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.

[cornelis]

We may grant inspiration, and still have to come to terms with the Old / New Testament distinctions regarding the status of law.

[Petronski]

So, I guess by your logic I couldn't understand a really messy divorce unless I'd been through a really messy divorce. (Or a thousand other examples...)

Right.

[GOP_Thug_Mom]

Cleveland-based reform group, FutureChurch...

"Cleveland Rocks"...BWAAAHH!!! The "Future Church" probably meets in the John Lennon "suite" of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame!

[invoman]

We may grant inspiration, and still have to come to terms with the Old / New Testament distinctions regarding the status of law

Romans 3:28:

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Unless I'm missing something, this verse (and the entire context of the chapter itself) pretty well sums up an answer to your statement. I realize your statement wasn't a question...it was a statement. And so those terms are given...

[RobbyS]

I believe the text of the Bible[1:5-7] says an office holder in the Church MUST be married. He is talking about the leaders of house-churches. Normally the church would meet only in the house of a pious man, faithful to his wife and with obedient children etc. Why would a widower be excluded? The question of celibacy would probably not even arise.

[DallasMike]

Your reading of Paul's comments on celibacy et al, depends on your agreement with Luther on this matter.

I'm sorry but I've completely lost you on this one. It has nothing to do with "my reading" of Paul or Luther's reading of Paul. The words of Paul could not be any plainer -- clergy are allowed to marry if they wish and forbidding people to marry is the teaching of demons and deceiving spirits. It's clear also that Peter and a number of other apostles were married and that they brought their wives with them on their mission journeys.

When I'm driving along and see a stop sign, I don't ask others in the car what their "reading" of it is or research what Henry Ford thought on the subject. The meaning of the stop sign is plain on its face so I stop the car. Similarly, Paul's teachings, which were given by God, are clear and don't depend upon anyone's interpretation whether they be Catholic, Baptist, or Lutheran.

[DallasMike]

How many Protestant denominations forbid birth control, which is the moral equivalent of a homosexual act?

Evangelical denominations have pretty much come into agreement that anything which interferes with a fertilized egg maturing to a full-term baby is a sin.

What does this have to do with priestly celibacy?

[DallasMike]

Are you claiming that chastity causes homosexuality?

All I'm doing is advocating a return to what scriptures say and the early church practiced. Forcing clergy to be celibate is clearly a heresy.

[ninenot]

An earlier thread on this topic contained a reference to a lengthy article, which I read.

It was quite interesting.

First of all, the Church's beliefs are based BOTH on Scripture AND Tradition--there are some things which were practiced, or orally transmitted, which were not written down. Thus, while Scripture provides foundation, it is only 1/2 of the foundation(s) on which the Church operates.

Now to the article. Summarily, the author, who had studied the issue extensively, brought up continence--a very important link.

Most of the discussion on these threads has been specifically about celibacy--loosely, NOT being married. But continence is rarely brought up, because continence is deliberately sacrificing legitimate marital relations for the sake of a greater good. In the specific case, it was demanded of those who would be priests, WITH THE ASSENT of the wife.

Secondly, the author mentioned the difference between "ius" and "lex." "Ius" is the unwritten law, whereas "lex" is the written law. It's sort of akin to manners: most of them are 'unwritten' laws, but failure to practice them is considered to be wrong, just as failure to practice the "written" manners is.

The author contends that the "ius" of the marriage question was that priests should NOT marry, or if they are ordained after marriage, that they should (with the assent of the wife) become continent.

The "lex" followed in around 1100-1200, whenever.

Both the "ius" and the "lex" were widely and flagrantly disobeyed, but by no means was this disobedience practiced by ALL priests at ALL times. It waxed and waned.

Summarily: 1) Continence was part of the Tradition, and both continence and celibacy should be considered when discussing the matter. 2) What is written is not necessarily ALL of the law. This leads us back to the necessity of Tradition in conjunction with Scripture.

Now let's argue.

[nmh]

Once upon a time Catholic priests were allowed to marry. Then someone came up with the brilliant idea that they shouldn't because it was a distraction.

Yup, even Peter was married.

Matt.8:14

[14] And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

[DallasMike]

He is talking about the leaders of house-churches.

LOL! Where on earth did you come up with that idea?

I'm sorry, but the Catholic church has painted itself into an intellectual corner on this one and the excuses are becoming sillier and sillier. Why can't you just follow the clear teachings of scripture and the practices of the early church?

[DallasMike]

Or the evangelical church, right?

Sometimes, yes. I disagree with the Baptists when they claim that drinking wine is a sin. But if you ask me which erroneous doctrine has done the most damage, I think that forbidding clergy to marry when scriptures clearly permit it is the clear winner. It has caused many people to fall into sin, just as Paul warned.

On the other hand, Paul prophesying that the heresy of forbidding to marry would enter the church is a pretty nifty proof of his apostleship.

[nmh]

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

Indeed it is for those whose beliefs are centered around His Word. For others it doesn't matter what the Bible says. Man made beliefs supercede the Bible.

[nmh]

Does it matter what the Bible says or does Catholic tradition supercede that too? Maybe it's time to follow what God allows.

Matt.8:14

[14] And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

[invoman]

Why would a widower be excluded?

Outstanding point. I will ponder over that. Obviously, the widower should have children...and thus ruling over them, but the fact that he is WITHOUT a current wife makes for interesting debate because the CURRENT state would be in question, as opposed to the fact that he once was married. HMMMM...quite interesting.

I'm inclined to say, without giving this a great deal of thought, that the man -a widower- who was once married, to a wife, and has his children in obedience, is qualified. But, I also would yield to a better scripture for this condition.

Again, we are discussing the democratic nomination of a Church Office as opposed to a Gift of the Spirit.

As for 'house-churches', I would ask for a distinction/defintition of a house-church as you imply. I'm not aware that God distinguished a house-church from a church. He DID declare "wherever two or three are gathered in my name...", but I'm convinced that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the formalities of a larger church.

The first few chapters, 3 of them, in Revelation are addressed to seven churches in seven cities. These are most certainly not "house-churches" (meaning a couple of people), but are churches of size recognized by God. I believe these are the type of churches discussed in scripture.

Further:

Paul makes a distinction between deacons and bishops. Both are recognized and perhaps a man could be both, but the text implies they are seperate offices and could/would be held by seperate men. A house-church, as you've implied, still leaves a 'man out'. Meaning that if what you said is true, there would still be an office available for a man at someone else's house.

Celebacy was not only a 'question', it was required to be refused by Paul for both of the men. As an Apostle (chosen by God, through faith), he was not a deacon, nor a bishop (chosen by men).

[mylife]

Isn't that called BAPTISTS?? LOL!!

Im not much for words.

[DallasMike]

First of all, the Church's beliefs are based BOTH on Scripture AND Tradition--there are some things which were practiced, or orally transmitted, which were not written down.

That's nice but your tradition clearly violates scripture. Jesus did not have any nice things to say about the Pharisees of his day who claimed that they were privy to tradition taught by Moses and handed down to them orally. He clearly said that their traditions were man-made and that it was wrong to place man-made traditions above scripture.

Another word for scripture is canon, which means measuring rod. We need to measure our traditions as to whether they comport with scripture. Do your research and you'll find that this is what most of the early fathers taught.

The parallels between the Jews piling man-made traditions on scripture and the church (not just Catholics) is enough to take your breath away. I suggest Alfred Edersheim's massive tome The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.

Finally, if we pretend that enforced priestly celibacy somehow doesn't violate scripture, then why was it not practiced by the early church?

[DallasMike]

Yup, even Peter was married.

Er, but his wife had died. No wait -- he left her behind when he travelled. No, I've got it -- they stopped having marital relations because it was a naughty thing to do. Yeah, that's the ticket.

The list of excuses I've seen to get around this plainly stated fact is simply amazing!

[RobbyS]

Are you so sure that you really know what Paul was talking about, I mean what he had in mind as he wrote? Titus, for instance refers to a concrete situation and particular persons about whom WE know next to nothing. If we were suddenly transported back to Philadelphia in 1776 and were suddely introduced to men whose names are famous, we would find that our "knowledge" of them was very wrong. To be suddenly in the company of Cretans of the 1st Century would absolutely blow our minds, as we would be aliens on a different planet. Even if we knew their language and could explain that we were also Christians, we would hardly know what to make of one another.

[mylife]

Not if he was married.

What is this DU? there is no basis in fact in this statement.