not a precedent? It is hardly an isolated incident.

**No, but its treatment of CELIBACY, which–need I remind you–is the topic of this discussion is strikingly reminiscent of the Holy See’s relations with the Eastern Churches… on celibacy. It doesn’t force them to adopt the Latin Rites standards ‘or leave’–but it also doesn’t put these Rites and their respective traditions into a blender, and mix them, with great expectations.

There are legitimate precedents for married clergy with good effect, but it is not the way in the Latin Rite.

Let me ask you: why are you not agitating for openly homosexual clergy or married bishops?**

It is also not particularly an ecumenical movement,

Yes it is.

as it has applied to the individuals who were not bringing in their congregations - they came solo. Pray tell, what does it take to make something a precedent?

**The burden of proof rests on you to prove that there has been a SHIFT in the way that celibacy has been conceived of and implemented (tacitly, in the Latin Rite) in the Church. Your ‘evidence’ rests only on an issue, which–from the very start–was an ecumenical policy to help people (clergy and congregations) to join the Church. The way that this event treats celibacy–in any capacity–is as a necessary compromise, specific to this ecumenical policy.

What do you not understand?**

 

[AcolyteLector]

Contrary to a rather bizzare opinion, no one is trying to evade anything. You might try to actually read some of the posts herein, since it would appear you have not.

I don’t think it is fair to say that. I personally would prefer to be a married cleric, and if the Church didn’t frown on it, I might consider changing Rites in order to ‘evade the discipline’.

My interpretation of what that guy said–I might be wrong, and I probably am given everyone’s vehement rejection of what I said–is that it would be wrong for a person to change Rites to evade the discipline of celibacy. Guess that wasn’t what he meant.

I suppose you can just go back to the drawing board, on how you can disagree with me next.

 

[JReducation]

If you find it depressing, I am sure there is a counselor available who can assist you with the issue, and there are some pretty good meds out there which can help. No one has forced you anywhere; you joined in this thread on your own accord. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, and as a seminarian incipient, the issue of celibacy is an important one. I would never counsel anyone considering the priesthood to presume, hope or wish that celibacy will be lifted as a requirement. I don’t think that if it were to be lifted, that there would be much likelihood it would be done in my lifetime (and if I were to gauge that time by my existing parent, that would translated into 40+ more years). The fact that I think it will not be lifted any time soon does not mean there is no legitimate discussion of the issue, or that it may not be lifted some time in the future. I would also assume that the Church, if it did choose to lift the rule to allow married Catholic men to be ordained, would also adhere to the 2000 year practice of not allowing unmarried priests to marry.

Long threads tend to run that way. If that is an issue, you should avoid them for your mental health.

“blasting” and “harangues”… Hmmm. I don’t think it has quite reached that stage; perhaps the tediousness and the resulting depression is coloring it that way.

I am not. That is but one part; first, they ordained Anglican/Episcopal ministers - well, they were sort of like us but not exactly. Then they ordained Lutherans; well, they were a bity like us and a bit like the Anglican/Episcopal group, but not exactly. Then Methodists; well, they were sort of an off-shoot of the Anglican/Episcopal group but not exactly, then they ordained a Presbyterian; and he was sort of like the Methodists, but not exactly. And by the way, he was an awesome, fantastic priest (he died this last summer).

The English Ordinariate will certainly have the potential to bring in more (I saw in Our Sunday Visitor a note that 5 bishops have indicated they are crossing the Tiber - praise God!) but there is nothing I have heard of that has indicated that Rome intends to limit any future ordinations of married Protestant clergy to only that group. They certainly have not done so to date.

Some of it is clearly related to an ecumenical issue. Not all of it appears so; ministers who have come over and been ordained have not all brought their congregations along. The Ordinariate obviously makes room for that as an issue but it has not been the deciding issue in others.

Considering that a significant portion of those previously ordained were not part of the Ordinariate issue, do you think you might want to tone that down a bit? Or should I just write it off to youthful enthusiasm?

Well, thank you for that erudite analysis of the Eastern Churches. Swamped, eh?

Swelling the ranks. My oh my, such erudition. Particularly when “increasing” might have done the job without the snide overtone.

Why are you being so rude?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[joandarc2008]

Actually, it is an extremely good parallel, because the issue is not about acting in persona Christi; it is about the fact that we have married ordained men joining the ranks of deacon by the thousands, not working in a parish 24/7, and the parishes being able to adjust to that fact. A point you seem to have missed.

.

Actually you miss the point. As a priest he would be called to set the ultimate example in BOTH vocations. Since he makes a solemn promise to his Vocation as a priest and a solemn vow to his Vocation as a spouse the parish should always come second. It is the same difficulty those who are in religious orders who run parishes have but more difficult as families are not on a structured, regimented, disciplined way of living no matter how much a Father/father might want them to be. A medical doctor is simply not called to be the ultimate example of a married man.

 

[otjm]

Actually you miss the point. As a priest he would be called to set the ultimate example in BOTH vocations. Since he makes a solemn promise to his Vocation as a priest and a solemn vow to his Vocation as a spouse the parish should always come second. It is the same difficulty those who are in religious orders who run parishes have but more difficult as families are not on a structured, regimented, disciplined way of living no matter how much a Father/father might want them to be. A medical doctor is simply not called to be the ultimate example of a married man.

Well, actually, no. My experience with married priests is that the problem you set up simply is not the problem you make it to be. It is simply incorrect that the parish “should always come second”. The parish has its priority and the spouse her priority, and the two are simply not in constant, or even necessarily very often, conflict. Further, no one goes into ordination married (and this applies both to deacons and priests) without the spouse giving consent, a consent that is not something quickly given or received. In other words, plenty of due time and concern, and serious preparation is made with the wife before the candidate ever nears ordination.

As to the difficulties which those in religious orders have, some have more than others; some are better at educating the laity as to community life issues than others, some are more sensitive to conflicts - real or apparent - than others. I am sure that other religious have had the experience which Brother JR has had and I do not make light of it; however, there will always be those who have their own set of expectations never mind the realities of the day. In other words, no matter what he said or how often he repeated it, some will not get it. Some people, like he, will be frustrated with the lack of recognition of the realities of religious communities. Others will more easily ascribe to the old saying that you can please all the people some of the time… and etc.

Well, as to doctors being examples, one of them, married, was just made a saint. Guess I don’t entirely agree with you on that point.

The simple fact is, for 2000 years we have had married priests who had families. 2000 years. Not 25, or 50 with a minute sample. and the Roman rite has a tradition of about 1000 years having both married and celibate priests, about 1000 years of only celibate priests, and we now again have married priests in the Roman Church. You may not feel it is right, or proper, or possible for a priest to be both married and a priest and good at both. History seems to show otherwise.

Perhaps another look at what you say may help. The most common model we have of a priest is one in a parish, there administering the parish, possibly overseeing a school, and not only administering sacraments, but also administering the books, the personnel, the physical plant, and everything else that the general parish priest does.

And while there is ample Canon law to require that the priest have his proverbial thumb on all parts of the parish, as it were, as he is the representative of the bishop and the bishop is ultimately responsible for the parish, it is not intrinsic to priesthood that a priest be the pastor. It may well be that with an addition of a married priesthood, that those married would have less responsibility for the day to day operations of the parish, thus freeing them up from what many perceive as a priest’s responsibility.

Sorry, a bit of train of thought.

The married priest with whom I am most familiar was a pastor in a parish. He seemed to do quite well, and the parish seemed to do quite well.

 

[joandarc2008]

Well, actually, no. My experience with married priests is that the problem you set up simply is not the problem you make it to be. It is simply incorrect that the parish “should always come second”. The parish has its priority and the spouse her priority, and the two are simply not in constant, or even necessarily very often, conflict. Further, no one goes into ordination married (and this applies both to deacons and priests) without the spouse giving consent, a consent that is not something quickly given or received. In other words, plenty of due time and concern, and serious preparation is made with the wife before the candidate ever nears ordination.

As to the difficulties which those in religious orders have, some have more than others; some are better at educating the laity as to community life issues than others, some are more sensitive to conflicts - real or apparent - than others. I am sure that other religious have had the experience which Brother JR has had and I do not make light of it; however, there will always be those who have their own set of expectations never mind the realities of the day. In other words, no matter what he said or how often he repeated it, some will not get it. Some people, like he, will be frustrated with the lack of recognition of the realities of religious communities. Others will more easily ascribe to the old saying that you can please all the people some of the time… and etc.

Well, as to doctors being examples, one of them, married, was just made a saint. Guess I don’t entirely agree with you on that point.

The simple fact is, for 2000 years we have had married priests who had families. 2000 years. Not 25, or 50 with a minute sample. and the Roman rite has a tradition of about 1000 years having both married and celibate priests, about 1000 years of only celibate priests, and we now again have married priests in the Roman Church. You may not feel it is right, or proper, or possible for a priest to be both married and a priest and good at both. History seems to show otherwise.

Perhaps another look at what you say may help. The most common model we have of a priest is one in a parish, there administering the parish, possibly overseeing a school, and not only administering sacraments, but also administering the books, the personnel, the physical plant, and everything else that the general parish priest does.

And while there is ample Canon law to require that the priest have his proverbial thumb on all parts of the parish, as it were, as he is the representative of the bishop and the bishop is ultimately responsible for the parish, it is not intrinsic to priesthood that a priest be the pastor. It may well be that with an addition of a married priesthood, that those married would have less responsibility for the day to day operations of the parish, thus freeing them up from what many perceive as a priest’s responsibility.

Sorry, a bit of train of thought.

The married priest with whom I am most familiar was a pastor in a parish. He seemed to do quite well, and the parish seemed to do quite well.

And for the people that think a married priesthood is OK - three words - Fourth Lateran Council - with a celibate priesthood I doubt we would have had many of the issues we did - We certainly would not have had the Box confessional which was put in place specifically to protect priests from women pentinents.

 

[otjm]

And for the people that think a married priesthood is OK - three words - Fourth Lateran Council - with a celibate priesthood I doubt we would have had many of the issues we did - We certainly would not have had the Box confessional which was put in place specifically to protect priests from women pentinents.

I don’t want to open the can of worms, but we have had an experience that has brought the last 50+ years into sharp focus, and every one of the perpetrators was celibate; in addition, anyone who has been around for more than that time and paying attention can name numerous priests who either petitioned to be laicized or simply did not bother, and went on later to get married.

Neither the abuse issue nor the issue of priests leaving to get marriage are reasons either pro or con about ordaining married men. As noted, the Church has a 2000 year history of married priests, Fourth Lateran Council or no Council, and the issues attendant to the Church in the late 1100’ and early 1200’s are not necessarily indicative of what the Church should or should not do today. The J. Jay Report has linked the great majority of the abuse to homosexual activity on the part of the priest abusers, none of which has to do with ordaining married men (in spite of what some people remark), and the issue of men leaving the priesthood to marry also does not figure into the issue of ordaining already married men. That has more to do with formation of unmarried men prior to ordination, and the fact that not all unmarried men called to the priesthood may have the charism of celibacy.

 

[m134e5]

notredame_99:

Go tell that to the descendants of the married byzantine catholic priests who suffered and died under the iron curtain.

I wasn’t referring to married byzantine priests or their descendants- I specifically referred to Latin-Rite Catholics. The allowance of married men to become priests is part of the Byzantine Tradition, and I respect it- I do not like it being used to try and justify adopting it in the Latin Rite any more than I like the many Latinizations that have occurred in the Eastern churches.

otjm:

But apparently, witness to faithfulness in marriage is not witness. Strange, considering that the Church considers marriage a sacrament (and if there is a sacrament in need of witness, it is marriage). And if there is need of a counter cultural statement, it is for the sanctity of marriage.

Witness to faithfulness in marriage is very important, but the Church also needs people who are celibate- people who totally deny themselves to serve the Church. Society can’t handle the thought of anyone being celibate- I know more than a few people who think celibacy is always unhealthy. We definitely need strong examples of good, faith-filled marriages. We also need examples of people who are celibate. A celibate person shows that you don’t need to be sexually active to have a happy, fulfilling life. This is more general than the sanctity of marriage- this is simply a statement that sex and and romantic relationships because God is all they need and want- and celibacy is something that can enrich our understanding of marriage as well.

AcolyteLector:

Read the first paragraph again. you make it clear that you think men who are “unwilling” to be celibate could never be good priests because they refuse to “suffer.” I then corrected you and told you that the eastern rites have had a history of married priests and they suffered quite nicely under communism in places like Ukraine, Estonia, and Lithuania. Will you now acknowledge that a married priest can in fact be a good priest, and even a martyr for the faith?

I don’t believe men who think they might be called to be priests, but choose not to be because they are unwilling to be celibate (but would gladly become a priest if they could be married) would be good priests. They are only saying “yes” to God with conditions. How can one acknowledge the sovereignty of God, acknowledge their role as children of God, and say He is Lord of their life, but demand certain conditions from God before they will do anything. Is it appropriate for a child to clean their room only under the condition that their parents give them something? Married priests in rites where married clergy is part of the Tradition aren’t trying to make conditions, because there’s no need for them to make a condition for it. It’s already part of their Tradition.

I’m done with this forum, gives me too much headache and starts to put a drain on my faith. I just wish posters like yourself would stop trying to label posters like myself and OTJM as “liberal catholics” because we would like to see a discipline changed. I actually agree with you that a priest should be a symbol against a sinful culture, I just think a married priest can/could do that too.

I do not label you or anyone as “liberal Catholics”. I don’t agree with you on a matter of discipline, but I have not read where you stand on doctrine. I try not to use the term “liberal” when referring to how one practices the Faith but if I had to define it, I guess I’d consider it to mean someone who considers it optional to believe a doctrine of the Church, or who broadens the interpretation of a doctrine that is meant to be more specific than they are willing to interpret it.

Most of us here don’t know each other in person (and probably won’t ever- at least not in this life). I’m sorry you are offended, but as people should do with all virtual communities, please do your best to not take things personally.

 

[AcolyteLector]

I don’t want to open the can of worms, but we have had an experience that has brought the last 50+ years into sharp focus, and every one of the perpetrators was celibate; in addition, anyone who has been around for more than that time and paying attention can name numerous priests who either petitioned to be laicizied or simply did not bother, and went on later to get married.

**One of the least talked about… and, arguably, more dangerous… consequences of the Abuse Crisis (I for one think it has earned its right to be called by a proper noun) is that it has reminded us how and why the term ‘layman’ became and is synonymous with ‘inept, amateurish, and only knowledgeable enough to make serious mistakes’. **

Does this account for the fact that the married clergy entering the Church through the pastoral provision are all fairly recent arrivals, in relation to the years that the Abuse Crisis is in reference to? Does this account for the fact that the proportion of married Eastern Catholic clergy active in the West–measured against the overwhelming number of chaste secular priests, nuns, monks, sisters, friars, &c.–is abysmal?

No, sorry, it does not. This statement is a meaningless insinuation. You don’t want to enter it ‘officially’, as you explain below, because you know how misguided and full of holes it is… but you’re still going to say it, and effectively use it because you can’t invent an argument which holds water; or so you’ve led us to believe thus far.

As far as I can see, there would be two reasons for a sexual predator to enter the Latin Rite priesthood before the 1990s: (1) a socially acceptable and ‘single’ state of life, to disguise the fact that he cannot in good faith cohabit with a member of the opposite sex of comparable age, and (2) routine, unmonitored access to children.

1. The first reason is no longer a part of our culture. Jerry Seinfeld no longer has to say “… and not that there’s anything wrong with it!” after speculating about someone’s (homo)sexuality–its not shameful anymore to be ‘neat and chronically single’. So potential predators… in America, and Europe… can go off and do their thing, without using our Church as a cover for who they really are.
2. The second point really addresses your misguided insinuation ("… and all the predators were celibate."). Namely, the predators entered our clergy because they knew they were assuming a position of faith, with unrestricted access to children (or young boys). There is nothing special about the Catholic priesthood or celibacy–its about having kids around all the time.

Two things have happened since the 90s on this front, as well:
-Provisions in every diocese, to ensure that there are ‘eyes watching’ when there are situations in which Catholic clergymen interact with minors.
-The minor seminaries no longer exist as a backbone to vocations, and formation is more fluid. So if there is some poor sap in his teens… or earlier… who realizes (I really can’t imagine how this works) he has predilection for children, chances are he will not be in a minor seminary program on track to priesthood–which, as I explain above, would be a desirable place for a predator.

But what really levels your claim: Married people do not molest children. Celibate people do not molest children. People who are full-blown pedophiles (and ephebophiles) molest children (and teenage boys). Take away any incentives in our priesthood and parish to provide environments where such people can thrive (like mold in a dark, damp place), and they’ll buzz off and go elsewhere. Like the Pacific Northwest. I hear its dark/damp there this time of year.

Our Church has grasped this problem far better than you have, and policies are in place to remedy this.

It has no demonstrable relationship with the state of life our clergy live in: married or chaste.

Neither the abuse issue nor the issue of priests leaving to get marriage are reasons either pro or con about ordaining married men. As noted, the Church has a 2000 year historyuof married priests, Fourth Lateran Council or no Council, and the issues attendant to the Church in the late 1100’ and early 1200’s are not necessarily indicative of what the Church should or should not do today. The J. Jay Report has linked the great majority of the abuse to homosexual activity on the part of the priest abusers, none of which has to do with ordaining married men (in spite of what some people remark), and the issue of men leaving the priesthood to marry also does not figure into the issue of ordaining already married men. That has more to do with formation of unmarried men prior to ordination, and the fact that not all unmarried men called to the priesthood may have the charism of celibacy.

OK, so why mention it?

 

[otjm]

I wasn’t referring to married byzantine priests or their descendants- I specifically referred to Latin-Rite Catholics. The allowance of married men to become priests is part of the Byzantine Tradition, and I respect it- I do not like it being used to try and justify adopting it in the Latin Rite any more than I like the many Latinizations that have occurred in the Eastern churches.

I have made references to the Eastern Churches. I do not say that because they have a married priesthood, we should also. What I say is that those who object to a married priesthood do so in what appears to be ignorance of the fact that the Catholic Church has had married priests since its beginning. Many of the comments are to the effect that a married priest could not be an adequate, or a good priest. I simply refer to the Eastern Churches as shining examples of the fact that this is not so. There is a difference in the reason of reference.

Witness to faithfulness in marriage is very important, but the Church also needs people who are celibate- people who totally deny themselves to serve the Church. Society can’t handle the thought of anyone being celibate- I know more than a few people who think celibacy is always unhealthy. We definitely need strong examples of good, faith-filled marriages. We also need examples of people who are celibate. A celibate person shows that you don’t need to be sexually active to have a happy, fulfilling life. This is more general than the sanctity of marriage- this is simply a statement that sex and and romantic relationships because God is all they need and want- and celibacy is something that can enrich our understanding of marriage as well.

I agree absolutely. But what does that have to do with relaxing the rule of requiring all Catholic men to be ordained to be unmarried? None. It is a statement that leans in the direction of “If we allow married men to be ordained, we will end up doing away with celibacy”, and that is patently untrue.

I was in seminary 1964-1966 (college). By that time I knew numerous priests (we had many over for dinner who were not in our parish); and I have known many priests since then. Certainly by no means were all “anti celibacy” or open to married priests; but I have met a number of priests who, once they felt comfortable discussing the matter, indicated either an openness to married priests, the fact that they felt celibacy something that was far from a charism (a gift) but more a cross to be continually born because they felt so called to the priesthood. I have also met priests who felt that celibacy was their charism, and more of them than the former. In short, over a lifetime of 64 years, I have met and gotten to know more priests than the average person gets to know well, and it is by no means the stray individual priest who would like to see the rule relaxed (and almost to a person they recognize that would not apply to them).

I don’t believe men who think they might be called to be priests, but choose not to be because they are unwilling to be celibate (but would gladly become a priest if they could be married) would be good priests.

See my prior comments. I have met them and talked with them.

They are only saying “yes” to God with conditions.

On the contrary, you are assuming that anyone called to priesthood is automatically given the charism of celibacy. It ain’t necessarily so. One is not contingent on the other; each are separate and distinct gifts and callings.

How can one acknowledge the sovereignty of God, acknowledge their role as children of God, and say He is Lord of their life, but demand certain conditions from God before they will do anything.

Protestant converts are demanding? I don’t think so. What then (since it is not all ecumenically driven) is the difference? Demanding? I don’t think so. There are married Catholic men who distinctly and definitely feel they are called to priesthood. Some of them have become deacons (and I am not presuming all deacons feel so called). Others feel that the call is to the priesthood, not to the diaconate, and so do not go that route. Demainding? No, more like they feel that they are called to marriage and priesthood. And yes, I know of Bro. JR’s commentary to the contrary; I disagree with him.

It’s already part of their Tradition.

No, it is part of tradition; one that is really no longer than the previous one, of having both celibate and married clergy. It is a rule, not something handed down from the Apostles (that is, Tradition, as immutable; both a celibate and a married clergy go back to the Apostles).

 

[otjm]

AcolyteLector:

One of the least talked about… and, arguably, more dangerous… consequences of the Abuse Crisis (I for one think it has earned its right to be called by a proper noun) is that it has reminded us how and why the term ‘layman’ became and is synonymous with ‘inept, amateurish, and only knowledgeable enough to make serious mistakes’.

You will have to expand on that statement since it makes no sense.

AcolyteLector:

Does this account for the fact that the married clergy entering the Church through the pastoral provision are all fairly recent arrivals, in relation to the years that the Abuse Crisis is in reference to?

It was not stated for that reason. As in, irrelevant response.

Does this account for the fact that the proportion of married Eastern Catholic clergy active in the West–measured against the overwhelming number of chaste secular priests, nuns, monks, sisters, friars, &c.–is abysmal?

And that has what to do with the discussion?

AcolyteLector:

No, sorry, it does not. This statement is a meaningless insinuation. You don’t want to enter it ‘officially’, as you explain below, because you know how misguided and full of holes it is… but you’re still going to say it, and effectively use it because you can’t invent an argument which holds water; or so you’ve led us to believe thus far.

I will say I was too terse with the comment; I will make a separate psot to answer it.

AcolyteLector:

As far as I can see, there would be two reasons for a sexual predator to enter the Latin Rite priesthood before the 1990s: (1) a socially acceptable and ‘single’ state of life, to disguise the fact that he cannot in good faith cohabit with a member of the opposite sex of comparable age, and (2) routine, unmonitored access to children.

1. The first reason is no longer a part of our culture. Jerry Seinfeld no longer has to say “… and not that there’s anything wrong with it!” after speculating about someone’s (homo)sexuality–its not shameful anymore to be ‘neat and chronically single’. So potential predators… in America, and Europe… can go off and do their thing, without using our Church as a cover for who they really are.

It never was a part of “our” culture, if by that you mean Catholic culture. It was and still is a part of the subculture; the Church has moved to prevent damage as best it can. You might want to research what George Weigel has had to say: he contends that part of the hierarchy is still not on board with the changes.

AcolyteLector:

1. The second point really addresses your misguided insinuation ("… and all the predators were celibate."). Namely, the predators entered our clergy because they knew they were assuming a position of faith, with unrestricted access to children (or young boys). There is nothing special about the Catholic priesthood or celibacy–its about having kids around all the time.

As noted, I was too terse with my comment. See next post.

AcolyteLector:

But what really levels your claim: Married people do not molest children. Celibate people do not molest children. People who are full-blown pedophiles (and ephebophiles) molest children (and teenage boys). Take away any incentives in our priesthood and parish to provide environments where such people can thrive (like mold in a dark, damp place), and they’ll buzz off and go elsewhere.

Contrary to your assertion, both married people and celibate people sexually abuse children. Being a pedophile or being an ephebophile does not prevent them from being either married or celibate; however married ephibophiles are much more likely to prey on teenage girls, not boys.

AcolyteLector:

Our Church has grasped this problem far better than you have, and policies are in place to remedy this.

See next post. you missed my point, but I admit being too terse. My comment was made referencing something else.

 

[AcolyteLector]

One of the least talked about… and, arguably, more dangerous… consequences of the Abuse Crisis (I for one think it has earned its right to be called by a proper noun) is that it has reminded us how and why the term ‘layman’ became and is synonymous with ‘inept, amateurish, and only knowledgeable enough to make serious mistakes’.

Does this account for the fact that the married clergy entering the Church through the pastoral provision are all fairly recent arrivals, in relation to the years that the Abuse Crisis is in reference to? Does this account for the fact that the proportion of married Eastern Catholic clergy active in the West–measured against the overwhelming number of chaste secular priests, nuns, monks, sisters, friars, &c.–is abysmal?

No, sorry, it does not. This statement is a meaningless insinuation. You don’t want to enter it ‘officially’, as you explain below, because you know how misguided and full of holes it is… but you’re still going to say it, and effectively use it because you can’t invent an argument which holds water; or so you’ve led us to believe thus far.

As far as I can see, there would be two reasons for a sexual predator to enter the Latin Rite priesthood before the 1990s: (1) a socially acceptable and ‘single’ state of life, to disguise the fact that he cannot in good faith cohabit with a member of the opposite sex of comparable age, and (2) routine, unmonitored access to children.

1. The first reason is no longer a part of our culture. Jerry Seinfeld no longer has to say “… and not that there’s anything wrong with it!” after speculating about someone’s (homo)sexuality–its not shameful anymore to be ‘neat and chronically single’. So potential predators… in America, and Europe… can go off and do their thing, without using our Church as a cover for who they really are.
2. The second point really addresses your misguided insinuation ("… and all the predators were celibate."). Namely, the predators entered our clergy because they knew they were assuming a position of faith, with unrestricted access to children (or young boys). There is nothing special about the Catholic priesthood or celibacy–its about having kids around all the time.

Two things have happened since the 90s on this front, as well:
-Provisions in every diocese, to ensure that there are ‘eyes watching’ when there are situations in which Catholic clergymen interact with minors.
-The minor seminaries no longer exist as a backbone to vocations, and formation is more fluid. So if there is some poor sap in his teens… or earlier… who realizes (I really can’t imagine how this works) he has predilection for children, chances are he will not be in a minor seminary program on track to priesthood–which, as I explain above, would be a desirable place for a predator.

But what really levels your claim: Married people do not molest children. Celibate people do not molest children. People who are full-blown pedophiles (and ephebophiles) molest children (and teenage boys). Take away any incentives in our priesthood and parish to provide environments where such people can thrive (like mold in a dark, damp place), and they’ll buzz off and go elsewhere. Like the Pacific Northwest. I hear its dark/damp there this time of year.

Our Church has grasped this problem far better than you have, and policies are in place to remedy this.

It has no demonstrable relationship with the state of life our clergy live in: married or chaste.

Plagiarism.

 

[AcolyteLector]

You will have to expand on that statement since it makes no sense.

**Reckon you might just have to force your mind to do the ‘back-breaking’ work involved in reading a sentence. **

AcolyteLector:

Does this account for the fact that the married clergy entering the Church through the pastoral provision are all fairly recent arrivals, in relation to the years that the Abuse Crisis is in reference to?

It was not stated for that reason. As in, irrelevant response. And that has what to do with the discussion?

I will say I was too terse with the comment; I will make a separate psot to answer it.

Great, hope it shows some improvement from previous posts.

It never was a part of “our” culture, if by that you mean Catholic culture. It was and still is a part of the subculture; the Church has moved to prevent damage as best it can. You might want to research what George Weigel has had to say: he contends that part of the hierarchy is still not on board with the changes.

**No, that’s not what I was saying at all. Last time I checked, Jerry Seinfeld wasn’t Catholic, either.

What I meant was American and European culture–where the Abuse Scandal hit hardest.

I’ve read some of Weigel’s stuff.**

As noted, I was too terse with my comment. See next post.

Contrary to your assertion, both married people and celibate people sexually abuse children. Being a pedophile or being an ephebophile does not prevent them from being either married or celibate; however married ephibophiles are much more likely to prey on teenage girls, not boys.

**No, they don’t–and that’s not what I meant, anyway. Setting up lifestyle molds where someone can either engage in marriage or clerical celibacy does not ensure that these vows (and solemn promises) will be lived authentically.

Meaning: it matters less what state of life we have our clergymen lead, but rather how clever we are in making the parish environment look like a ‘raw deal’ for sexual predators. Deterring predators, and not re-considering our state of life.

I was depending on a charitable, intelligent interpretation of my original statement, but obviously I can’t expect that: so, to alter my original statement: ‘Married/Celibate life does not necessarily say anything about whether the person engages in sexual predation.’**

See next post. you missed my point, but I admit being too terse. My comment was made referencing something else.

I’ll be happy to treat your statements, point by point.

But, honestly, it seems that your post above was meant to suggest that, out of an almost entirely celibate body of ministers, you believed that the fact that the predators were almost entirely celibate said something about celibate life… rather than being an accurate reflection that out of a population of millions of celibate people, the only predators were celibate. Hm.

 

[otjm]

I hesitated to make the statement (concerning sexual abuse), and then was too terse in making it (I seem to manage to run beyond the limit of characters).

Statements have been made in this thread which in essence say “the hierarchy knows best” in reference to any commentary being made by laity; the essence is that laity do not have any business telling Rome what it should do.

That imbues the hierarchy with a bit more wisdom than it may actually have. I used the sex abuse crisis as an example of Rome - and the bishops individually and collectively - making continual and repeated decisions based on, among other things, faulty suppositions. One of those suppositions was that it was better to sweep the abuse matters “under the rug” because of the scandal that would accrue should it become public. I would point out that sexual abuse was not the only issue so swept; so was alcoholism, among other issues.

Anyone who wants to go looking can find articles by George Weigel critiquing the matter; he is a thoughtful and cogent writer on the matter and indicates that not all the hierarchy is on board with the changes which have occurred. His chronicalling of how the Church got to the position in Dallas is well set forth. Read, for example, The Courage To Be Catholic by him.

And it was not the bishops, coming together in solemn and thoughtful, quiet deliberation to solve a problem, to address an issue on their own accord, which resulted in the changes to protect children. It was the bishops coming together in something bordering absolute panic, seeing the courts proverbially removing heads from shoulders of some bishops and showing the potential to remove more, which drove them to acknowledge the depth of the crisis that was driven by among other things, clericalism; an inability to to look critically and unemotionally at a terrible issue and deal forthrightly with it.

So. I used the abuse crisis as an example that it takes a far greater stretch of the imagination than I can make to presume that because Rome is on a path, that is per se the path it needs to be on.

It was not and is not my intent to sidetrack this thread with a non-issue. However, too often we imbue the clergy, and particularly the hierarchy with a “Father knows best” attitude coupled with an attitude that the laity are to “pray, pay and obey” - as in, dumb sheep. I do not suggest that the laity rule, that the laity make the rules. I do suggest that the laity often has a different perspective, and that perspective can have value. as another perspective, it was the laity who exercised enough commentary, that finally resulted in the EF being released.

Both issues were driven by the laity; both resulted in Rome changing their approach to issues. Neither one was a “top down” solution; it was a “from the bottom up” pressure which finally caused a revision of decisions made.

I do not follow every statement coming out of Rome. However, periodically I have heard statements from Rome addressing the issue of ordination, and what I hear and what I perceive is a straw man (or what certainly looks like one); and that is, “We are not going to do away with celibacy!”

I don’t doubt, given people’s ability to think uncritically, that there are some who would propose such. I suspect them to be in a minority. However, I do not think that the issue is one of “doing away with celibacy”, but rather, acknowledging that celibacy is a charism, separate and distinct from the priesthood, just as marriage is, and that allowing both a married and a celibate clergy will not do away with celibacy; if anything, it will make clear those who are called to a celibate priesthood.

I have known too may priests, and have talked to too many priests to believe that every priest is given the charims of celibacy. To some it is an intense cross they carry because they are so devoted to priesthood. to others, it is a charism, a gift, and it is a “burden made light”. and I perceive a belief, if not spoken outright then held subliminally, which believes that if one is called to the priesthood, then one is automatically guaranteed the charism of priesthood. My experience in talking with priests is to the contrary.

And it is my observation that while the rules are made from the top down, observations which can and do prompt change of those rules most certainly can come from the bottom up.