Will Celebacy Be Reconsidered?

[steve_bakr]

Well that's good: you're a mental [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and I'm an evil inquisitor; we'll make each other very happy. Unfortunately, I can't see how anything I wrote could have stimulated you, considering you apparently thought yourself fluent enough in theology to be able to say that the allowance of a very few exceptions to the law of celibacy indicates that ''the theology comes up short''. You see, when someone makes a statement like that, they are implicitly saying ''I have knowledge on this issue, and I conclude that...'' If, of course, you're saying now that you have no real knowledge about what you were saying, then you shouldn't feel masochistic pleasure at all, because I'm simply agreeing with you that you have no knowledge.

In any case, you didn't respond to the argument, because posting about your interesting mind is not a response to the observation that allowance of a few exceptions only says that celibacy is not strictly required for the priesthood by nature, and hence that your claim is incorrect (i.e. that the allowance proves that the theology of celibacy's intrinsic relation to the Western priesthood as a whole comes up short). I realize that it would be a pain for you to study the theology of the priesthood before you respond, but since pain is a pleasure to you, I'm sure you will undertake it.

Sorry, but that boat doesn't float. In order for what you say here to be true, it would have to be that ''it only demonstrates that the theology [of celibacy] falls short'' is not a position on the theology of priestly celibacy. But a position is simply a statement - and a statement is something that can be true or false. Clearly, the statement ''the theology of celibacy falls short'' is something which may be either true or false - meaning that you have expressed a position on priestly celibacy. You can declare bankruptcy in order to protect insufficient funds, but you can't declare non-position to protect a statement from critique.

Of course it is, and anyone who says so ought to be whipped, but that's not what I said - nor is it what Paul VI or John Paul II or Vatican II said. What Paul said is that celibacy was an intrinsic part of Jesus' mission, and that the priest's function as the Alter Cristus is mystically expressed in the same intrinsic unity with Christ's own celibacy. Hence, just as celibacy has meaning for the ministry of Jesus, it also has intrinsic meaning for His vicars. The sign finds its completion in the image of Christ-as-Bridegroom. Christ is wedded to the Church, according to St. Paul, and so it is very appropriate for those who represent Him to also appear ''wedded'' to the Church.

While that may be true, it is irrelevant. That is because all it says is a tautology: anything that can change, has the hypothetical ability to change. But let's look at another example of something that is ''normative.''. It was not until Pope Pius XI, writing in response to the Anglican announcement that contraception between spouses would be acceptable in some cases, that secondary-ends of the conjugal act were acknowledged. None of this ''unitive and procreative'' theology was on existence prior to that in the Church's teaching; it was only procreative. You know where I'm going: it is true that ''unitive-procreative'' is normative (but, curiously enough, is not doctrine), but simply because it has the hypothetical possibility of being chucked out a window of the Apostolic Palace does not mean that that is a real possibility. Unitive-procreative will never go back to simple ''procreative,'' because there has been an authentic development in the theology surrounding sex; the same thing applies to priestly celibacy.

That's good; I'm for academic freedom too. The problem is when people make claims that they aren't sure are claims and can't decide if they actually know the theology or not - and then claim that their claims-that-aren't-claims is an expression of academic freedom.

Well, I've been sure to make my post very long; that way, even if there are not any insults, it will still be a pain for you.

Dealing with the issue of the unitive and procreative nature of the conjugal act would take us into contraception....which this thread isn't about.

How is it again that allowing exceptions is an argument for priestly celebacy? Is that like the exception that proves the rule? And because the exceptions are so few that means it is fair to others?

I appreciate your description of the metaphor of the Church being the bride of Christ and using that as a model for priestly celebacy. But that is not the original theological principle upon which priestly celebacy was founded but a redactive apologetic, as you well know.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Steve, this is one of the nicest things anyone has said about me lately! LOL!!!

.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Sure. But it is still true that the ordinariate has, so far, been a bit of a flubb, and that is one of the reasons.

It's new - and that's what is to be expected. I have sat in on their official meetings, talked with them and contributed.

Attracting priests is not the issue at the moment. It's about identity and outreach.

 

[Second Phoenix]

But returning the Church to allowing marriage isn't lowering standards, if you think about it.

No, but thinking that gaining priests is the most important issue can and will result in a lower of standards to meet that goal.

 

[Knockinghard]

Will Celibacy be reconsidered ?

Clearly yes . Archbishop Pietro Parolin , to be the Pope's new Secretary of State , said that the principle of clerical celibacy is ecclesiastical tradition rather than Church dogma , and is therefore open to discussion .

This would indicate that it is being reconsidered .

There is not much to reconsider! Celibacy helps in agape love. Marriage brings in carnal love that may hinder a full time work for the kingdom of God. Hence, married people can only help the full time celibate monks in the second order of responsibility in a Church organisational matters.

 

[Second Phoenix]

I understand what you're saying, but celibacy doesn't really make a priest a priest. The Eucharist goes into my mouth on the holy spoon at Communion on Sunday by the hand of a married priest. He hears my confessions and I receive absolution. I kiss his hand as we leave the church, the hand that touched the Eucharist (there aren't a bunch of people touching the Eucharist, only the priest, note), and it is this married priest who drives an hour south of his home to come to my house and bless it with this wife singing as they do so. He flicks holy water all over our house and prays with his wife. My priest's sons are both altar boys, men in their late teens and early 20's. My priest's hands hold the sacred incense that floats into the air as a sign of divine worship. His hands cut the leavened bread that will become the Body of Christ.

You are right in that the Eucharist is what defines priesthood.
What is the Eucharist? God giving Himself to us. Not partially, not with conditions. It is God without reservations offering Himself in Body and Divinity. God holds back nothing of Himself.

That is the definition of an act of love. Love is self sacrificial. It is without reservation or condition. The meaning and act of the Eucharist is total self giving.

Since the Eucharist defines priesthood, priesthood must also be defined by the Eucharist. How can the priest be like the Eucharist? By offering himself without condition and reservation.
It must be said that no priest can ever do that. Whenever we receive the Eucharist, we mock it a little by our own reservations and self love. So, we should at least strive to reduce this mockery in whatever way we can.
From this perspective, is marriage or celibacy a better representative and practice?

At the deepest level, marriage and celibacy should be self-sacrificial acts. A married man can be more self-sacrificial than a self-loving celibate priest. On a practical level, celibacy is life and love without restrictions. For the celibate man, no one can bias their actions. Every human being is equally deserving of their attention.

My priest's vocation is beautiful without celibacy. Not touching a woman doesn't make a priest more a priest nor does it make his sacraments more holy nor does it make him somehow more qualified or competent to do his job.

I respect the CC's choices and I'm not a Catholic. But I have been Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox. I will say from personal experience with celibate and married priests, I prefer the latter!

I grew up as a protestant and almost became a Catholic priest (like, wedding day jitters). I have issues with the attitudes of priests. I don't like how it attracts men who want nothing to do with women because of self love/hate, or because of homosexuality.

I will stand behind and cheer for the Latin Church shining the message of celibacy. In a world where everyone must say 'yes', we can at least say 'no'.

 

[Second Phoenix]

" What ? " you ask .

It is what I said : " Will Celibacy be reconsidered ?

Clearly yes . Archbishop Pietro Parolin , to be the Pope's new Secretary of State , said that the principle of clerical celibacy is ecclesiastical tradition rather than Church dogma , and is therefore open to discussion .

This would indicate that it is being reconsidered . "

Clerical celibacy is open to discussion . Some bishops are discussing the matter . I presume from this that it is being reconsidered .

There is no correlation between anything that the Pope or any other bishop has said about gays and anything they may have said about clerical celibacy .

The former , based on teaching on homosexuality , is a matter of Church dogma . The latter is a matter of canon law based on ecclesiastical tradition .

The fact that bishops and others are talking about celibacy isn't an indication of a consideration of change.

The correlation is that discussing Church issues and beliefs with the media isn't an indication that the Church is seriously considering changing those things.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Like I said, allowing married priests isn't lowering the standards. St. Peter himself was married, and I doubt we'd claim he had low standards for being a bishop and apostle!

And I think it's easy for us to say that gaining priests is no big woop, but at a grass-roots real-time level, HECK YEAH it is important! There are dioceses that have a SEVERE shortage of priests. So, when the rubber hits the road, having married priests serving everyone seems better to me than having celibate ones in thin numbers and such scarcity that, in places like the Midwest or in the country, there are NO PRIESTS to serve Mass at all! I know a lot of married men who wish they could be Catholic priests. Most of the deacons in my parish all wanted to be priests and took what they saw as the next best thing. I know men who are lectors, bible study teachers, and very active in the parish who say they wish they could be priests. I know some honest Catholics like the seminarians who spoke around here lately who will tell you that the Catholic Church is in a crisis with regard to empty or tiny seminaries, a super shortage, and potentially tremendous amounts of people with no sacraments in the future. Why is the Catholic Church around here importing priests from India and the Philippines and Mexico? Shortages.

The Catholic Church looked much like the East for the first 800 years or so with a married clergy and it served them just fine. They didn't fall short of holiness and standards were not low at all. St. Paul does tell us that celibacy is a wonderful ideal, but not all can keep to it. The reason I like the Orthodox sensibility with priesthood is that they recognize there is a place for celibacy AND marriage. The priest who feels potentially called to be a bishop in the future stays celibate. The monk taking that difficult, very arduous path to God through the monastery, he takes the path of celibacy. These men are HIGHLY-respected in the East. And yet the parish priest who tends to the flock, can choose either path.

One thing I don't think people realize is how AWESOME a presbytera/matushka can be (a priest's wife). She does wonderful things for people. She is very instrumental in the life of the women in the parish, visiting them, helping out, leading women's bible studies or doing a host of other things. She shows a good example of how to be a wife and mother. And then there is the offspring of the priest and his wife. The priest has the opportunity to show the proper approach to parenting, the ideal is something he has to live up to!

People of the celibacy-ONLY thinking usually see married clergy as "easy" or a concession of sloth. The reality is, a celibate priest doesn't have to be a family man and has no wife and kids to deal with and show proper fatherhood. A married priest has to show not only the proper way to be a man of the cloth, but he has to be consistent, true to his values, and be a good husband and father for his children in front of a whole parish. The parish looks to him for modeling and holy living, prudence, and demonstrative responsible love. That's a lot of pressure if you think about it! And he can also give valuable advice to men and women as a spiritual father to his flock. These are very big blessings. So, imho, the ideal of celibacy is a laudable and worthy one, but it's not for everyone, and we should be able to see the myriad blessings of a married priesthood as well, and not look at it as inferior or something "just for those Easterners!" It's a discipline, and thus can be changed. I think we in here seem to treat it not as discipline, but dogma. It's like allowing a married priesthood is tantamount to allowing female priests or something that really sells out Western values...

No, but thinking that gaining priests is the most important issue can and will result in a lower of standards to meet that goal.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Really? Are you Catholic, Second Phoenix? It sounds as if you are. Perhaps you should indicate so on your religion icon on here.

It's new - and that's what is to be expected. I have sat in on their official meetings, talked with them and contributed.

Attracting priests is not the issue at the moment. It's about identity and outreach.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Really? Are you Catholic, Second Phoenix? It sounds as if you are. Perhaps you should indicate so on your religion icon on here.

What I do and say is indicative of my faith or lack thereof, not what icon I choose to display. Everything I say here is true. I don't get anything from saying what I was or what I was meant to be. My failed potential only depresses and haunts me.

I met with the so-called Anglican ordinariates before they were an ordinariate. Not that it means anything for me personally. I only intend to suggest that finding priests is not and should not be their primary concern or reason for existence.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Like I said, allowing married priests isn't lowering the standards. St. Peter himself was married, and I doubt we'd claim he had low standards for being a bishop and apostle!

Saint Peter lived a form of celibacy that doesn't exist in the east or west. We have a different understanding of marriage, which affects our understanding and practice of marriage and celibacy in the east and west.

And I think it's easy for us to say that gaining priests is no big woop, but at a grass-roots real-time level, HECK YEAH it is important! There are dioceses that have a SEVERE shortage of priests. So, when the rubber hits the road, having married priests serving everyone seems better to me than having celibate ones in thin numbers and such scarcity that, in places like the Midwest or in the country, there are NO PRIESTS to serve Mass at all! I know a lot of married men who wish they could be Catholic priests. Most of the deacons in my parish all wanted to be priests and took what they saw as the next best thing. I know men who are lectors, bible study teachers, and very active in the parish who say they wish they could be priests. I know some honest Catholics like the seminarians who spoke around here lately who will tell you that the Catholic Church is in a crisis with regard to empty or tiny seminaries, a super shortage, and potentially tremendous amounts of people with no sacraments in the future. Why is the Catholic Church around here importing priests from India and the Philippines and Mexico? Shortages.

The Church isn't facing a shortage of priests necessarily. Seminaries are actually facing a crisis of being too full in the United States, now that the weird ones shut down. The US in the 1950s had more priests than they knew what to do with. Now that things are becoming more realistic - things are changing. If the Church did what it should - everything would be fine.

The Catholic Church in the US still lives in the 1950s where 18 year old boys would enter seminary. Young men aren't ready for that commitment today. Non-college seminarians - men that entered seminary after collge are still looked down upon in the US. I could go on for pages after pages... but I will happy to talk about any specifics in this regard.

The Catholic Church looked much like the East for the first 800 years or so with a married clergy and it served them just fine.

The Church was dominated by the Byzantines during that time.

They didn't fall short of holiness and standards were not low at all. St. Paul does tell us that celibacy is a wonderful ideal, but not all can keep to it. The reason I like the Orthodox sensibility with priesthood is that they recognize there is a place for celibacy AND marriage.

Which is why the Catholic Church has priests and deacons.

 

[Anhelyna]

OH BOY !

Here we go again East versus West re the old celibacy problem .

Strange isn't it that we ECs are graciously permitted our married priests by Rome - and Rome admits it's an ancient tradition .

Our married priest [ he has 7 kids and the eighth is on the way ] travels up to us every weekend - away from his family so we, in Scotland, can be served according to our traditions. He's a great priest - full of compassion and understands [ and so does his wife, about the stresses and strains of being married and serving as a priest and a University lecturer.

 

[Second Phoenix]

He travels to you - so I guess it's all okay?
I'll be the only one ever saying this, but East and West are both wrong on celibacy.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Who is "we?"

Saint Peter lived a form of celibacy that doesn't exist in the east or west. We have a different understanding of marriage, which affects our understanding and practice of marriage and celibacy in the east and west.



The Church isn't facing a shortage of priests necessarily. Seminaries are actually facing a crisis of being too full in the United States, now that the weird ones shut down. The US in the 1950s had more priests than they knew what to do with. Now that things are becoming more realistic - things are changing. If the Church did what it should - everything would be fine.

The Catholic Church in the US still lives in the 1950s where 18 year old boys would enter seminary. Young men aren't ready for that commitment today. Non-college seminarians - men that entered seminary after collge are still looked down upon in the US. I could go on for pages after pages... but I will happy to talk about any specifics in this regard.



The Church was dominated by the Byzantines during that time.



Which is why the Catholic Church has priests and deacons.

 

[Anhelyna]

Anglican / Episcopalian in one of its many flavours ?

 

[Second Phoenix]

Who is "we?"

What do you care?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What do I care? You are saying "we" in many of your posts with regard to the Catholic Church. I'm assuming you must be Catholic yet don't show it as your icon. It's a valid question when reading a poster's statements. If you're not a Catholic, then I can't take the "we" seriously and get your point. If you're honest about your faith, I can take it seriously. Would you expect me to take seriously a "we" that doesn't include you? :o

What do you care?

 

[Sumwear]

People of the celibacy-ONLY thinking usually see married clergy as "easy" or a concession of sloth. The reality is, a celibate priest doesn't have to be a family man and has no wife and kids to deal with and show proper fatherhood. A married priest has to show not only the proper way to be a man of the cloth, but he has to be consistent, true to his values, and be a good husband and father for his children in front of a whole parish. The parish looks to him for modeling and holy living, prudence, and demonstrative responsible love. That's a lot of pressure if you think about it! And he can also give valuable advice to men and women as a spiritual father to his flock. These are very big blessings. So, imho, the ideal of celibacy is a laudable and worthy one, but it's not for everyone, and we should be able to see the myriad blessings of a married priesthood as well, and not look at it as inferior or something "just for those Easterners!" It's a discipline, and thus can be changed. I think we in here seem to treat it not as discipline, but dogma. It's like allowing a married priesthood is tantamount to allowing female priests or something that really sells out Western values...

what of the priests who end up getting a divorce or who are lucky, unlucky [depending which way you look at it] in getting remarried?

 

[Sumwear]

There is a solitude in being alone and more time for God. More time for prayers, more time for meditations.
Not all are called - and those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom do exist.

Either way - works.

But we shouldnt be down on celibacy. Even St Paul said it is better for those who want to please God.

[Less other worldly things on their mind - like pleasing their wife. Worrying about children]

They are free to pursue unlimited thoughts towards things of Heaven. Tho they have responsibilities to God's ppl - they are not tied down to both family and God's ppl.
OTOH - they can be successful in doing both. But time alone for contemplation is not as available.

you do bring up st. paul which is valid to the discussion. he pretty much put celibacy on a pedestal and talked about marriage as more of a necessity to counter and make better use of sexual urges more than anything. to step away from his writings and to think that being of the cloth and being married is one and the same is asinine thinking by just reading what he wrote. for st. paul, being a celibate priest would be tops, followed by people who are celibate, followed by married couples.

 

[judechild]

Dealing with the issue of the unitive and procreative nature of the conjugal act would take us into contraception....which this thread isn't about.

It is perfectly valid as a response to what you wrote. You wrote that something which is normative now may not necessarily be so in the future, but there are many things (such as the theology of the conjugal act) which are authentic developments of theology and have no real possibility of change. It appears that priestly celibacy is of the same genus. You can keep ignoring the arguments I give, but then don't be surprised that I don't take your opinion very seriously on the topic.

People seem to treat priestly celibacy on the same way as a creationist says of evolution ''it's just a theory!'' Celibacy is not a doctrine, but that doesn't mean that it's whimsical simply because it is ''only'' a discipline. Another example of something ''normative'' is Mass in the vernacular, but I don't see too many of the same people who call celibacy ''just a discipline'' treating Mass in the vernacular so whimsically.

how is it again that allowing exceptions is an argument for priestly celebacy? Is that like the exception that proves the rule? And because the exceptions are so few that means it is fair to others?

Well goodness, I don't know how allowing for exceptions is an argument for priestly celibacy; I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. Instead, I said that allowing exceptions is not a argument <i>against</I> priestly celibacy as a rule. For that, I have the basic logic on my side, as well as the unanimous testimony of the 20th century Popes; both of which I have already presented and you have promptly ignored. You could work for the Italian postal system.

I appreciate your description of the metaphor of the Church being the bride of Christ and using that as a model for priestly celebacy. But that is not the original theological principle upon which priestly celebacy was founded but a redactive apologetic, as you well know.

Nope, it certainly is not, and you've continued to prove my point about opponents of priestly celibacy always trying to bypass the theology. You see, the whole nonsense about medieval inheritance laws is a very, very new idea; it didn't become popular or even known until after Pope John Paul II published Pastures Dabo Vobis in the 1980s. Curiously enough, that was also when the re-structuralists threw in the towel on theological arguments against priestly celibacy (since John Paul completely demolished them). Well, when Aesop's wolf couldn't find an excuse for eating the lamb he went ahead and ate him anyway, and so re-structuralists tried to bypass their Theological weak-ground by invalidating the concept of celibacy at the nativity of its legal obligation. In addition to being the very definition of the Genetic Fallacy, though, it is also incorrect because it does not take into account the extremely long process of theological development that began in the pre-Nicae days, and culminated quite logically in the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council; that tragetory can be seen by anyone who takes some time to study the topic, and I can give as many examples as you want of the document-trail leading up to it.

No, the concept of the Alter Cristus and its effect on the concept of priestly celibacy is not some posterior-argument; it was part of the context of the Western approach to the priesthood which eventually led to the legal principle. It's the argument of those who wqnt the principle to change which is a posterior-apologetic - and one that has no logical or factual coherence.

It's always a little strange to me that I'm always defending celibacy against such a ridiculous accusation, because usually the accusation is made by married people. Don't they realize that more men have profited for millenia off of marriage far more than anyone has ever profited from celibacy? The irony is that I'll defend marriage tooth-and-nail, but non-celibates are perfectly happy to push celibacy under the bus whenever they feel like it.

The practice of priestly celibacy isn't going to change - now or in the future. Their is simply no tragetory against it, particularly in this decade, when its proponents are bending all their energy towards circumventing the theology rather than responding to it.