Call To Action: Dump Celibacy

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ^ | 11/8/03 | Tom Heinen

[ninenot]

Optional celibacy backed at Catholic conference

By TOM HEINEN
theinen@journalsentinel.com

Last Updated: Nov. 7, 2003

About 2,800 reform-minded Catholics from around the nation gave a standing ovation Friday to a few of the 169 Milwaukee-area priests who took the rare step of supporting optional celibacy in letters this year to the president of the U.S. bishops conference.Celibacy's History

A short history of celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church:

300: The Council of Elvira, a local synod in Spain, mandates celibacy for clergy under its jurisdiction.
366: A growing body of papal teachings favors celibacy, but the observance of celibacy is not uniform.
1073-1085: Pope Gregory VII declares that celibacy be universally observed as part of an overall reform of the church.
1522: Martin Luther condemns celibacy.
1545-1563: The Council of Trent upholds universal celibacy in direct response to Martin Luther's statements.
1967: Pope Paul VI reiterates the tradition.
1971: The World Synod of Bishops reaffirms celibacy.
1978-2003: Pope John Paul II consistently reaffirms his belief in celibacy. However, in 1980, he authorizes an exception for married Episcopal priests who want to join the Roman Catholic Church.

Source: Father Andrew Nelson, retired rector of St. Francis Seminary.

The reaction came at the annual Call to Action conference, where reformers launched a national letter-writing and education campaign to sustain and intensify the ripples of outspokenness that have spread from here to a number of dioceses across the country.

Dan Daley, co-director of the Chicago-based group, kicked off the 18-month campaign by calling attention to the Milwaukee priests in the Midwest Airlines Center on the opening night of the three-day conference.

At least three of the priests who signed the letter were seated at the front of the ballroom - Father Richard Aiken, pastor of St. Alphonsus Church in Greendale; Father Carl Diederichs, associate pastor of the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist; and Father Kenneth Mich, pastor of Good Shepherd Church in Menomonee Falls.

Last weekend, a sample letter in support of optional celibacy was inserted into the bulletins at Aiken's church, one of the archdiocese's largest congregations. It included instructions for mailing the letter or any other comments about the issue to Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

"I think that we just have to open ordained ministry up to everyone, both men and women, married and single," Aiken said in an interview at the convention center. "I think it's time we start looking at it now, probably a little late."

Both Milwaukee Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan and Gregory have spoken out on the issue in response to the Milwaukee priests' letter, saying, among other things, that the celibacy issue had already been discussed at length by bishops in past years and would not be reopened.

But that has not deterred reformers, some of whom hope the Vatican's opposition to optional celibacy might change under the successor to the aging Pope John Paul II.

The new Corpus Christi Campaign for Optional Celibacy is being launched by Call to Action and a Cleveland-based reform group, FutureChurch.

Letters to Gregory in support of optional celibacy were handed out and collected Friday night. Education packets also were handed out that included, among other things, information about how to start discussion groups and spark parish-based campaigns.

There also were petitions for people to sign and send to the U.S. delegates who will participate in an International Synod on the Eucharist that the Vatican is expected to hold in late 2004 or early 2005.

At the heart of the effort are demographic data from the Official Catholic Directory that have been posted on a Web site - www.futurechurch.org - for Catholics to see how the number of priests in their dioceses is dwindling as more of the aging corps of priests reaches retirement age or die.

The campaign is building on the work of three Milwaukee-area women who earlier this year started a grass-roots campaign with a post office box and the name People in Support of Optional Celibacy - Terry Ryan of New Berlin; Roberta Manley of Greenfield; and Nancy Pritchard of Milwaukee.

Ryan wrote a rough draft of a petition and letter supporting the Milwaukee priests and shared it with David Gawlik, editor of Corpus Reports, a newsletter for married priests. Gawlik surprised Ryan by posting the letter on the Corpus Web site without further consultation with her, and the effort was quickly endorsed by Call to Action Wisconsin as the electronics documents began circulating around the country and abroad.

As of Friday, 4,485 petition letters had been returned to the post office box. Sister Christine Schenk, executive director of FutureChurch, planned to combine them with the petitions that were signed at the convention Friday and submit more than 6,000 petitions to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops when it meets next week in Washington, D.C.

The celibacy issue is not new for groups such as Call to Action, which called for optional celibacy when it was founded in the 1970s. But the National Federation of Priest Councils - and groups of priests in Chicago, New York, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and some other dioceses - are joining in open appeals for the hierarchy to consider optional celibacy as one solution for the worsening priest shortage and its impact on the availability of the Eucharist.

[RobbyS]

This is really not one of those things that is open to much interpretation! Paul clearly says in several places that clergy may marry. He further says that it is a heresy to forbid marriage. Luther thought it was wrong to hold monks to vows that, in his opinion, did not contribute to their salvation. Only if one accepts his doctrine of grace do they not. Your reading of Paul's comments on celibacy et al, depends on your agreement with Luther on this matter.

[cornelis]

Not for an office in the Church

So, it was meant for all confessors? That's counter-intuitive, as they say.

A bad policy, no doubt, to insist on in the 20th century, when priests could rather serve to demonstrate fidelity in marriage. All the same, not heretical.

[invoman]

Well, there were no "offices", and there was barely a "Church"

Disagree.

There was always a "Church", and as for offices? 1st Timothy and Titus seem to disagree with your reasoning.

Furthermore, Paul was clear in stating he was not stating a commandment, but with permission:

1st Cor. 7:6

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

I reject, based on the Bible, the teaching that an office holder in the Church must be celibate. Clearly through the above text the opposite is true.

[DarkSavant]

Matt 19:11-12
"Not all men can receive this precept, but only to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

Jesus obviously stated celibacy was best for those who could accept it.


1 Cor 7:32 "The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife."

It also is more practical and allows for them to become better priests.

[RobbyS]

Who says an officer must be celibate?

[invoman]

So, it was meant for all confessors? That's counter-intuitive, as they say

Yes, I suppose you could see it that way. but Paul was clearly answering a question asked of him. The very first verse of 1st Cor. 7 says exactly that. But he stated it was his opinion, and NOT a commandment.

Throughout that passage, in the Bible, Paul intersperses (sp?) his own ideas and interjects a warning that it is NOT a commandment of the Lord, but by permission. Some would say (including Protestants), that "what Paul said is the Gospel truth". This is true. He also SAID this was not a commandment. So, if we reject his advice, there is no penalty/sin attached to this advice.

To be clear:

Why the multiple warnings/caveats about "permission" if it was God speaking through him (as in commandment)?

Reading though the text, as written, I read the advice for believers, in response to a question posed to Paul. Here he explains his advice and distributes it accordingly. He also says he is not speaking about a commandment. The text also has nothing to do with an office in the Church, which is the point of this thread and which he DID address in 1st Timothy 3 and in Titus.

[invoman]

Who says an officer must be celibate?

I'm not sure if you are joking around or not, so I'll assume you are not for this reply.

I believe the text of the Bible says an office holder in the Church MUST be married.

I cannot resolve 1st Timothy 3:4,5 AND Titus 1:5-7 without believing the above.

[Kenny Bunk]

I believe the best ideas truly are Inspired of God

Many copywriters I knew thought THEY were God. But always remember what Paul said in his Epistle to the Ad Agency:

"If the client moans and sighs,
Maketh their Logo twice the size.
But only in the gravest of cases
Should you show the clients' faces."

As you can surmise from your obviously deep well of theological knowledge, confusion over this last line led to the Iconoclastic Heresy.

[cornelis]

Interesting defense. Yet the distinction you make between opinion and commandment--which I am sure is important--will not change the scope of his recommendation. In other words, the argument that this the requirement of celibacy is a prohibition for the entire faith is incorrect. Paul recommends it, no doubt, and those who follow through with it, as a principle, have honest aspirations and reasons.

[invoman]

In other words, the argument that this the requirement of celibacy is a prohibition for the entire faith is incorrect.

I'm not sure I understand the above. Could you rephrase it? Thanks! Paul recommends it, no doubt, and those who follow through with it, as a principle, have honest aspirations and reasons.

Yep. I agree. However, when it comes to offices within the Church itself (on Earth, of course), he proclaims, WITHOUT caveat that the man must be married. Not just in one passage or book, but in two.

To put this in perspective, let's take a look at some of the other gifts of the Spirit:

1st Cor. 12:28,29:

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

According to the above text there are diverse GIFTS. These are in opposition to OFFICES. (As an interesting note-teachers are ABOVE those that work miracles under the Spirit.)

Each of these gifts have different requirements/tests. A prophet must NEVER be wrong. A teacher has a higher condemnation, etc. Throughout the New Testament, I read that the "office" is different than the "gift" given by the Holy Spirit. An "office" may be desired and granted by way of democracy within the Church itself. "Gifts" are given by the Holy Spirit. These are tests to prove the Spirit of God (for gifts).

On the other hand, the offices of the Church are granted by men. Paul presents requirements for these offices. He does NOT present a caveat for these offices. I believe he was speaking through the Holy Spirit at this time (as well as in the 1st Cor. text I've stated in above posts, but he gave a release in those texts.)

In other words:

Offices are man driven/chosen and are subject to the requirements presented in 1st Tim. 3 as well as Titus 1. Gifts of the Spirit are given without requirements. (They are given based on Faith.)

A celibate office holder in the Church, chosen by men, is in violation of scripture.

[cornelis]

He should've practice what he preached!

[cornelis]

practice practiced : )

[invoman]

He should've practice what he preached!

Paul was an Apostle, not a deacon, nor a bishop.

Paul held no office in the Church, and although the text implies that Apostles were apt and able to lead the Chruch, they were not chosen by men but by God himself.

practice practiced : )

It happnes...:>)

[cornelis]

Good point, although I never took the New Testament to be a Pauline Torah.

[invoman]

although I never took the New Testament to be a Pauline Torah

This comment begs the question of whether or not you believe scritprute is "inspired by God" or not.

If not, we no longer have a frame of reference in order to debate. If SO, then I require a refute, with scripturally reference in order to debate this properly.

Please don't take offense with my requests..I'm just trying to provide a point at which agree and then we can debate from there.

Ok?:>)