Priestly Celebacy

[majahnke]

Given the wonderful Theology and logic that the Church uses to defend the celebacy of priests (the priest acting in persona Christi along with Christ as the bridegroom of the Church, among other reasons), why does the Church not make celebacy a Doctrine or Dogma of the Church as opposed to simply a discipline? As I understand it, Dogma proclaims a teaching that has always been held by the Church as official and required. Does that not fit the situation regarding priestly celebacy?

God bless,
Mark

 

[Sherlock]

Dogma and discipline are two different things.

The discipline of celibacy has not “always been held”—your criterion— as an absolute, though it has always been recommended. There have been exceptions throughout history (starting with Peter, I might add) and in different traditions.

I think celibacy is a very good tradition (small “t”), and I don’t think it will be changed—thank heavens. But it could be, hypothetically at least.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

For something to be declared (formally) as doctrine or dogma, it must pertain to the deposit of the faith.

Celebacy is a discipline for that reason. The Church may not change, add to, or subtract from, the deposit of the faith.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[mkw]

Forgive me my observation, but it seems like the “rank and file” catholics are more concerned with Priestly celebacy then the priests themselves. I just don’t understand why all the fuss. When a man heeds the call from God to become a priest, he knows going into the vocation that celebacy is the rules.

 

[Sherlock]

I agree—the young priests I know are quite orthodox and also very much in favor of the celibacy tradition: and they’re the ones most affected.

I think it’s on some minds because there are those who want to see a lessening of tradition for their own reasons. For example, there are those who persist (stupidly) in thinking that the Church can and will ordain women, and dropping the celibacy tradition is seen as a step in that direction. Also, there are those who think that this will help vocations, but the problem is that they can’t back this up with any evidence. Indeed, what evidence there is would appear to contradict this idea, as more traditional and more orthodox parishes produce more vocations than those who are heterodox or at least non-traditional.

 

[otm]

I don’t see the argument about priestly celibacy as a step in any direction except that of honesty. The Church does not require celibacy as a discipline; the Roman rite does. And even the Roman Rite has exceptions. I don’t think it should be mandatory; I think it should be optional.

Making it optional does not demean it; if anything, it elevates celibacy to what it should be; it’s own charism. Celibacy and priesthood are two entirely different charisms, neither of which is intrinsic to the other. And much of what I hear from the Roman rite is an outright insult to our Eastern brethern. One does not have to be heterodox to think that it should be optional.

I don’t propose it as some sort of magic bullet to the shortage of priests. It may or may not increase vocations. I see no reason that it would cause a decrease in vocations, and the responses of those who say it won’t help are lacking in logic. I just think it is more honest.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

otm:

Making it optional does not demean it; if anything, it elevates celibacy to what it should be; it’s own charism. Celibacy and priesthood are two entirely different charisms, neither of which is intrinsic to the other. And much of what I hear from the Roman rite is an outright insult to our Eastern brethern. One does not have to be heterodox to think that it should be optional.

Try to understand that the comparison of orthodox/heterodox is being made within the context of the Latin Rite. Also, people are just citing what they see as two facts: dioceses are often more orthodox/heterodox and those dioceses that are more orthodox tend to have more vocations. It’s not a logical proof, but it does suggest a connection. That reasoning does not imply that supporting optional celibacy is heterodox, only points to vocations trends in heterodox dioceses.

 

[Sherlock]

Otm,

You wrote: “One does not have to be heterodox to think that it should be optional.”

I’m sorry if I gave that impression, but I never said that supporting a married clergy or optional celibacy is a heterodox position. It is not, as celibacy is not a doctrine but a discipline. I merely pointed out that traditional, orthodox parishes in the Latin rite are the ones more likely to be in favor of a celibate priesthood, and these are the parishes producing the most vocations.

 

[robertaf]

Good Morning Church

I have had conversations with a few Priests who believe that with the vocations crisis we are having in the USA, that it might be that eventually the Church will ordain some Permanant Deacons into the Priesthood.
We have a wonderful Deacon who was in seminary to become a Priest when he met his wife. He is fantastic. I do not know his heart.
I have a son who did not answer Gods call to the Priesthood. He is still single at 38 yrs old but more than anything he wanted a family.
I have another friend who was in seminary for the Priesthood and left. He ended up married with a family. He always knew he was called to be a priest.
I know three priests who left the Priesthood, after being Pastors and married.

I believe God is leaving doors open for men like this.

I believe celibacy is perfect for many who are called to it.
However, it would seem there are many who are called to the priesthood is not called to the celibate life.

 

[fix]

robertaf:

Good Morning Church

I have had conversations with a few Priests who believe that with the vocations crisis we are having in the USA, that it might be that eventually the Church will ordain some Permanant Deacons into the Priesthood.
We have a wonderful Deacon who was in seminary to become a Priest when he met his wife. He is fantastic. I do not know his heart.
I have a son who did not answer Gods call to the Priesthood. He is still single at 38 yrs old but more than anything he wanted a family.
I have another friend who was in seminary for the Priesthood and left. He ended up married with a family. He always knew he was called to be a priest.
I know three priests who left the Priesthood, after being Pastors and married.

I believe God is leaving doors open for men like this.

I believe celibacy is perfect for many who are called to it.
However, it would seem there are many who are called to the priesthood is not called to the celibate life.

Some of your examples are why many think a married priesthood is a bad idea. Men leaving their vocation to get married? Hardly the type of priest to give hope to others.

Even the eastern rites do not allow a married man to be bishop. My understanding is the the eastern rites have married men as a concession over the centuries. Christ is the model for our priests. Too many want one foot in heaven and one foot on earth.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

majahnke:

Given the wonderful Theology and logic that the Church uses to defend the celebacy of priests (the priest acting in persona Christi along with Christ as the bridegroom of the Church, among other reasons), why does the Church not make celebacy a Doctrine or Dogma of the Church as opposed to simply a discipline? As I understand it, Dogma proclaims a teaching that has always been held by the Church as official and required. Does that not fit the situation regarding priestly celebacy?

God bless,
Mark

Priestly celibacy was not mandated in the Western Church until the 4th century (I think that is when it was I would need to search more but suffice it to say that is has not been mandated since the beginning)

So it can not be a dogma as the Western Church has not held this since the beginning. And you seem to ignore the fact that the Byzantine Rite has always had a married priesthood, so this also does down with the dogma idea.

 

[otm]

fix:

Some of your examples are why many think a married priesthood is a bad idea. Men leaving their vocation to get married? Hardly the type of priest to give hope to others.

Even the eastern rites do not allow a married man to be bishop. My understanding is the the eastern rites have married men as a concession over the centuries. Christ is the model for our priests. Too many want one foot in heaven and one foot on earth.

I’m sorry, but I don’t see what a priest leaving his vocation to get marries has to do with giving or not giving hope. You are confusing two vocations: the vocation of celibacy and the vocation of priesthood. Some are called to one but not both. Is that a reason for not giving hope?

Understand, I firmly hold the position that if you take a vow, you keep it. If they vowed celibacy, they need to live it chastely. But if they found that they were not called as a vocation to live the life of celibacy, and asked to be dispensed from their vows, what has that to do with hope or no hope?

Your understanding that it was a “concession” is typical of the attitude that somehow, a married priest is a second class priest; that somehow one who is celibate is somehow “better”, or more “holy”, and that sounds a lot like Jansenism. It was not a “concession”; married priests existed from the beginning of the Church.

“One foot in heaven” is an absolute slam to the vocation of marriage. It is also a slam to all of our married clergy, both in the Roman rite and in our Eastern rites. What, is sex dirty? I thought it was sacramental within the sacrament of marriage. Do you imply that one who is celibate is somehow more “pure”? Are you suggesting that married people are somehow “impure”?

You say Christ is the model for our priests; I understand the concept of “alter Christus”. So, since Peter was married, are you saying he was an inadequate model? Are you saying that Christ is not the model for each and every husband and father? Can you seperate incidentals from essentials?

I am not proposing a married priesthood as a solution to whatever “crisis” we might be having in the number of ordained priests. I do believe that if the vocation of celibacy is to be truly honored, then it should be optional. If it is such a great idea, it will be adopted far and wide.

I don’t question the statistics of where our vocations to the priesthood are coming from. But the fact that many young men who are being ordained are vocal in supporting celibacy is not a logical proof that it is or should be required of priests; nor does the fact that the parishes producing them are in favor of celibacy (have there actually been any viable studies?) logically proceed to the requirement. No one seems to be asking the ones who are not ordained if they had a) a strong inclination or draw to the priesthood, and b) if they were also drawn to marriage.

 

[ChrisR246]

Sherlock:

…Also, there are those who think that this will help vocations, but the problem is that they can’t back this up with any evidence. Indeed, what evidence there is would appear to contradict this idea, as more traditional and more orthodox parishes produce more vocations than those who are heterodox or at least non-traditional.

I’m not sure you can show evidence either way, as, in the Latin Rite, neither hetrodox nor orthodox parishes have, nor produce married clergy.

What you would need is a stitistically valid poll of parishes showing hetrodoxy/orhtodoxy, vocations produced and feeling towards cleircal celebacy. Even then, causation vs correlation would be difficult.

I agree with OTM, celibacy and priesthood are separate vocations. I am sure there are a number of men who feel a call to both priesthood and marriage.

 

[fix]

otm:

I’m sorry, but I don’t see what a priest leaving his vocation to get marries has to do with giving or not giving hope. You are confusing two vocations: the vocation of celibacy and the vocation of priesthood. Some are called to one but not both. Is that a reason for not giving hope?

I am not confusing anything. You are saying that an individual has the authority to decide if they should be a priest and if they should be celibate. The Church decides who to ordain and who has a calling. Some are called to celibacy, true. Some are not, again true. That does not mean that the Church needs to change her discipline in the latin rite.

Understand, I firmly hold the position that if you take a vow, you keep it. If they vowed celibacy, they need to live it chastely. But if they found that they were not called as a vocation to live the life of celibacy, and asked to be dispensed from their vows, what has that to do with hope or no hope?

If that is not a contradiction in logic, I do not know what is. You are saying you think one should keep their vows, as long as it is convenient.

Your understanding that it was a “concession” is typical of the attitude that somehow, a married priest is a second class priest; that somehow one who is celibate is somehow “better”, or more “holy”, and that sounds a lot like Jansenism. It was not a “concession”; married priests existed from the beginning of the Church.

Stop putting words in my mouth. You sound angry and defensive. You should be because you value your desires over Mother Church’s desire.

“One foot in heaven” is an absolute slam to the vocation of marriage. It is also a slam to all of our married clergy, both in the Roman rite and in our Eastern rites. What, is sex dirty? I thought it was sacramental within the sacrament of marriage. Do you imply that one who is celibate is somehow more “pure”? Are you suggesting that married people are somehow “impure”?

Your angry and false accusations show your hand.

You say Christ is the model for our priests; I understand the concept of “alter Christus”. So, since Peter was married, are you saying he was an inadequate model? Are you saying that Christ is not the model for each and every husband and father? Can you seperate incidentals from essentials?

Peter was celibate after he became Pope. That is the long held tradition. Prove otherwise. I am not making the disticntion bewteen celibacy and non celibacy that you assert. They are your words, not mine.

I am not proposing a married priesthood as a solution to whatever “crisis” we might be having in the number of ordained priests. I do believe that if the vocation of celibacy is to be truly honored, then it should be optional. If it is such a great idea, it will be adopted far and wide.

When you become Pope, then I will listen your exhalted opinions.

I don’t question the statistics of where our vocations to the priesthood are coming from. But the fact that many young men who are being ordained are vocal in supporting celibacy is not a logical proof that it is or should be required of priests; nor does the fact that the parishes producing them are in favor of celibacy (have there actually been any viable studies?) logically proceed to the requirement. No one seems to be asking the ones who are not ordained if they had a) a strong inclination or draw to the priesthood, and b) if they were also drawn to marriage.

The proof and logic for a celibate priesthood is huge, true and hopeful. Your arguments are based on human emotion and some desire to change the charcter of the priesthood and the episcopacy of the eastern rite. I stand with the Church.

 

[otm]

fix:

You are saying that an individual has the authority to decide if they should be a priest and if they should be celibate. The Church decides who to ordain and who has a calling. Some are called to celibacy, true. Some are not, again true. That does not mean that the Church needs to change her discipline in the latin rite.

No. I am not saying that an individual has any authority to decide if they should be a priest. I am saying that The Roman rite has been overbearing towards the Eastern rits since long before the Orthodox schism. and the language that gets used in the Roman rite in discussing celibacy works to place the Eastern rites in an inferior position because they don’t require celibacy for ordination. And the fact that some are called to the priesthood and celibacy, and some are called to the priesthood and not celibacy does not mean, as you say, that the Church needs to change the rules; but neither does it mean that the Church is not called to change her rules.

 

[otm]

fix:

If that is not a contradiction in logic, I do not know what is. You are saying you think one should keep their vows, as long as it is convenient…

Perhaps I wasn’t clear; let me try again. I am adamantly opposed to a priest who has taken the vow of celibacy asking for a dispensation because he has fallen in love with someone. He would not be in that position if he was keeping his vows; he would have cut off any realtionship that was developing in that direction long before.

I do not have a a problem with a priest who, living out his vow of celibacy, and not “messing around”, finds that his vow is not his vocation and asks to be dispensed (laicized). and there is no logical incongruity in that position that I can see. I wasn’t clear.

 

[otm]

fix:

Stop putting words in my mouth. You sound angry and defensive. You should be because you value your desires over Mother Church’s desire.

Your angry and false accusations show your hand.

When you become Pope, then I will listen your exhalted opinions.

I don’t intend to sound angry and defensive; I am trying to shake you out of complacency and accepting the status quo just because it is the status quo. I didn’t make any accusations, I asked questions. You didn’t answer them. How do you feel about celibacy?

I have met too many people who, if one probes deeply enough, really do approach Jansenism. They have been impacted by the world’s view of sex; that is is something to joke about because it is too difficult for them to handle in a mature, Christian fashion. Both celibacy and marriage require one to give up. Both require a selflessness that is daunting. You were the one who made the remark about keeping one foot in heaven and one on earth. Do you think marriage is keeping one( or both) feet on earth?

I thought this was a forum where there could be a vigorous exchange of ideas and opinions. I asked several pointed questions. Is your response really accurately reflected in your last statement above?

I live a life of celibacy. I am not anti celibacy. I am not out to destroy the priesthood, or put my values over the Church’s. But am I supposed to say nothing when I think that the Roman rite has been, and continues to be, overbearing, even if unintentionally? Is the fact that the Church has chosen a discipline mean that I am forbidden to question it on pain of not being a loyal Catholic? The Church, and this Pope, has chosen the discipline of a pastoral approach to dissenters, and he has admitted such, recently. Your comment about my desires over the Church’s desires certainly seems to imply that I should not question his approach.

I invite you to answer the questions I raised, not duck out by saying I am making accusations and that I have an exalted opinion.

 

[KathyT]

Now I am confused. I was always under the impression that the priest WAS married. If they take the Church as their bride, how can they marry again. Some of you need to go to an ordination. I have only been once, but I am sure they become married to the Church.

 

[otm]

Kathy that is the image that is used. However, I have been to numerous ordinations, both before and after Vatican 2, and I don’t recall any language in the ordination ceremony stating that.

You may be thinking more of the fact nuns were a ring on their third finger left hand, as a sign of their fidelity to Christ as their spouse; but I do not know of any ceremony that mimics a wedding as such.

 

[KathyT]

I didn’t mean that an ordination mimics a wedding, but there is something that I read about the priest being married to the Holy Mother Church.

BTW, which Church do you attend? I am at St. Cecilia’s in Beaverton.