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.

[DallasMike]

And the early Christians, including Paul, not not believe that the world was coming to an end and that Jesus was about to come again?

Some thought that the second coming was imminent while others didn't. Paul scolded the Thessalonians for quitting work, etc. in preparation for the second coming and, in some cases, for believing that Christ had already come again. He said that when Christ comes again, we'll all know it.

[RobbyS]

One thing is sure: Paul did not know when Jesus was coming.

[bicycle thug]

"Are you saying he sinned?"

Many early male church leaders played down and ignored many contributions to Christianity by women. Mary Magdalene is believed by many to have written the forth Gospel, not John of Zebedee.

She could well have been Jesus' wife and that would make sex Jesus may have had not sinful. We know very little still about much of Jesus's life, and that of others who followed him in his time.

There is just too much hand wringing over sex in the Catholic Church and much of the rest of Christianity. My point here is not to drag Jesus' name in the mud, but to post a link and some ideas about that time worth thinking about.

[RobbyS]

Why do you think that early Christians had the same ideas about sex as you and Dr. Freud? And who asre you all to say they were wrong in what they believed?

[bicycle thug]

"And who are you all to say they were wrong in what they believed?"

Who said I was doing more then speculating? I didn't. Perhaps Jesus was celibate. But there is no proof he did or didn't have sex.

I know I would not hold it against him if he did have sexual intercourse sometime in his life. There is hardly anything inherently evil about the act itself.

[BlackElk]

Because God provided the papacy for the specific purpose of governing the Church. What is permitted is neither required nor prohibited.

1. If you think that the apostles were married while they were apostles, give us your answer to #236.

2. The RCC does not allow democracy (or anarchy) in the pews to govern the Church. That is why we are still anti-abortiion, anti-divorce, and anti-birth control as all Christian chuirches were a century ago.

3. What you meant to say was that the RCC should be run by what YOU THINK are God's rules. YOPIOS is still YOPIOS: nothing more and nothing less. Every Tom, Dick and Harry serving as his own teaching magisterium really does not work now or ever.

[BlackElk]

High fives! I am envious!

[BlackElk]

1. Assuming for the sake of argument that there ever was a St. Petronilla and further that she was a daughter of Peter, no one denied that Peter was EVER married. Having a mother-in-law suggests that one either is or has been married. It certainly does not require one to be currently married. Make no assumptions about a world with neither modern surgery nor antibiotics. Plenty of people were widowed.

2. Analogy as to Phillip and as to Jude Thaddeus. Same reasoning as above in 1.

[stripes1776]

Giving up a great part of what it means to be human by forgoing sex for a lifetime thinking God will be pleased runs afoul of the nature of grace, for one thing.

It depends on your understanding of sacrifice and grace. For some people, sacrifice is giving up. For others, it is giving to. Only those who have experieced grace can return it.

[Robert Drobot]

Dumb bump

[DallasMike]

1. If you think that the apostles were married while they were apostles, give us your answer to #236.
 

LOL! You know as well as I do that the scriptures do not name the wives of the apostles. What you evidently don't know though is that scripture does refer to at least some of the apostles having wives and that their wives traveled with them on missionary journeys.

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?  

If they weren't married while they were apostles, then whose wives were they leading around?

According to Clement of Alexandria in Stromata III (I haven't found an English translation, but here's what the Catholic Encyclopedia says), Peter's wife was the first of the two to suffer martyrdom. Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica III has this to say:

"They say, accordingly, that when the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, `Oh thou, remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."

Even the church fathers that you claim as your own recognized had no problem with the fact that Peter was married while an apostle and that his wife traveled with him!

2. The RCC does not allow democracy (or anarchy) in the pews to govern the Church. That is why we are still anti-abortiion, anti-divorce, and anti-birth control as all Christian chuirches were a century ago.

No one's talking about democracy leading the church. We're talking about the church following scriptures and the teachings of the early church fathers.

3. What you meant to say was that the RCC should be run by what YOU THINK are God's rules. YOPIOS is still YOPIOS: nothing more and nothing less. Every Tom, Dick and Harry serving as his own teaching magisterium really does not work now or ever.

I'm not talking about what I think are God's rules -- I'm talking about following the plain meaning of the scriptures and the teachings of the early church. If you read your Bible you'll find that the Jewish leaders of Jesus' time believed that only they could discern the meaning of scriptures. They even had their own traditions that they claimed were passed down orally from Moses. History repeats itself.

All I'm doing is pointing out that today's Magisterium conflicts with the early fathers. How can that be?

 

 

[DallasMike]

1. Assuming for the sake of argument that there ever was a St. Petronilla and further that she was a daughter of Peter, no one denied that Peter was EVER married. Having a mother-in-law suggests that one either is or has been married. It certainly does not require one to be currently married. Make no assumptions about a world with neither modern surgery nor antibiotics. Plenty of people were widowed.

1. See my post 271 to you. If Peter's wife were dead, then whose wife was Peter leading around at the time Colossians was written?
2. If Peter was widowed, then why is it that both Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius mention Peter's wife being martyred shortly before he was? I provided a link to an English translation of Eusebius for a reason.

You said, I believe, that you were an attorney. If so, then use those logic and research skills that you learned in law school!

[DallasMike]

1. If you think that the apostles were married while they were apostles, give us your answer to #236.

Open your Bible and check the geneologies at the beginning of Matthew. Note how rarely women are mentioned (without my Bible in front of me, only Rahab and Ruth come to mind). Using your logic, should we assume therefore that the men listed in the geneoligies were all widowers?

3. What you meant to say was that the RCC should be run by what YOU THINK are God's rules. YOPIOS is still YOPIOS: nothing more and nothing less. Every Tom, Dick and Harry serving as his own teaching magisterium really does not work now or ever.

This might come as a horrible shock to you, but the early church did not have a formal magisterium. The gospels, the letters of Paul and the others were sent to individual churches and read directly to the people. The meaning of their writings was clear and remains clear to this day. The notion of a formal magisterium to "interpret" the scriptures was an invention that came much later.

Does that mean that every one is on their own when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Not at all. The scriptures need to be interpreted in accordance with the regula fidei formed in the early years of the church. Thus, when protestants come up with novel doctrines like "name it and claim it" and the Catholics come up with novel practices like a celibate clergy, we need to check those ideas with the scriptures and how they have been interpreted in light of the historical faith.

But, you argue, Paul was an apostle and therfore was a part of the original magisterium. Okay, then why did Paul write that Peter and the other apostles took their wives with them on their travels? Why did he prophesy that the teaching of forbidding marriage would enter the church and call it a heresy? Why did Paul write that continence was always to be a temporary state and not a permanent one?

If Paul was a member of the original magisterium, then the things that he taught conflict with what the magisterium currently teaches. The magisterium has overturned the teachings of the early church, not only in the so-called "discipline" of clergy celibacy, but in many other areas as well.

[RobbyS]

Some speculation is off-limits. Careless speech such as yours is offensive. It is called blasphemy. Throats have been slit for saying less. Our laws nowadays allow you to speak freely
but don't try something like this in a Muslim country.

[DallasMike]

Perhaps Jesus was celibate. But there is no proof he did or didn't have sex.

1. Sex outside of marriage is a sin.

2. Jesus was not married.

3. Jesus did not sin.

4. Ergo, Jesus was celibate.

[ninenot]

Perhaps you forget that Peter was the first Pope, and Paul was a trusted adviser. Peter did not always take Paul's advice.

Moreover, and more to the point, you once again post a portion of a letter from Paul, written to married couples, as though this letter were written to priest-candidates and their wives--a highly disputable conclusion which you casually make into a "universal Fact."

To quote BlackElk in one of his most wisdom-laden and oft-used dicta: "That's YOPIOS." And again, to paraphrase BE, thanks for your advice, but we really don't need it.

[ninenot]

There is just too much hand wringing over sex in the Catholic Church and much of the rest of Christianity.

A number of authorities, including the Mother of God, have stated that sexual peccadilloes are THE DOMINANT reason for souls gaining a permanent address with Satan.

Seems to me that there's plenty of reason for the handwringing, if anyone takes the Four Last Things seriously.

[eastsider]

... priestly celibacy was definitely not a doctrine at the time.

Nor is it doctrine now. Like fasting, it is a discipline, not a doctrine.

[ninenot]

There is just too much hand wringing over sex in the Catholic Church and much of the rest of Christianity.

A number of authorities, including the Mother of God, have stated that sexual peccadilloes are THE DOMINANT reason for souls gaining a permanent address with Satan.

Seems to me that there's plenty of reason for the handwringing, if anyone takes the Four Last Things seriously.

[RobbyS]

If Paul was a member of the original magisterium, then the things that he taught conflict with what the magisterium currently teaches. The magisterium has overturned the teachings of the early church, not only in the so-called "discipline" of clergy celibacy, but in many other areas as well.

First of all magisterium simply means "teaching authority. Jesus gave authority to certain individuals, the apostles, hence it also refers to the apostolic authority, of which the bishops, as the successors to the apostles, share. You deny this. You claim that early in the history of the Church a means of interpretation was developed and utilized by the Fathers. But this "rule of faith" is really one developed by the Reformers as a substitute for the authority of the pope. While they agreed that their argument was enough to justify their rejection of the pope, they were unable to agree among themselves when they began to apply it. Hence almost immediately they began to break into sects. Contrary to what you claim, each Protestant is left on his own to interpret the Bible or to follow one of the interpretations proposed by the Luther and the other reformers. To put it another way, you read the Bible and draw your own conclusions, or you read the commentaries of Melancthon or Calvin or some later "expert" and share his conclusions about the meaning of Scripture. As a matter of fact, however, most people don't even study the Bible anymore and are content with the simple formularies of some ranter and the musical entertaiment in a "church home" of their choice.