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]

The canon refers to the Scriptures that were read in the Churches. The ordinary Christian seldom knew more scripture than he heard in Church. The Bible as we know it, a small, single bound volume, was not available even in Latin until the 13th Century. So how could this be the rule by which a Christian could determine which doctrine was correct?

[DallasMike]

Are you so sure that you really know what Paul was talking about, I mean what he had in mind as he wrote? 

Yes, I am sure, and it’s clear that the early church knew nothing of priestly celibacy until it ran into the heresy of gnosticism. The scriptural text is very plain on its face and one would have to try extremely hard to force it mean something else. 

Okay, one more time: 

1Ti 4:1  But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons,
1Ti 4:2  through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3  forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth.  
 

I really don’t need a theology degree to figure out that Paul is prophesying about a time in which some church teachers will claim that forbidding some to marry is a doctrine of God, when in fact it is a doctrine of demons.

 
Mat 8:14  And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother lying sick of a fever.  

Peter was married. Claiming that Peter might have been married at one time but his wife had died is really quite a silly argument because Paul also writes: 

1Co 9:5  Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?  

Clearly Peter’s wife was not dead and clearly she and the wives of other apostles traveled with them. There is no mention either of the idea of continence either that ninenot brought up. That’s just another silly excuse to justify a false teaching that has no scriptural or historical foundation.

Further, it is evident from the above passage that the apostles generally were married. The phrase Paul used is hoi loipoi apostoloi (“the remaining apostles,” or "the other apostles"). 

1Ti 3:2  The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach;  

1Ti 3:12  Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 

I don’t take this to mean, as a very few do, that a church officer has to be married, because Paul obviously had much praise for the celibate life and stated that some were called to it. Note that Vigilantius, a presbyter in the church at Barcelona in the fourth century held the view that clergy must be married – proving, if nothing else, that priestly celibacy was definitely not a doctrine at the time.
 

[DallasMike]

The canon refers to the Scriptures that were read in the Churches. The ordinary Christian seldom knew more scripture than he heard in Church. The Bible as we know it, a small, single bound volume, was not available even in Latin until the 13th Century. So how could this be the rule by which a Christian could determine which doctrine was correct?
 

First of all, they had the Hebrew scriptures which were readily available.

Second, we know that the writings of the apostles were considered to be scriptures and that they were widely circulated amongst the churches:

2Pe 3:15 Think of our Lord's patience as salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him.

2Pe 3:16 He speaks about this subject in all his letters. Some things in them are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter elevates Paul's writings to the same level as the rest of the scriptures. Note that people were already distorting the scriptures in Apostolic times, which is why I'm wary of embracing a tradition just because it happens to be old. An old, wrong tradition is no better than a new, wrong tradition.

Third, we know from archeological evidence that there were thousands upon thousands of copies (if only sometimes fragments) of the New Testament writings circulating throughout the churches. They might not have had access to a small, single bound volume as we do, but they certainly had access to the scriptures.

Finally, the early church had the apostles themselves teaching them and the apostles verified that were from God with miracles and signs.

 

[invoman]

---Now let's argue---

I LOVE this! Sincerely.

Ok...onto the points:

---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.---

I can only argue from a point that I believe that the true Church is NOT confined to a denomination such as the RCC or Protestant. I will exclude Islam, Hindus and all other abominations. By abominations I mean those who deny Jesus is the Son of God and our Saviour.

When you state that scripture provides the foundation, I agree. But when you say it is only 1/2.. the Bible says:

2nd Thes. 2:15:

15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

In fact, read the whole chapter for a clear context. I AGREE there were traditions AND this verse says to STAND FAST and to HOLD to them. So why the CHANGE? Isn't the 'change' violating the 'stand fast' and 'hold' portion?

Again, read the entire chapter for context. The verse, written above, does not say: "Therfore, brethren, listen to whatever we decide is going to be tradition....". No. Rather it says STAND FAST and HOLD. I reject further traditions (spiritual in nature, but conceived by man) after the scripture was written. To accept them means one has not stood fast and held, but has MOVED.

2 Thes. 2 is a very powerful chapter and I encourage all to read it, in context. It deals with very timely subjects, such as these.

---In the specific case, it was demanded of those who would be priests, WITH THE ASSENT of the wife.---

Yep. Except that we find that this self restraint is tempered with the second tenet (of three) of this doctrine: Fasting. (One and three are consent and prayer)

To be concise:

1st Cor. 7:5

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Clearly fasting is an integral part of the consent. So, if I may be so bold, I claim that when one is eating he/she has NO authority to claim the above verse. And NEVER as to refuse an advance...(as written it be with CONSENT and FASTING and PRAYER). At the end of the fast/prayer/consent session a man MUST be with his wife....that SATAN will not tempt you.

---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.----

Continence was not tradition, it was scriptural as shown above. But....have a meal and you had better be having sex. Why? The author CLEARLY explains why! And what does verse 6 say?

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

So, if you take Pauls advice, you had better follow it through and not eat while being continent! Otherwise you are fair game for Satan.

When you say, "What is written is not necessarily ALL of the law." I can't help but disagree.

We are FREE from the law. Romans explains this quite clearly. FREEDOM from the law brings joy. I, myself, struggle with this. But it nonetheless remains...freedom from the law.

And in finality:
---This leads us back to the necessity of Tradition in conjunction with Scripture---

Disagree. By reading 2 Thes. 2 I read that the tradition was already taught and finalized. No need for something new that scripture forbids.

I hope we can keep this an honest debate.

[DallasMike]

I AGREE there were traditions AND this verse says to STAND FAST and to HOLD to them. So why the CHANGE? Isn't the 'change' violating the 'stand fast' and 'hold' portion?

Bingo. You have the "tradition" of priestly celibacy contradicting both scripture AND the tradition of the early church.

And by the way, if tradition is important enough to supercede scripture, then why hasn't the Catholic church published a book containing all of the tradition that the apostles supposedly taught? Doesn't that smack of a secret knowledge that only the initiated have access to? Yep, there's that old Gnosticism again.

Why was it a thousand years before the "tradition" of priestly celibacy was enforced and almost two thousand years until the "tradition" of the Assumption of Mary was formalized? What other traditions are there that we don't know about? Enquiring minds want to know.

[invoman]

Nice stuff DallasMike.

[DallasMike]

Continence was not tradition, it was scriptural as shown above. But....have a meal and you had better be having sex. Why? The author CLEARLY explains why! And what does verse 6 say?

You've done well, my son!

[invoman]

You've done well, my son!

(Implies you are a father of me)

Sorry, against scripture. I already have one.

[montag813]

I'm not Catholic so have no stake in this, but wouldn't getting rid of the celibacy requirement (or somehow doing it partially, lay priests or something) help with the pedophile issue and the numbers of gay priests?

Celibacy has nothing to do with Jesus or God. It was instituted rather late in the game by the Cathlolic Hierarchy to control their vast land holdings in Europe, which were being passed down by Bishops and Cardinals to their heirs.

[invoman]

---It was instituted rather late in the game by the Cathlolic Hierarchy to control their vast land holdings in Europe, which were being passed down by Bishops and Cardinals to their heirs.---


As prophesized in scritpure. See post 182 and the first couple of paragraphs. In particular the scripture portion.

[invoman]

1522: Martin Luther condemns celibacy.

Interesting sidenote.

I don't agree with everything he said/wrote but I find, after reading scripture, I agree with most of what he said. I've never read anything much by him, but I'm intrigued that I draw the same conclusions he does in most instances.

It doesn't take a scholar to read scripture.... but it takes a believer to understand.

Doubt the above? Then why does Satan believe he will win?

[ShadowDancer]

So, I guess by your logic I couldn't understand a really messy divorce unless I'd been through a really messy divorce.

Emotionally? Of course you couldn't.

[Catholicguy]

Got'cha. You don't need facts to draw a conclusion when it comes to things you bear an ideological opposition to.

[ninenot]

The operative term in your sentence is "Was."

Yes, Peter had a wife. We don't know with certainty that she was alive when JC called Peter. We ALSO don't know whether (if she was alive) Peter and his wife vowed continence...but Tradition would suggest that that was the case, if she were alive.

[ninenot]

The "forbidding men to marry" thing referenced in Titus dealt with a heresy which eventually (and with accretions) became known as Manicheanism.

[ninenot]

And of course, "Forbidding...to marry" is not quite the same as "Volunteering celibacy/continence" for the sake of the Kingdom.

One can force a reading any way they want, but imposition of a discipline versus voluntary acceptance of same are two VERY different things to people not residing in Dallas and attacking the Church.

[ninenot]

It would seem as though you are over-reading. In the passage re: fast/continence, there is NO reason to infer that it is directed to priest-candidates/priests.

On the other hand, we know that several of the Apostles chose to remain single and we do NOT know exactly what was the status of Peter's wife (alive, but when?) and even if she were alive through all of Peter's life, we certainly do not know if they continued marital relations.

We are FREE from the Law

Not exactly. We are free to do what is right, or JC would not have referenced the Commandments in the story of the young man who sought to be 'perfect.' Recall that JC said to him: "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell all your things, and follow Me." Although the story does not tell us whether the young man had a wife (likely he did not) this 'freedom from all things' implies a similar freedom from marital encumbrance. What we DO know is that the current ceremony for ordination of deacons (a step away from priesthood) STILL includes a vestigial reference to continence--that is, the wife's explicit acceptance of same, EVEN THOUGH such is no longer required of deacons (unless they are in the Seminary program to become priests.)

As I pointed out in another post above, there is also a BIG difference between "imposing" celibacy from the outside and "accepting" celibacy (or continence) from the 'inside.' The evidence and the Tradition clearly show that continence/celibacy was the accepted norm for priests, although it was often ignored or violated (sin happens...)

Finally, we know that Revelation ended at the death of the last Apostle, but within such Revelation and Tradition there are logical implications. To make such implications explicit is not to change, but to acknowledge their existence.

After a bit of puzzling over other items, I came to acknowledge that the Church is eminently the Church of common sense. This is not to state that other Christian religions are NOT common-sensical; but that the Church's teachings and decisions reflect 'common sense' consistently, in regard moral, doctrinal, and disciplinary matters.

[nmh]

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.

Nothing here indicates Peter's wife was dead. It's unwise to change God's Word to fit it with "tradition".

[nmh]

"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!"

Amazing isn't it? Determining his wife is dead. Then it's wrong to follow Jesus. Next they stopped having marital relations because it was naughty. All from this clearly stated verse:

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.

I suspect it is NOT God's Word they follow. Rather it is the word of some fallible mortal who's got a different "religion" and tradition going on.

[gcruse]

You don't need facts to draw a conclusion when it comes to things you bear an ideological opposition to.

Which condemns nonscriptural tradition, too. Gotcha.