John Paul II Hails "Inestimable Value" of Priestly Celibacy

www.zenit.org ^ | JAN. 26, 2004

[johnb2004]

John Paul II considers priestly celibacy of "inestimable value," and appealed for the support that priests need to show that Christ gives full meaning to their lives.

"In today's world, the question of ecclesiastical celibacy and chastity that derives from it continues to be, frequently, both for youth as for other faithful, a stumbling block, object of numerous misunderstandings in public opinion," the Pope said Saturday when receiving a group of French bishops. The bishops, from the ecclesiastical provinces of Montpellier and Toulouse, were ending their five-yearly visit to the Vatican.

In the audience, the Holy Father began by mentioning the faithfulness of so many priests, "who in this way show the world that Christ and the mission can fulfill a life."

Those lives, he said, are "a testimony of the absoluteness of God and a particularly fruitful participation in the building of the Church."

In fact, John Paul II said, "chastity in celibacy has an inestimable value. It constitutes an important key for the spiritual life of priests, for their commitment in the mission, and for their appropriate pastoral relation with the faithful, which should not be based on emotional aspects, but on the responsibility of his ministry."

For these reasons, the Holy Father invited priests "to be vigilant in the face of the seductions of the world and to make an examination of conscience regularly to live ever more profoundly fidelity to their commitment."

"Every attitude that goes against this teaching constitutes an anti-testimony for the Christian community and for all men," he said.

The Holy Father asked the bishops to support young priests especially who, like their contemporaries, "are characterized both by extraordinary enthusiasm as well as the frailties of their time."

"Appropriate psychological and spiritual assistance can also be shown to be necessary so that situations will not last that, with the passing of time, could become dangerous," he said.

"At the same time," the Pope added, "in the case of priests who have a way of life that does not conform to their state, it is necessary to invite them expressly to conversion."

[Barnacle]

Here's my theory on the rationale. A priest could much more easily subject himself to martyrdom if necessary if he doesn't have a wife and children.

Just speaking for myself, my whole perspective on life took a quantum leap when I got married and another one when I became a father.

[sitetest]

Dear seamole,

That sounds to me like more exhortation, not really an argument.

I don't think the Holy Father was trying to lay out a comprehensive argument for celibacy here. I think he was exhorting us to value celibacy.


sitetest

[johnb2004]

It would be no better. Because the laity have been so poorly fed by so many priests who preach the social gospel only, we have little authentic catechesis. How many consciences are properly formed today? I am not being sarcastic. Do you think most who attend mass form their consciences to the teachings of the Church?


The Church needs more faithful men to answer Christ's call. That can only occur if more good men like Burke are put into place. For too long we have had swishy, compromising bishops that go along to get along. Hardly inspiring to a young man. Who would want to dedicate their life to a role model like Mahoney, Clark, Hubbard, etc?

If we want more priests, then we all need to reform ourselves. We need more manly priests who stand out as dedicated to Christ, not just social workers and politicians.

[sitetest]

Dear onedoug,

I have friends who are Protestants, and have listened for years to the problems associated with greater control of the laity.

What problems you might solve with one way of doing things will invite other problems otherwise solved by the other way.

This will be the case until Jesus comes again.

For my part, I agree with the Catholic view of things.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear johnb2004,

When I was younger, I was much more concerned about the inadequate catechesis of the laity.

In recent years, I've read the complaints of Pope St. Pius X regarding the abysmal catechesis of the laity of his time, and problems that have afflicted the Church throughout our history. I've come to the conclusion that many of the problems which we experience today in the Church either have been with us always, or recur from time to time.

That doesn't mean that we oughtn't try to repair what is broken. It does mean that we have to try to keep things in perspective.


sitetest

[johnb2004]

Well, you may have a small point. However, in my opinion it is a misreading of history to think that the influence of the Church is the same today as it was in years gone by.

For example do you think it is fair to assume that most people who identify themselves as Catholics would find artificial contraception as acceptable as the culture at large? Go back 60 years, would the same same Catholics agree with popular thought?

Catechesis does not insure all will abide by the Truth, but at least it would provide many with the Truth. Today many do not even accept that the Church has the right to speak for the Truth. Yet, we demand more lay involvement.

[sitetest]

Dear johnb2004,

I don't think I said that the influence of the Church is the same today as it was in years gone by.

I think I said that folks were as inadequately catechized in the past as they are today.

Part of why that was less deleterious in the past was the very fact that the Church had more influence at other times in history. Aside from the theology of it, prior to 1930, pretty much everyone who considered themselves Christian disdained artificial contraception, or at the very least, understood that it had been the constant and unanimous teaching among Christians from the beginning.

Western civilization was built on the foundation of a Catholic culture. As we move into a time that is post-Catholic, post-Christian, the support provided to the Church by the culture fades.

One may argue, then, that better catechesis is even more important than before. That seems implied by your post. I won't argue with it.

But one must take into account the fact that people today are not especially poorly-catechized compared to times past.

As for increased control of the Church by the laity, I think you're preaching to the choir, here. Heck, I know my friend sinkspur will likely blanch, but if it were up to me, I'd even get rid of "parish councils" and the like.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear seamole,

???

"Who are you fighting for now, your own pride?"

If I were a more sensitive fellow, I might regard this as a violation of the (newly-reinforced) rules against personal attack.

I made an assertion - that the pope's words are an exhortation - an encouragement - to celibacy, not a systematic argument in its favor. You questioned my assertion, I responded with a bit more of an answer.

I'm not "fighting" for anyone or anything, merely elaborating on my previous comments.

Perhaps you are under the misimpression that I'm criticizing the pope for offering an exhortation rather than an argument. I'm not. I imagine that he gave what was appropriate for the time and place.

Perhaps you are under the misimpression that I'm saying this is an exhortation rather than an argument because I oppose the discipline of celibacy. I don't. Though it is a matter of discipline, not doctrine, I support the the discipline of priestly celibacy, and have actually made ARGUMENTS in its favor here at FR against those who prefer to undo the discipline. Ask sinkspur.

In any event, the words you cite would make a good beginning of an outline of an argument in favor of celibacy, but scarcely would it suffice as an argument itself.


sitetest

[NYer]

Dear onedoug,

Follow the link in my post "lucky" #7!

[sitetest]

"I refuse to respond to this."

Works for me.

[Barnacle]

Please see this thread. Let us Catholics lead by example.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1063313/posts

[Barnacle]

OK

[onedoug]

Thank you.

Though not Jewish by birth, I'm nevertheless an ethical monotheist who adheres to halakha (Jewish law) pretty closely, so this is my perspective.

I entertain an endless fascination with Jesus as a Jew, and so question his application to the law, while yet recognizing the theological considerations which convey him as the messiah to so many millions...which I think we're all richer for, especially in America.

Though the ancient Hebrews channeling utterly wild male sexuality into heterosexual marriage provided - I believe - the cornerstone and anchor of Western civilization. And it's hard for me not to be excited about that, too.

God Bless, always.

[saradippity]

Can you give a pretty comprehensive list of those non-doctrinal matters in which the laity should have a voice.I attended a couple of VOTF meetings. they have three objectives.

The first is to support victims of abuse. I have no problem with that.

The second was to support priests of integrity. At that meeting I asked who was to determine the "priests of integrity" and what criteria were to be used. Two meetings later and the facilitator was still unable to answer.

I pointed out that at that very parish I had seen some of the same faces supporting a priest who had been charged with abuse,supported to the max by these very same people. Several days later it was confirmed that he indeed was an abuser.This is the biggest problem of lay groups advising the Church,many have their own agenda and many have no idea of the facts. They just knee jerk respond to emotional appeals.Then they get mad if their advice is ignored,even though their advice may have been counter to Church teaching and truth.

I won't even address the third since no one seems to have a satisfactory response to the second. The third is actually more impossible to acheive.

Anyway I am serious,just what non-doctrinal topics can be subject to more vioce from the laity?

[saradippity]

Right on that one!! My daughters-in-law have all come back to me after they were married,to tell me they now knew what I was talking about when I argued them about the need for "celibacy"in the priesthood.

[NYer]

I entertain an endless fascination with Jesus as a Jew

Yes ... me too! I have often pondered how I, as a religious Jew, would have responded to His teachings, were I alive back then. Especially this one:

He came to Nazareth, where he had grown up,
and went according to his custom
into the synagogue on the sabbath day.
He stood up to read and was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah.
He unrolled the scroll and found the passage where it was written:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring glad tidings to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.
Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down,
and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him.
He said to them,
"Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing."

Luke 4:14-21