Top Cardinal Plays Down Priest Shortage (Divorcees to receive communion?)

October 03,2005 | VATICAN CITY -- A senior cardinal played down the shortage of clergymen that has left many churches without priests to celebrate Mass, saying at the start of a meeting of the world's bishops Monday that access to the Eucharist was a gift, not a right for Catholics.

But Cardinal Angelo Scola, the relator, or key moderator of the Synod of Bishops, hinted at some flexibility on another divisive issue facing the church: its ban on giving communion to divorcees who remarry without getting an annulment.

The comments by the Venice archbishop came in a lengthy introductory speech, delivered in Latin, to the bishops on the first day of the three-week meeting on the Eucharist, or Mass, during which Catholics receive what they believe is the body and blood of Christ.

His comments drew immediate, if nuanced, criticism from two bishops who appeared with Scola at a news conference -- a hint of the debates that will likely ensue behind closed doors during the synod.

Monsignor Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines said the synod had to "squarely" confront the priest shortage issue, recounting how on his first Sunday as an ordained priest he celebrated nine Masses -- and that that was the norm in his country.

He said he didn't have any answers to the problem, but many church reform groups have called on the synod to discuss the celibacy rule for priests, saying the priesthood would grow if men were allowed to marry.

Scola, however, repeated in his speech what the church regards as the benefits of a celibate priesthood and said the synod should talk about a better distribution of priests in the world.

"In the Latin rite this would mandate complete abstinence since we have the practice of daily Mass. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Orthodox do not."

As a geeral proposition, we don't have daily Divine Liturgies. We do on major feasts, however, have non-Sunday Divine Liturgies. Our weekly liturgical practice centers more around compline and vespers on weekdays for most of the year and then of course during Great Lent we will have Paraklesis and Akathists sung along with vespers and Great Vespers.

" Perhaps this is the reason for our difference concerning this matter."

My gut tells me no. I think its simply that different disciplines developed in different places. Fasting rules are a good example of this. We are rather strict about fasting, really what you call abstaining, during Great Lent and even during the other three extended fasting periods in the year. We also fast completely from food and drink for at least 12 hours before communion (and sexual relations to put a fine point on it) and are expected to have abstained on both the Friday and Wednesday before (as we are expected to do every week except Bright Week). regular confession is also expected and of course one cannot be living in sin with another person or pursuing a life style contrary to the teachings of The Church. As I understand it, these practices either were never part of the Roman discipline or have gradually been reduced

You consider these men being married and devoted to the Lord as fanciful strawmen? That is your prerogative, however I things differently... alas we disagree on this point and I shall move on...

You stated: "That is not the Catholic Church's position. The Church's position is that of St. Paul as expressed in First Corinthians."

Thank you for stating the Churches position...

What of 1 Timothy? ...why is that not acceptable as well from the Churches point of view? That is what I don't understand...

1 Timothy does not change that the 1 Corinthians point of view that to be celibate is an admirable virtue to possess and aspire to...does this mean that the Church, by adopting the 1 Cor view point as the widely preferred choice of who can be a priest, considers the 1 Cor viewpoint as more valid than the 1 Timothy viewpoint?

Does Paul not show that either of these options are completely acceptable? What in the churches opinion validates 1 Cor more than 1 Tim?

I look forward to your insights...

In Christ...

Forgive me, but I don't see your point...please elaborate on why you believe the council would absolutely forbid a practice that Paul clearly demonstrated was acceptible in 1 Timothy. Why the categorical insistence of no married priests? That's what I'm trying to understand...

Please understand, I don't disagree at all the celibacy is a grand virtue to strive for, but scripture shows us that both the qualified married and celibate man should be considered to be priests/bishops...that is not deniable in any fashion as 1 Cor and 1 Tim show us this...i understand it's a discipline, so why not give the married men who desire to be faithful servants their opportunity to show the church that Paul had it right in stating that it is virtuous to be celibate, but tis also a noble thing to seek to be a bishop and those who do can be a husband of one wife...The discipline allows for both, yet the RCC doesn't...it's perplexing to me...

In Christ...

You consider these men being married and devoted to the Lord as fanciful strawmen?

No.

I consider your implication, i.e. that I do not believe that married men can be devoted to the Lord, to be a straw men.

Why? Because I have never said or implied anything of the kind. Nor would I say that, since I am a married man.

So, to reiterate, you are creating fanciful strawmen that have no bearing on the argument whatsoever.

Is that clear enough?

Does Paul not show that either of these options are completely acceptable?

Indeed. It shows that the Church may adopt one or both as its discipline.

The Church gets to select new ministers from among the candidates it chooses. No one has the right to claim a ministry as if it were theirs for the taking.

A little Greek work here in relation to a prior post you made regarding the words Jesus used for His mother in John and the word used for women in 1 Corinathians 9:5 being the same.

Please forgive me for the crude anglicizing of the Greek words. I do not have the ability to import Greek fonts.

That being said it is as I suspected. The root of both the words is the same but the ending in 1 Corinthians provides more definition. Let me explain.

In John 2:4 Jesus addresses His mother as "woman" and the Greek word there is "gunai" (guh-nai) which Bauer's Lexicon (a standard old work horse in this field) defines as "a woman married or unmarried". In other words Jesus addresses
His mother with the generic term for woman, although it should be noted that it was not a term of scorn.

In the passage in 1 Corinthians 9:5 St. Paul uses a word with the same root but an ending that indicates something further. The word is "gunaika" (gun-nai-kah) which Bauer's Lexicon defines as a married woman, a wife.

There is a further confirmation of this meaning from the Gospels when in Luke 14:20 the reluctant banquet guest attempts to refuse the invitation because he has married a wife (the Greek word here is also gunaika (gun-nai-kah)).
It is clear from the context that he is not saying "I have married a woman." This was not San Francisco, he did not have to explain that his spouse was female.

In Titus St. Paul uses a variation of this word when he describes the wife of a bishop (1:6). St. Paul uses not the generic "yunai" which Jesus used to address His mother, but rather "yunaikos" (gun-nai-kohs). This is the same word he uses in 1 Timothy 3:2. In both cases all translators understand this to mean "wife". I can explain, if you wish the why the endings "ka" and "kos" don't change the meaning of the word but time is limited.

The point is simple. The Greek does not support the idea in 1 Corinthians 9:5 that the Apostles, and the word there is plural, or Peter were traveling with women who were not their wives. The Greek word used by St. Paul is clearly "wife". What St. Paul is saying in this text is that during the time of his service the Apostles who were still alive, including Peter, were engaged in ministry and traveling with their wives while drawing support for the necessities of life from the Church.

Please remember as well that both the Roman and Eastern churches understand that the Apostles were the first Bishops of the Church ordained by Christ Himself. So the record is conclusive. While they were serving as the first Bishops of the Church and engaged in their ministries the Apostles, and Peter himself, were both married and traveled with their wives as they ministered. In addition Paul's mention of this at the time of the writing of this book (roughly AD 50-60) shows that Peter was clearly not a widower at this time shortly before his death and that the wives of the Apostles, although unnamed, were known to the earliest believers.

I'm not arguing sola scriptura.

I am arguing a specific point namely that the Roman tradition on this matter, namely that celibacy is MANDATORY for all clergy, cannot claim a scriptural basis or the basis of a written apostolic command. The Eastern idea that marriage is an option for clergy clearly does have support both from the Scripture and tradition.

I have never argued that the Roman Church cannot order its own life. I simply believe that they have made a mistake in completely eliminating one of the options (marriage) for clergy when it is clear from the New Testament that all Christians could choose their path in this matter. We in the East are in the same boat when it comes to Bishops. We cannot say there is Scriptural warrant for our excluding married men from the Episcopacy, we can only say that it is a matter of tradition and discipline.

Even though in both the Roman and Orthodox churches the idea of sola scriptura is not central it still does not mean that the teachings of scripture are not central. In the particular matter of clergy marriage both of our communities have the burden of proof to explain why we have chosen to do what have done when it is clear that in the New Testament marriage was an option for all orders of clergy.

There is no question that celibacy for clergy was a part of the ancient tradition of the Church. But so was marriage. The problem is when you take one part of the tradition and make it the whole which is what the Roman Church, and to a certain extent the Eastern Church, has done.

Ironically, when I was a Protestant seminarian I experienced something of the opposite when a friend was denied a pastoral position because the parish believed that as a single man he did not properly exemplify Christian family life. They were in err on the opposite side for the very same reason I believe the Roman Church is erring on the other.

Thanks,I think the error and/or mistranslation ,and/or misinterpretation may have occurred in the Vulgate. Wherever,there is much more argumentation available but I am not able to pursue it. I do appreciate the time you have taken to present your position.

I can't help but disagree with your statement that every Bishop ordained by Christ was married. Again,there is no evidence in the Gospels that any Apostle was married,using the cultural,societal and religious norms is at best inconclusive.

Until I hear something from the Church about changing the discipline in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church I remain convinced that the Pope and Magisterium,informed by the Holy Ghost,are following Christ as He intended.

Until then,I will just be grateful that there is still a visible place where men,who choose to give up all worldly things, can imitate Christ and lead many to the Father.

In my mind,it would be a sad setback,if in this world,which recognizes "freedom" as either a great gift or a right,would have no place for men,who truly have given up all worldly possessions to follow Him with no earthly "burdens", free to serve God as His Son did,free to be "alter Christi" at all times.

Actually,I am so concerned about Western Civilization especially in this country right now to focus. Thanks for the discussion.

I did not say that EVERY Apostle was married, but some clearly were and I presented biblical arguments in the best possible way that I could, even showing from the Greek that the Scripture clearly identifies some of the Apostles as married men and that clergy were allowed to be married. I believe my quotes and remarks were accurate and if not I suspect that someone on this thread will tell me.

As a Roman Catholic you are asked to trust the Magisterium of your Church but it does not obligate you to close your mind. It is perfectly possible to say "Yes, some of the Apostles and clergy were married in New Testament times but we believe that celibacy is a better option for the following reasons..." Then go and explain why the Church teaches this way. There is not a contradiction here but rather a call for awareness of the larger picture.

My showing you these passages was never about Catholic bashing or trying to get you to change your mind. You made some very broad statements about the content of Scripture from your faith perspective and I challenged them with direct quotes from the Scripture. That's debate and its worth it because the things of faith are worth the struggle for truth.

I hope you continue to be a faithful Roman Catholic and continue to dig deep into the Scriptures. But don't be afraid to look hard at your Church when you read them. It is a sign of a mature love when one can see the Church they
care for with all its struggles and challenges and still love and support it. I am an Orthodox Priest and I am not nearly where I need to be and every day I can find reminders of where my Church has struggled to be what God wants it to be, yet I love it still because of what it is called to be and what it calls me to be as well.

As far as Western Civilization goes I think the focus needs to be more on Christian Civilization. If Western societies refuse to remember where they came from they will pay a high price, indeed they already are. Already in Europe Islam is filling the spiritual void left by European's secularism. The ironic thing is that if they felt Christianity was repressive they are going to be in for a shock when they finally realize the true nature of their new Muslim overlords. But I digress.

Our Lord never promised that nations would stay the way they are or that any culture would endure. Only the Church is given the hope that the gates of hades will not prevail against it. So while we do all for the love of God and the sake of people's souls to make a better society we also can be confident that in the end the Kingdom of God is an inevitablility. "Western" civilization may ebb and wane but "Christian" civilization will remain.

I'm one of the ones that have been busy trying to alert Freepers that they had better get a grip,pray unceasingly and seek,speak and live the Truth at all times. I have been a so called alarmist for years now,believing that there was a concerted effort of those who would be god to destroy Christianity and Western Civilization.

Christianity has always been the focus of my thoughts and words;however,for some reason,this week I have had this feeling that the curtain is drawing on western civilization and while it is only a human construct,I believe this country developed in a manner that could have resulted in something very pleasing to God and His people on earth. I don't like to think the door is closing yet.

BTW,the passage you cited from Luke could have been a cautionary passage,you know,man gets married and no longer can find the time or desire to come to the feast,the kingdom,the party. Just a thought,(O_ -)that's a wink.

I am genuinely curious...if both options are indeed acceptable, why is there such fierce resistance to allowing married priests?

The fact is, married men in the Catholic Church can serve as deacons.

Deacons in the Catholic Church do pretty much everything a pastor is expected to do in Reformed congregations: read the Scriptures to the congregation, preach to the congregation, baptize new Christians, conduct prayer services and Scripture studies, officiate at weddings, visit the sick, counsel congregants, lead choirs, etc.

There are two things that only priests are allowed to do that deacons cannot: offer the Eucharistic sacrifice on the altar and give absolution in the confessional - two things that Reformed Christians don't even believe in.

Married men in the Catholic Church can take a very active pastoral role if they choose to.

You may have a point there.

Whatever gets in the way of our coming to the banquet is something we should avoid. Although I think in the context Jesus is showing people how absurd some people's reasons are.

One of the benefits of being both Catholic or Orthodox is that there is some place to put yourself if you feel called to be celibate. What we concern a normal option is often considered "weird" in some circles. In other words people "get it" in a way that I think Protestants still have a hard time grasping.

I also believe there are a lot of people out there that God has called to the celibate life, whether in holy orders or not, but the pressure to marry and such is so great they miss the call and the benefits to them.

In the East our theology about marriage is a theology of martyrdom. Whatever path the person chooses, marriage or celibacy, the core issue is a denying of self for God and others. Family or monastic life both express the same core and so either are acceptable.

Sometimes, though, we don't do well with something the Early Church handled quite easily, namely people who choose to be single but are not clergy or monastics. They can get left out of our circles and find themselves quite lonely even when they are surrounded by people. We in Orthodoxy need to figure out how to embrace these folks because in our time, whether through divorce, or death, or choice, there are going to be a lot more adults who will spend some or all of their lives as single people.

I would also imagine that it must be particularly galling to a celebrate priest who might serve in the same parish as a married priest who may have come over from the Lutherans or Episcopalians.

This is the appearance of reality from outside the Catholic culture. Inside the realm of grassroots catholicism - from where many priests are recruited - theoretical celibacy is an end in itself - not the means for achieving the sacrament of holy orders. When asked by an Anglican priest why his entire family crossed the Tiber my son answered ( or at least says he said) that the Catholic church held a higher standard for its clergy and it meant more to be a catholic priest than an anglican one - ( in his estimation). This statement was made in 10th grade after 6 years of catholic education and indoctrination. Not Bad at all.

In the orthodox (greek ) Church, only celibate unmarried priests can become bishops etc. All in all, celibacy is pretty creepy at the grass roots level. Married priests communicate more effictively and have a closer bond with their parishoners due to shared life experiences. Celibacy is like emotional foot binding. Some like it - some find it abhorent.

We differ on the re-sacraficial vs remembrance and focus on the sacrifice Christ did for all aspect of the Lords Supper, but not on confession...

I can speak for WELS, LCMS and ELCA in the respect that personal confession is perfectly acceptable...for other, what you would call Reformed, churches I can not speak for...confession of sin is done at every service held in WELS for sure and I'm speculating LCMS and possibly ELCA (they are going down an aweful path)...based on the fact that many on here have stated their parishes have confession only for an hour before mass...

Question: Does the RCC allow for confession to God and absolution from God or does it always have to go thru the priest? I don't know and am curious...thanks...

Another question I don't know the answer for...I have been told you need to list out your sins...what about the sins you have done but don't realize or remember, is there a general confession that you do too then?

In Christ...

Does the RCC allow for confession to God and absolution from God or does it always have to go thru the priest? I don't know and am curious...thanks...

Catholic doctrine is that Christ alone grants absolution and that He does so using his Church as His instrument.

If the resources of the Church aren't at one's disposal, then I'm sure He acts directly (I think of the analogy of Christ healing the blind in the Scriptures - in Matthew 9:29 He heals the blind men directly, and in John 9:6 he uses mud as an intermediary).

The Church's role prevents certain natural human failings like people excusing themselves from certain sins, losing the virtue of humility, not confronting themselves directly with their faults, etc.

I have been told you need to list out your sins...what about the sins you have done but don't realize or remember

The usual method most Catholics use is to examine their conscience by praying over the Ten Commandments and measuring their behavior against each of them. That serves as an aid to memory when you confess.

When you are absolved, the absolution is total - it applies to all the sins you do not realize or remember because the important thing is that you have come humbly to Christ in admitting your sinful nature. The listing and enumeration of sins is intended for your own edification and to give the confessor insight into the state of your soul and your sincerity in seeking absolution.

Usually, before you are absolved, the confessor asks you to address a short prayer to God telling him that you are sorry for your sins and that you open your heart to Him to so that He can change it. In that prayer, many Catholics include something along the lines of expressing sorrow for sins they can't recall or recognize.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.