Vatican synod rules out married priests (for Latin Church)

Reuters ^ | October 22, 2005

[NYer]

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - A synod of Roman Catholic bishops on Saturday clearly reaffirmed priestly celibacy and ruled out allowing clergy to marry as a solution to the crisis of vocations facing the Church worldwide.

The working sessions of the three-week synod, the first of Pope Benedict's papacy, closed with 50 propositions and a message to the world from the more than 250 bishops.

Overall, the synod's decisions have dashed the hopes of some liberal Catholics for movement on issues such as married priests, celibacy and the divorced faithful.

The message acknowledged that "the life of our Church is also marked by shadows and problems which we have not ignored".

It said "the lack of priests to celebrate the Sunday Eucharist worries us a great deal and invites us to pray and more actively promote vocations".

The synod theme was the Eucharist, the communion that Catholics believe is the body and blood of Christ. The Pope may use the recommendations for a possible future document.

The shortage of priests to serve the 1.1 billion-member Church was perhaps the key issue in the synod, which closes ceremonially with a papal mass on Sunday in St Peter's Square.

One bishop from Honduras drove the point home by saying he had only one priest for every 16,000 Catholics in his diocese.

Some Catholics suggested their Church ordain "viri probati", the Latin term for older, married men with families who are known to lead exemplary personal lives in their communities and have a solid background in Church doctrine.

Liberal groups have suggested that the long-term solution to the shortage was making celibacy optional for new priests by allowing them to marry.

"PRICELESS GIFT"

But the proposition dedicated to the shortage of priests called celibacy a "priceless gift" and the possibility of "viri probati" was dismissed.

Australian Cardinal George Pell told a news conference the unity the synod showed on such delicate issues was significant.

"If you restate the central doctrinal positions of the church with a massive unanimity on the nature of the Eucharist, that's something. And if you reaffirm a particular discipline, or two or three disciplines, that's also something," he said.

Both the message and the propositions mentioned the problems of millions of Catholics who have divorced and remarried outside the Church without being granted an annulment.

Since the Church still recognizes their first marriage, they are banned from receiving communion because they are considered to be living in sin.

During the synod, Archbishop John Atcherly Dew of New Zealand challenged the Church to re-think the rules.

The message merely said the bishops "know the sadness of those who do not have access to sacramental communion because of their family situation" but reaffirmed the existing ban.

The proposition on the divorced appeared to offer one small window of hope when it said Church tribunals which decide on whether to grant annulments should make "every possible effort" to work in a more "correct and speedy" way.

[NYer]

Reuters - Sat Oct 22,10:02 AM ET

Pope Benedict XVI is seen at the Vatican October 20, 2005. The first synod of Pope Benedict's reign ended on Saturday, acknowledging Catholicism faced great difficulties from a severe shortage of priests but decided married priests were not the answer. (Tony Gentile/Reuters)

[NYer]

The shortage of priests to serve the 1.1 billion-member Church was perhaps the key issue in the synod, which closes ceremonially with a papal mass on Sunday in St Peter's Square.

One bishop from Honduras drove the point home by saying he had only one priest for every 16,000 Catholics in his diocese.

I hope this bishop takes advantage of the generous offer made by the Bishop from Ghana whose seminary is overflowing with new priests and who wishes to send them 'west' in appreciation for their years of evangelization in Africa.

Reminder - for the more swarthy amongst you. EWTN will be carrying the closing Mass for the Synod and Canonization of 6 new saints, LIVE, beginning at 3:30AM EST. (Check their web site for replay times). I plan to be up with the basset boys :-o

[wagglebee]

It is undeniable fact is that the most energetic and devout priests are emerging from Africa (traditional Protestant denominations are also having the same experience), we should be grateful for this and welcome these men.

On a personal note, of course you will be up at 3:30 AM, because like many FReepers, you haven't been to bed yet at that hour! -:)

[NYer]

of course you will be up at 3:30 AM, because like many FReepers, you haven't been to bed yet at that hour! -:)

Yeah, right ;-D You obviously are now 'owned' by two basset hounds.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Annulment is a subject on which I need enlightenment. Knowledgeable Catholics, help me.

I'd read somewhere that while the Western Church relies on a "juridical" approach to the bond of Matrimony (Tribunal, Canonical judges and lawyers, sworn testimony, etc.) the Eastern Church traditionally took a "pastoral" approach: that is, one's pastor could make the determination of whether the original attempted marriage was in fact sacramentally binding, or whether there was some defect from the beginning which would have made the vows null.

True or false?

Moreover: let's say you're convinced in your conscience that your initial attempted marriage was invalid, BUT your ex-spouse has either disappeared and can't be found, OR flatly refuses to cooperate with the annulment process (refuses to fill out a questionnaire, refuses to be interviewed, whatever) and therefore the process can't proceed.

At this point, IIRC, there was this principle called the "internal forum" which came into play. That is if the Marriage Tribunal's "external forum" is stalled permanently, through no fault of yours, your own testimony can be enough to authorize your pastor to regularize a second marriage.

I probably said this all wrong. Honest ignorance on my part. Can somebody fill me in?

(No, I'm not contemplating divorcing Mr. Don-o. He's my once-in-a-lifetime spouse, and I'm his; and boy, am I grateful for it.)

[visualops]

The process does proceed even without response from the former spouse. It just makes it more difficult without that testimony. Without the former spouse's testimony, the petitioner really needs some other input, such as witness statements, medical records, etc.
And, there is no substitute for an official declaration of nullity.
However, if the annulment is initially denied, one can appeal to Rome.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "And, there is no substitute for an official declaration of nullity...However, if the annulment is initially denied, one can appeal to Rome."

Thanks for your prompt answer to my question.

Does that go for all of the Eastern churches who are in communion with the Pope? Melkites, Maronites, Chaldeans, Armenians, Ukrainians and all the rest?

What does "internal forum" mean?

[sanormal]

Internal forum refers to the sanctity of the confessional, that is the priviledged and private interaction between you and your pastor. It has been widely and improperly used in some places as a way for pastors to give their faithful parishioners who are in irregular marital situations the "green light" to recieve Holy Communion.

[visualops]

sanormal is correct in part. The Internal Forum is the forum of conscience. This of course encompasses Confession, among other things.
Regarding the "internal forum solution", this is one of the best explanations of it I've come across:

the use of the so-called "internal forum solution" for cases of divorced-and-remarried persons who are personally convinced that their previous marriage was invalid is unacceptable, unnecessary and pastorally unsound. The canonical judicial procedures established by the Code of Canon Law to examine claims that a previous marriage was invalid are, in our view, comprehensive and responsive enough to declare invalid all marriages which truly are. As Msgr. Mario F. Pompedda, now dean of the Rota, remarked: "It would be purely academic to hypothesize about the existence of cases in which moral certitude could be reached only in the internal forum, that is, in conscience; such would be so rare that they should be considered practically nonexistent."[12] This is especially true since Canon 1536.2, combined with Canon 1679, allows tribunals to grant a declaration of nullity, in the absence of other "objective" proofs of a previous marriage's invalidity, on the basis of personal depositions of the parties themselves. The canons, however, further require that these personal depositions of the parties be corroborated by character witnesses for the parties, if possible, and by other relevant facts and supporting evidence ().[13] These canons were added to the Code of Canon Law when it was revised in 1983 precisely to address cases in which proofs of invalidity-other than the declaration of the parties-are not available. Their presence in the code refutes one of the principal arguments for the use of the so-called "internal forum solution," making any use of it unnecessary and unacceptable.

[kosta50]

Celibacy in the Latin Church is a long-standing, self-imposed human discipline, nothing else. It is not Scriptural. Those priests who feel they cannot live up to that standard should seek other venues offered by the Church -- deaconate or Eastern-rite, or even Orthodoxy. All of these options offer valid Orders.

I really do not understand those who insist on being Latin-rite and not following the Latin discipline in this regard. It's the same with monasticism: if you can't live a monastic life, perhaps that vocation is not for you.

Nor do I understand those Catholics who want to be "a little" Catholic hut not live up to everything the Catholic Church professes, such as birth-control ban. I am really curious how many Catholic women are on some kind of artificial contraception device or method, or how many Catholics engage in extramarital sex. Does anyone have statistics on this?

Repeatedly brining up the alleged 1.1 billion Roman Catholics is a rather bogus attempt to inflate the real Church in my opinion. For, what exactly constitutes real Church? If those who "live in sin" are outside the Church (ex-communicated), because they are not allowed or should not be allowed to receive the Holy Communion, then obviously the number of real Catholics is not even close to that figure!

Let's stop pretending that a record of baptism makes one a "real Catholic" or "real Orthodox" for that matter -- or even real anything. Unless the paper reflects the values and life style of what that paper stands for, it is a worthless document physically and spiritually.

So, until, and if, the RCC defines exactly what constitutes "living in sin" and determines how many of its 1.1 billion registered members don't "live in sin," any such number should be qualified, because otherwise it is clearly and often deliberately misleading.

It was my understanding that the CHURCH IS MADE UP OF SINNERS, not saints, and that includes the bishops, cardinals and even the Pope. So, each and every one of us "lives in sin" even those boastful Pharisaical ones who claim to be holier than thou. So, if we counted all those who "live in sin" our churches ought to be empty!

Finally, there is a sense of futility in all this: teh RCC still acts as if morality, faith, etc. can be ligislated! Those who are denied Eucharist in one Catholic parish can go to another and receive communion where he or she is unknown. How is the priest going to know that such and such is still married as far as the Church is concerned and lives in sin when most Catholic parishes don't even expect those receiving the Eucharist to do a confession?!?

The same is true of the Orthdox churches as well. I can go to any Orthodox Church, confess (not necessarily everything), receive absolution, and receive the Eucharist. The burden is not on the Church hierarchy, but on me; it is something we will answer for individually. The duty of the church is to steer us in the right direction; the Church cannot order us to be good Catholics/Orthodox. So the real size of the Church is known only to God and when we refer to the numbers of who "belongs" to whom it should be qualified with the words "registered but not necessarily practicing" Catholics/Orthodox. A priest will be celibate if he believes in celibacy as the highest discipline of the Church and is so removed from human passions that he can resist them. CELIBACY CANNOT BE LEGISLATED.

A "celibate" priest, who is celibate only on paper, will continue to "live in sin" through looks, thoughts and some even by deeds, and no statements from any number of bishops (who no doubt are also sinners) will change that fact.

Ultimately, it is up to the individual to live a Christian life of the Church and no rules of pronouncements of the hierarchy will make anyone conform -- the change has to come, like our prayers, "from the heart," as Thomas Merton says, and that is a true and only conversion, and is known but only to God.

[Kolokotronis]

"the Eastern Church traditionally took a "pastoral" approach: that is, one's pastor could make the determination of whether the original attempted marriage was in fact sacramentally binding, or whether there was some defect from the beginning which would have made the vows null."

I can't speak to the Latin situation, but as I understand it, in Orthodoxy one needs an ecclesiastical divorce which is obtained from a tribunal of a diocese or metropolitinate with the approval of the presiding hierarch. These divorces are a matter of economia and economia is the province of a bishop, not a pariah priest. My experience in the GOA, and frankly I see it nearly every Sunday, is that Orthodox people who divorce and remarry without an ecclesiastical divorce are denied communion and all the other sacraments.

[RKBA Democrat]

OK, I'll give it a stab.

In my view, the final answer to your question is "false", but how you built the question was "true." :-)

The western church does take a more juridical approach to many things, while the eastern churches does take a more pastoral approach.

In general, the eastern churches just don't put the same level of emphasis on canon law as the western church. The eastern canon law isn't as developed as the western, and as a practical matter, you just don't hear about canon law much in the eastern churches. My personal opinion, which I think is shared by many eastern Catholics, is that an over emphasis on the details of canon law simply misses the point.

As regards annulment, I was curious and did some research. Anthony Dragani, an eastern Catholic expert who answers questions regularly on EWTN's Q/A, answered the question as follows: "the Eastern Catholic Churches do indeed have an annulment system. Historically this has not always been the case, but it is today." I would add that there is a formal process and a tribunal, at least in my church.

[RKBA Democrat]

"Repeatedly bringing up the alleged 1.1 billion Roman Catholics is a rather bogus attempt to inflate the real Church in my opinion. For, what exactly constitutes real Church? If those who "live in sin" are outside the Church (ex-communicated), because they are not allowed or should not be allowed to receive the Holy Communion, then obviously the number of real Catholics is not even close to that figure!"

I think you're painting with too broad a brush in implying that those who are "living in sin" by whatever definition, should not be identified as Catholics (or Orthodox, for that matter). If you think about it, making such an exclusion denies the possibility of sincere repentance, as well as the possibility of grace.

I also think it would be rather difficult to count those who are "living in sin". What are we supposed to do? Pass out census questionnaires with little check blocks that ask: "are you living in a state of sin? If so, please check the blocks that apply: (a) adultery, (b)failure to honor ones parents (c) idolatry...."

I agree with your basic point in saying that the 1.1. billion Catholics number is suspect, in much the same way that I believe the numbers of Orthodox or Lutherans or any other group is suspect. But in the churches defense, you have to wonder what good way is there to count the numbers of the faithful? Is it those who are baptized? Or is it those who attend church? If it's those who attend church, when do you do the count? On Easter or Christmas when church attendance is high, or during the dead of summer when church attendance is generally low?

There really is no perfect way to count the numbers of the faithful that I can see, and any number you come up with is, at best, going to be an estimate.

[JohnRoss]

The Eastern Catholic Churches established annulment processes in the 20th century at Rome's insistence. The Romanian and Melkite Catholic Churches followed the Orthodox Church's practices as recently as 100 years ago.

[FormerLib]

The Eastern Catholic Churches established annulment processes in the 20th century at Rome's insistence.

It does allow them the ability to maintain the fiction that there's a difference between every annulment and a divorce.

[hispanichoosier]

It does allow them the ability to maintain the fiction that there's a difference between every annulment and a divorce.

There is a difference between the two. If the metropolitan tribunal issues a decree of nullity, it's a factual finding on the part of competent authorities. If a tribunal merely "goes through the motions" and grants decrees without truly weighing evidence for and against a sacramental marriage, then the moral fault is on the part of the individual tribunal members. Faithful laity, however, are justified in relying upon the decrees of the tribunal.

On a side note, I know a person who works in our tribunal here in the Archdiocese of Indianapolis. She works very hard to determine the truth regarding the marriage. The process is not an adversarial one; it is different from our Anglo-American legal system. Perhaps if the system had more of an adversarial tone--including cross-examination of petitioners and respondents--it would be more meaningful. Nevertheless, we've been given a system by the Code of Canon Law, and we have to make the best of it.

[RKBA Democrat]

"The Eastern Catholic Churches established annulment processes in the 20th century at Rome's insistence. The Romanian and Melkite Catholic Churches followed the Orthodox Church's practices as recently as 100 years ago."

FWIW, I would prefer that we had skipped the adoption of that innovation.

[A.A. Cunningham]

It is not Scriptural.

You are ignorant of Scripture.

[Petrosius]

Celibacy in the Latin Church is a long-standing, self-imposed human discipline, nothing else. It is not Scriptural.

Only partially right. While celibacy is only a human discipline, it is a evangelical counsel:

[His] disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." [Jesus] answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." (Matt. 19:10-12)

But I do agree with you that those who do not wish to follow this counsel should not seek ordination to the priesthood in the Latin rite (although I would not suggest Orthodoxy). The priesthood is not the only way to achieve holiness or serve the Church.

But let us not fall into the trap of thinking that this debate about celibacy in the Latin rite is because there is a large number of men who are seeking to become married priests. Rather, this is a surrogate debate about the Church's teaching on sexual morality. A celibate priesthood is a powerful sign to the world of the need and possibility of sexual restraint. For a world that does not believe in chastity and fidelity in marriage, a celibate priesthood is the ultimate affront.