Married Men and the Priesthood: A Response

During the early part of October, 2005, Catholic Bishops from around the world gathered in a synod. Among many topics discussed was the perceived "shortage" of priests. As a very minor mention during a discussion concerning the shortage of priests, the idea of reopening the order of priests to the candidacy of mature and proven married men (viri probati) men was tangentially mentioned. It was done so briefly and only within that specific context of the discussion concerning a declining number of priests in some parts of the world.

This occurrence, a minor mention in a series of major discussions, has been reported on and speculated about internationally. It also became the impetus for numerous articles, reflections and editorials from across the theological spectrum concerning the current discipline of mandatory celibacy for candidates to the priesthood in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

I begin this article with an excerpt from an Oct 12, 2005 report on the Synod from one of the most accurate Catholic news sources, Chiesa (http://www.chiesa.com), in order to place this minor mention of this issue in its proper context. This report was written by Sandro Magister, one of the leading journalists in the world on Catholic Church matters:

"… (M)any synod fathers have complained of the shortage of priests, which makes it impossible to celebrate the Sunday Mass in all places where it is needed. Without a doubt, the number of priests has fallen. In 1978, the first year of John Paul II’s pontificate, there was one priest for every 1,797 faithful in the Catholic Church. In 2003, there was one for every 2,677.

The decline is more apparent in Europe and North America. But the shortage of priests has a much greater effect on the countries of the Southern Hemisphere. Just consider the situation in the four countries with the greatest number of Catholics: in the United States there are about 41,000 priests for 66 million faithful, while in Brazil, Mexico, and the Philippines, all together there are 37,000 priests for 340 million faithful. Various persons on various occasions have suggested that the shortage of priests be addressed by ordaining married men in the Latin Rite Church, as is already done in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches.

However, only one bishop raised this hypothesis during the first nine days of this synod: Cardinal Angelo Scola, who brought it up during his introductory address to the synod.

Another bishop who spoke of it, John A. Dew, of New Zealand, did so only in referring to a previous synod, the one for Oceania in 1995. Dew, reading a report on that synod that had been written by his predecessor in the diocese of Wellington, Cardinal Thomas Williams, recalled that on that occasion a number of bishops had spoken in favor of ordaining married men, but then did not want to "rock the boat" by formally advancing the proposal.

In any case, at the present synod the Cardinal relator Scola mentioned the hypothesis only in order to reject it: "Being intimately tied to the Eucharist, ordained priesthood participates in its nature of a gift and cannot be the object of a right. If it is a gift, ordained priesthood asks to be constantly requested for. It has become very difficult to ascertain the ideal number of priests in the Church, from the moment in which this is not a ‘business’ which should be equipped with a determined quota of team managers."

Instead of the ordination of married men, Scola suggested "a more adequate distribution of the clergy throughout the world." During the discussion, many of the bishops supported this proposal, while a generic suggestion to reconsider the discipline of clerical celibacy was advanced by just a few bishops from Great Britain and New Zealand."

The brief mention of this issue at the October, 2005 Synod has certainly generated a lot of ink. Much of it is not worthy of comment. The topic became fuel for those with an agenda to "change the Church" either because they either did not agree with its teaching (orthodoxy) or its practice (orthopraxy). However, there was one recent editorial in one of the faithful Catholic magazines in America, Crisis, written by George Sim Johnston, which particularly caught my eye. Mr. Johnston is an orthodox, sincere Catholic and a good writer. I normally enjoy what he writes. However, when I read his editorial in the January 10, 2006 issue of Crisis magazine entitled "The Case for Clerical Celibacy", I felt a need to respond. It did not do this important matter justice. I found his arguments problematic, his presentation of the facts unclear and his analysis not measuring up to his usual excellence.

I do not write to specifically argue for or against the reopening of the order of priests in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church to include married men. However, in the interest of objectivity, I acknowledge my support for reopening of the order of priests to both celibate and married men in the Latin Church. However, I write this article to clarify some of the issues which I feel that Mr. Sims muddied in this editorial. This discussion is an important one. It should be considered formally, perhaps in its own Synod. However, it was not considered at the 2005 Synod of Bishops, in spite of numerous "reports" and a flurry of articles stating otherwise. Those who now choose to enter into the discussion of this issue need to do so with clarity of both language and thought. Mr. Johnston did not do so in this particular piece.

Also, I do not write simply to criticize Mr. Johnston. He presents some dimensions of this matter well in his editorial and I agree with some of his thoughts. I have chosen his editorial precisely because he is usually a clear thinker and writer- and because he is so well positioned in a vibrant part of Catholic life in America that is theologically orthodox. This latter point is of particular importance to me. I do not want Mr. Johnston’s article, and some others that have emerged within the theologically orthodox or conservative community of Catholics associated with Crisis Magazine- to be presumed to be the final and proper "conservative" Catholic response only to be then parroted by others who seek to be faithful in an American Church adrift in a crisis of fidelity. That has happened on other important issues in the past.

My concerns about this possibility occurring are rooted in my experience on another unrelated front, the decision by the American military to launch a "pre-emptive" war in Iraq. I opposed the entry of the United States Military into Iraq, breaking with some of my favorite Catholic thinkers and writers in America, because I concluded that the current Iraq war was not capable of being justified under any "Just War" analysis - and - that it was not supported by the Pope. Most within what has been called the politically "neo-conservative" wing of "theologically conservative" Catholics - with which this particular magazine is often associated – strongly supported this war. They did so quite openly and spilled much ink developing their apologetic.

What I found was that sincere Catholics - who really wanted to be considered "orthodox" – accepted their position as though it were the only legitimate Catholic position because it was found in Crisis Magazine (or in the other periodical associated with the pro-war position, the more intellectually oriented "First Things") and as if it was the only "orthodox" position – without actually thinking the issue through and examining it for themselves. I do not want to see that happen on this issue.

Like Mr. Sims, I write as a faithful, Magisterium following, theologically orthodox, "happy to be Catholic"- Roman Catholic Christian. I fully accept the whole of Catholic teaching and the pastoral practice and direction of my Church as she speaks and acts through the Magisterium. I will support the decision to not open the order of priest to the candidacy of married men - should it reflect the final word on the subject- and give it my free assent of mind and will. I would accept such a decision as being rooted in pastoral prudence and inspired by the Holy Spirit - which always guides the Church that belongs to Jesus Christ. Let me be clear, if the discussion of reopening the order of priests to married men once again in the Latin rite goes no further in my lifetime, I will accept that.

Finally, I write as one who holds a deep love for -and appreciation of- the beauty of the celibate vocation among the ordained ministers of the Church, the religious orders and the growing lay ecclesial movements. I have had the privilege of knowing some profoundly holy people in my life and most of them were consecrated celibates. Consecrated celibacy "for the kingdom" is a prophetic witness in every age. It is a particularly poignant and effective one in an age such as our own that is losing its soul, partly because it has followed the path of nihilism and utilitarianism on so many fronts, including its view of human sexuality.

However, the thrust of Mr. Sims presentation needs to be examined - and the entire discussion of the mention of the issue in the Synod properly positioned - if we are going to have any helpful discussion of this subject or be able to understand and explain our Church’s position on this issue in a culture so lost in confusion.

No, it was not really "raised" because it was not discussed on its own merits. Also, contrary to reports it was also not formally rejected by the Synod. Let me draw my reader’s attention to two sources among many to confirm this claim. The first is taken from an interview that appeared in the October 2005 edition of an international monthly periodical entitled "30 Days" This is from a lengthier interview with George Cardinal Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney Australia, conducted by Gianni Cardinale. The Australian Cardinal belongs to the Congregation for Divine Worship and both the Pontifical Council for the Family and Justice and Peace. He served on the post-Synodal Council in 2001 and was chosen by the Synodal fathers for the same position last year.

INTERVIEWER: …On the other hand there was no shortage of speeches on the subject of the so-called viri probati:

PELL: The discussion was launched by a small group split amongst themselves. One part felt it must in conscience ask for a change in the ecclesiastical discipline on celibacy to grant the priesthood to the so-called viri probati. Another small group asked for at least a study of the topic. As I saw it the voices in favor were few, but they existed and opinions were expressed publicly.

INTERVIEWER: In the media the question of the viri probati was treated as if it were one of the principal topics of the Synod.

PELL: That wasn’t the case, and personally I’m content that the question wasn’t even made the object of a study, because the only prospect of such a change would be as forerunner to further requests. If some viri probati are admitted, there will be pressures immediately afterwards to be allowed to admit all married men to the priesthood, and then there will be further pressures still to allow priests to marry. Because of that I consider it very grave to try to open cracks in the question.

INTERVIEWER: In the course of the discussion among the synodal fathers it appeared that the reasons for not denting the celibate character of the priesthood in the Latin Church are predominantly of an economic-social order…

PELL: I don’t agree, the principal objections, in my opinion, are not of a practical order, though they are also many and serious, but predominantly of a symbolic and spiritual order. To choose celibacy signifies following the example of Christ himself.

INTERVIEWER: The Brazilian Cardinal Claudio Hummes mentioned in his speech that his country is increasingly less Catholic also because of the lack of priests. And he emphasized that for every priest there are at least two Protestant pastors.

PELL: His speech also struck me. The challenge of the sects is very serious, but there are also catechists, nuns and male religious. Evangelization doesn’t only have to do with priests.

INTERVIEWER: But if the trend feared by Hummes were to continue like this, is it not to be conjectured that – that since the decisive criterion is salus animarum – in future the way of the viri probati might be tried?

PELL: Who knows…? This time however the synodal fathers decided that the question was not on the day’s agenda. And then it seems to me that the number of seminarians has noticeably increased over the last twenty-five years, especially in Africa and Asia, and this is encouraging. I believe that the crisis of the Church in the West but also in America will not find an adequate answer in the ordination of viri probati. The crisis is more radical, it concerns the faith. And then, excuse me, if the Church were to change on this point, what would the journalists talk about?

The next is an excerpt from a lengthier article that appeared as recent posting in the "blogosphere", from (http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/), "Whispers in the Loggia", a source for news on the Catholic Church that I find to be both reliable and interesting. It was posted by the founder and webmaster Rocco Palmo of Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A. Mr. Palmo also writes on the Catholic Church for The Tablet, an international weekly published in London. Additionally, he has written on the Church for the San Francisco Chronicle, Beliefnet, and Religion News Service. He refers to NCR briefs within the context of this posting:

"The French Archbishop Roland Minnerath of Dijon, who served as Special Secretary of October's Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist, has sparked conversation in Rome and across Europe with the release of a new book which questions the rationale for continuing the discipline of mandatory celibacy for clergy.

"If this tradition deprives communities of priests, to the point of bringing them to the brink of extinction, then why not let it evolve?" writes Minnerath, a canon lawyer and member of the French bishops’ doctrinal commission. He is said to be close to Benedict XVI.

"Celibacy was convenient for the priestly vocation," he said, "but was not dogmatically bound. Ordaining a married man does not cause any doctrinal problem." Discussing the book on French radio, Minnerath said he thought "married men whose children are grown and [who] have some seniority" would be good candidates for a married clergy. One crucial element of Minnerath's proposal not mentioned here is that his envisioned viri probati be financially self-sufficient, freeing the church from the obligation to support a presbyteral spouse and home."

I could use many other sources to confirm my contention that the issue of re-opening candidacy for the priesthood in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church to married men was not actually discussed at the Synod. It was merely given minor mention within a major concern that was raised over the declining number of priests in certain parts of the world.. The 30 days interview sets its mention in clear context. The note on Whispers confirms that the issue is still awaiting consideration in the minds of some participants, including a highly regarded French Archbishop.

This stands in contrast to many articles written concerning the topic which indicated that it was not only discussed but somehow "ruled against" by the Synod. That is simply not accurate and is misleading. This brings me to a consideration of Mr. Johnston’s editorial in Crisis. I began my writing by breaking up his article into many parts and I had every intention of responding to all of them. However, as I wrote, it became clear that to do so would have required two to three times the space that I take for this already lengthy article. Perhaps, I will return to the parts that I have chosen not to address in a future piece.

How the subject of married men and the priesthood gets raised is instructive and illuminating. Mr. Johnston begins his article with a reference to his commendable and important ministry as a layman in teaching and preparing couples for the Sacrament of Marriage. He notes:

"Each month, when I face an auditorium full of engaged couples preparing for a Catholic marriage, there is a Q-and-A session. It is the interesting, unrehearsed part of the evening. The couples write their queries on a piece of paper, and the anonymity guarantees at least a few hardball questions about the Church and its practices. "What about Galileo?" is among my favorites, along with inquisitive notes about Torquemada. But the majority of these "zingers" turn out to be protests about the Church’s rule of clerical celibacy. "You’ve told us how wonderful marriage is, that it’s a great good for the human person, that the body has a nuptial meaning, and so forth. Well, then: Why can’t priests marry?"

I applaud his involvement in this vital aspect of the Church’s mission, preparing Christian couples to both understand and live the Sacrament of Marriage in an age that opposes fidelity and rejects the truth concerning the very nature of marriage. Genuinely Christian marriages are a prophetic vocation, a response to the call of the Lord, and a prophetic witness in their own right. The baptized faithful Christian family is a "domestic church", the smallest missionary unit of the new evangelization. I have been married to a wonderful woman, my best friend and co-pastor of our domestic Church, for thirty years. We have had the challenge and the privilege of raising five children and are now in the season of experiencing the promise spoken to and through the Psalmist, of "seeing our children’s’ children".

As a married man, I was called to ordained service as a cleric, a Deacon, ten years ago. Part of my work as a Deacon is to prepare couples for the Sacrament. Mr. Johnston never mentions Deacons in his editorial. Yet, we are a growing body of Clergy in the Roman Catholic Church and the overwhelming majority of us are married men. Like many of my brother deacons, part of what I do is help to prepare engaged couples for the sacrament of Marriage. So, like Mr. Johnston, I have to answer many "zingers" in the context of marriage preparation. I personally find that how this question is asked reveals a lot about the questioner and provides insights into how to best answer.

The news media was filled with the question "Why Can’t Priests Marry?" after the 2005 Synod of Bishops. Yet, the proper question is ‘should married men be allowed to pursue a vocation to the order of priests?’ This is not simply a matter of semantics but speaks to the very heart of the discussion. I know of no one who is theologically orthodox, including those of us who hope for the re-opening of priestly candidacy to married men, calling for the abolition of celibacy. The fact that the issue is even being raised presents us with a teachable moment, a moment to explain the faith and the roots, history and beauty of consecrated celibacy as well as the beauty of faithful, chaste Christian marriage.

I find the tendency by some theologically "conservative" Catholics to discount the position of those who invite reconsideration of mandatory celibacy as somehow less "faithful" to the Church’s Magisterium both annoying and misplaced. Worse, I find efforts to lump anyone who disagrees with mandatory celibacy as dissenters to be offensive. The insinuation that anyone who proposes a return to voluntary celibacy chosen as a vocational response to God’s call - before ordination to the order of deacon- is less theologically faithful is historically, factually, and theologically wrong.

Like Mr. Johnston, I have heard a lot of sincere Catholics, and other Christians, raise the perceived "shortage" of priests - the "exigency" issue - as a primary reason for the relaxation of the mandatory discipline of celibacy for candidates to the Roman Catholic Priesthood. Exigency is not a good reason, in and of itself, to change any important aspect of Catholic practice.

The celibate vocation is a treasure given to the Roman Catholic Church in a special way for the whole Church and, through her witness, for the world into which she is sent to continue the mission and the presence of the Risen Jesus. Consecrated Celibacy is present in the Eastern Church - Catholic and Orthodox - as well, but it is not made mandatory for those discerning the further call to Orders as a Deacon or a Priest. In fact, that is why even the brief mention of the issue at the Synod went no further. A perceived shortage of priests is the wrong context for the discussion. It places the discussion within a problem solving context.

"It is a question that comes up among even devout Catholics at coffee hour after Mass and at cocktail parties. A married clergy is seen as the obvious solution to a number of problems that confront the Church, ranging from the shortage of priests to the recent sex scandals. Moreover, both the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholic churches allow married clergy. So do Protestants; and, in fact, the rejection of clerical celibacy was a much larger issue for the leaders of the Reformation than the fuss over indulgences. Luther, Zwingli, Carlstadt, Bucer, and many other rebellious priests soon took wives (often former nuns), while Thomas Cranmer already had one hidden in Germany. During the Council of Trent, powerful rulers like the Emperor Ferdinand put enormous pressure on the Church to abolish the law of celibacy, but the popes resolutely declined, and have done so ever since."

Here we have in this editorial what I hope is an unintentional linkage of Catholics who propose the re-opening of candidacy for the order of priests to married men with those who want to "pressure" the Church. This is false. Further, the following comment in the above quote seems to insinuate their position within the thinking of the Protestant reformers. That is even more wrong. Later on in his editorial Mr. Johnston notes: "The most insistent argument for a married clergy is that it would cure the shortage of priests. The reasons for the decline in the number of clergy are too numerous to go into here. Almost every Catholic shares some of the blame."

I agree. Let’s not compound the problem by dividing orthodox Catholics over this issue Mr. Johnston. It is perfectly legitimate for an "orthodox" Catholic to disagree with you. Reopening the order of priests to the candidacy of married men will not "solve" the perceived ‘priest shortage’. I have long believed that the problem is really a distribution problem. It was very encouraging to see that the Synod Fathers settled on that fact as a vehicle for resolution. I go further. It is time to acknowledge that there really is no "vocations crisis" in the sense of a lack of priests but rather a distribution problem! Perhaps, as in other missionary ages, it is time to send priests from those dioceses and communities where seminary vocations are flourishing and ordained priests are numerous into the dioceses where the faithful deserve priests to minister to them and their families. Celibacy is certainly not the source of the purported ‘shortage’ of priests. If one were to examine the trends, there is a growing response to the call to the celibate priesthood where the Catholic faith is being faithfully lived and courageously demonstrated; both within the Dioceses where there is a witness of dynamically orthodox Catholicism and in the new associations and religious communities that are flourishing in our day. Rather than being "a problem", celibacy is a priceless gift and a unique and wonderful vocational response to the call to follow the Lord.

Mr. Johnston points out that there has been an agenda in some circles calling for the elimination of the celibacy requirement that amounts to a form of agitation:

"The agitation for a married priesthood has sharpened in recent decades. There is a drumbeat in the media, often from ex-priests who write copiously for the op-ed pages. Probably a majority of American Catholics also favor the change. So, it’s not surprising that my engaged couples think that Rome should "get with the times" and allow priests to marry. Isn’t the rule of celibacy simply another example of a retrograde Church sitting on somebody’s rights?"

Priesthood is not a ‘job’; it is a ‘vocation.’ Nor does anyone have a "right" to be called to it. The priest is called to be configured to Christ the High Priest and continue His priestly mission and presence upon earth. Efforts to cheapen the priestly vocation by reducing it to some sort of C.E.O. position that everyone should be able to have because of some perceived ‘right’ are wrong. Priesthood is not about a ‘right’ or even a ‘career’ but rather, it is a response to a ‘vocation’, where the one responding hears the ‘voice’ (vocatio in Latin) of the Holy Spirit to uniquely follow and re-present Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, who came among us as a man. This coming as a man was not because men are somehow ‘better’ but because He initiated God's gift and redemptive action of love among us. Priests now stand in our midst making His presence real and tangible through Word and Sacrament.

Unfortunately, some do agitate for their agenda of demanded "changes" in the Church, including ‘married priests.’ Among their ranks are some calling for the "ordination" of practicing homosexual men to the ranks of diaconate, priesthood and the episcopacy. They view "Holy Orders" not as a vocational call but as some kind of job or ecclesial political power position. Out of this error they "agitate" for an ‘end’ to celibacy. Behind their agendas lies a flawed ecclesiology (theology of the Church) wherein they view the Church not from above but only from below. In this view, the Church is only a human organization and the orders of clergy are some form of power position that everyone has a "right" to occupy.

However, not everyone who is raising this issue is doing so to "agitate." I certainly am not. I am raising the issue because I believe it is time to do so. I am not alone. This issue is worthy of consideration and one can say so while remaining absolutely faithful to the teaching office of the Church. After all, throughout Church history, one of the ways that authentic change in practice occurred within the bounds of both orthodoxy and orthopraxy, has been though the legitimate manifestation of the sense of the faithful (sensum fidelium ). To be historically accurate, the more ancient practice has been for the admission of both celibate and married men to candidacy for Holy Orders. That is still the practice in Eastern Christianity, Catholic and Orthodox. Interestingly, celibacy has not disappeared in the Eastern Church, even with a married priesthood. To the contrary, it still manifests its beauty and prophetic sign to the whole Church. As the practice of selecting candidates for ordination from among celibate and married men developed in the Church of the East, pastoral wisdom led to the selection of only celibate clergy for the episcopacy. That is still the practice today. It is a good example for the West to consider.

Mr. Johnston instructs the engaged couples he prepares for the sacrament of Marriage on the theological facts regarding the requirement of celibacy in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church:

"I surprise my audience by first telling them that clerical celibacy is not a Church doctrine. It is a discipline, and so can be changed. The pope could wake up tomorrow and allow priests to marry. Moreover, in the early centuries there were married priests, starting with some of the apostles. We know that Peter was married, because we’re told that Jesus cured his mother-in-law. The immediate successors to the apostles were also allowed to marry. Paul writes to Timothy that a bishop should be "married but once." Clearly, by not permitting married clergy, the Church since the early Middle Ages has departed from the more commodious practice of the early hierarchy."

Commodious means, in its old usage, "large and roomy". That is a word that well describes the Catholic Church. Within the rightful bounds of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, there is plenty of room in the house. The universal Church has always been a place of legitimate diversity within the beauty of the Creed and the practice of the faith.

Perhaps it is time to once again admit married men to candidacy for the order of priests. If this were to occur it would not represent a change in doctrine, rather a change in discipline,. Yet, though we say that, by insisting upon it are we really acting as though it is a discipline? "It is a discipline, and so can be changed" Mr. Johnston informs his engaged couples. To open the ranks of priesthood to both celibate and married men would simply be to restore a prior practice and discipline. In that practice there were both celibate and married priests. The decisions for marriage was discerned and decided before admission and ordination to the diaconate. Also, upon the death of the spouse, the man could not marry again. That is the pledge made today by married men ordained to the diaconate in the West.

A priest who has vowed celibacy before ordination is, in a sacramental and theological sense, already married to Christ and His Church. He has made a vow. His marriage to a woman would be a breaking of that sacred vow and would not only be invalid under canon law; it would be akin to me, as a married clergyman, divorcing my wife(1)! Thus, even if the discipline were to be changed, currently ordained celibate priests would not marry! They are already married, to the Church. To use an old cliché "some of my best friends" are priests, both celibate and married. They are all wonderful priests, living their vocation with dignity and holiness. Yet, even within that community of celibate and married priests, there are different kinds of ministry within the one priesthood of Jesus Christ. The Eastern Church understands this and assigns married priests to different types of ministry than celibate priests. Similarly, in the Latin rite, the married men ordained to the priesthood serve in a manner that reflects and respects their state in life and manifests its prophetic and pastoral witness as a gift to the Church.

As to those married men who currently serve as priests in the Latin Rite, Mr. Johnston notes:

"But—a further surprise for my audience—there are, in fact, married priests in the Latin Church today. There aren’t many, because a priest may have a wife only in one circumstance: A Lutheran or Episcopalian minister who is already married and wishes to convert to Catholicism is allowed the option of becoming a Catholic priest, on condition that his wife gives full consent. You don’t usually see these married priests, because they’re generally not given parish assignments; they teach in seminaries or work in the chancery."

First, the admission of former Episcopal ministers to candidacy for priesthood is an accommodation that is effected through what is called "the pastoral provision." In addition, on a case by case basis, the mandatory discipline of celibacy required under the Code of Canon Law has been waived for some former Lutheran pastors and recently for a former Methodist minister. This is all occurring through the pastoral oversight and direct approval of the Holy See on a case by case basis. Canon 1047 in the Code of Canon law which governs the Latin Church reads: "Sec. 1 A dispensation from all irregularities is reserved to the Apostolic See if the fact upon which they are based has been brought to the judicial forum" In 1967, Pope Paul VI released his encyclical letter "On the Celibacy of Priests". The paragraph which became the basis for what is called the "Pastoral Provision", is number 42 which reads, in pertinent part:

42. In virtue of the fundamental norm of the government of the Catholic Church, to which We alluded above, (82) while on the one hand, the law requiring a freely chosen and perpetual celibacy of those who are admitted to Holy Orders remains unchanged, on the other hand, a study may be allowed of the particular circumstances of married sacred ministers of Churches or other Christian communities separated from the Catholic communion, and of the possibility of admitting to priestly functions those who desire to adhere to the fullness of this communion and to continue to exercise the sacred ministry. The circumstances must be such, however, as not to prejudice the existing discipline regarding celibacy.

And that the authority of the Church does not hesitate to exercise her power in this matter can be seen from the recent Ecumenical Council, which foresaw the possibility of conferring the holy diaconate on men of mature age who are already married."

Under this warrant, the "Pastoral Provision" was inaugurated. It explains its own history with these words:

"In 1980 the Holy See, in response to requests from priests and laity of the Episcopal Church who were seeking full communion with the Catholic Church, created a Pastoral Provision to provide them with special pastoral attention. The Pastoral Provision is under the jurisdiction of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith whose Delegate directs the working of the Provision.

Under the Provision the ordination of married Episcopal priests was made possible. It also authorized the establishment of personal parishes in dioceses of the United States in response to the request of former faithful of the Episcopal Church in which they may retain certain liturgical elements proper to the Anglican tradition. The special liturgy was subsequently approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Committee for the Liturgy of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops."

However, the basis for the waiver of the discipline of celibacy has already expanded beyond this particular vehicle for working with Episcopal ministers that was formed in 1980. It is being done with prudence and pastoral care on a case by case basis.

There is another Code of Canon law in the Catholic Church. It governs all "Eastern Catholics", those who are not a part of the Latin Rite but are in full communion with the Catholic Church, fully submitted to the Chair of Peter and following the Magisterium of the Church. In the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches we read:

"Canon 373: Clerical celibacy chosen for the Kingdom of Heaven and suited to the priesthood is to be greatly esteemed everywhere, as supported by the tradition of the whole church; likewise, the hallowed practice of married clerics in the primitive church and in the tradition of the Eastern Churches throughout the ages is to be held in honor.

Canon 374 Clerics, celibate or married, are to excel in the virtue of chastity; it is for the particular law to establish suitable means for pursuing this end.

Canon 375 In leading family life and in educating children married clergy are to show an outstanding example to other Christian faithful."

Under both Codes, West and East, each of which is fully Catholic and fully at the heart of Catholic faith, life and practice, we find married men included within the body of Catholic clergy. The experience of the Western Church now includes a body of Married Deacons (who are Clergy) and a small number of married priests. I believe that the numbers in both ranks of orders will increase in the Third Christian Millennium as our friends in other Christian communities are drawn "home" to the fullness of communion in the Catholic Church. I have had the privilege of being a part of these wonderful stories of God’s grace and invitation. The same pastoral concern and guidance of the Holy Spirit that gave rise to the "pastoral provision" is now giving rise to consideration of those ministers from other Christian communities who seek to serve as ordained ministers in the Catholic Church after their entry into the full communion of the Church.

In the Eastern Catholic Church, we have an unbroken ancient tradition of admitting both celibate and married men to candidacy for the order of both deacon and priest. In fact, it is codified in Canon Law and recognized as an asset to the Church with a particular encouragement to the married clergy to lead family life and serve as a witness. I believe that this, this vocation and call of chaste Christian marriage and family is also a prophetic witness in an age that is hostile to fidelity. That is not to say that the life of a married clergyman, deacon or priest, is not difficult. It is and it presents its own unique challenges.

That brings me to Mr. Johnston’s next point which I wish to comment upon, the story of his friend who, once an Episcopal minister, chose not to pursue ordination to the diaconate or priesthood upon coming into the full communion of the Catholic Church.

"But this one exception to the general rule is the occasion of a story that I tell my audience. It is about a friend of mine who is now a prominent Catholic moral theologian. Years ago, he was an Episcopalian priest who decided to convert to Catholicism. He was married with children and was given the option of becoming a Catholic priest. He agonized over the decision. He was already an ordained minister (although the Church does not recognize the validity of Episcopalian orders) and was deeply attracted to the Catholic priesthood. But at the same time, he recognized that there must be serious reasons why the Church insists on a discipline that is such a sign of contradiction to the modern world.

The debate went on, until finally there came the moment of clarification. He was up all night with one of his children who was seriously ill. Feeling drained and haggard, he went to Mass the next morning, and the priest celebrating Mass came out looking equally drawn. During the brief homily, the priest mentioned in passing that he had been up all night with a parishioner’s child who was dying of meningitis. A light bulb went off over my friend’s head: You can’t do both. If you fully understand the vocations to marriage and to the priesthood—the total availability and self-emptying that each demands—you would not choose to do both. And so he became a lay theologian and, apart from raising a large family, has served the Church in ways that he probably could not have as a member of the clergy."

I applaud his friend’s vocational choice and discernment. He is an example of precisely how such discernment functions in the Eastern Christian Church, Catholic and Orthodox, as they follow a very ancient practice of considering married men for the orders of deacon and priest. With respect to our Christian friends in the Anglican Communion who come into the full communion of the Catholic Church, I need to point out that Mr. Johnston’s friend, had he opted to be considered as a candidate for the priesthood in the Catholic Church, would have then followed a path of discernment and preparation before even being considered as a candidate for ordination. Had, after all of that, he been invited to and through the Order of Deacon and then into the Order of Priest, he would have been absolutely ordained, not "conditionally" ordained.

His friend’s analysis of how he could best live his own vocation as a Christian husband and father, and his free decision to remain in the lay state is a wonderful example of how such a process should unfold. The "light bulb" to which he refers was to illuminate his own path. It should not be considered the only way to walk. Some have chosen another way and live it out in fidelity, heroic sacrifice, holiness and prophetic witness. It is also why, even among those calling for a consideration of re-opening candidacy to married men, the discussion usually focuses on admitting mature men who have raised their children and faithfully lived out their marriage and family vocation for many years. Some are also discussing the possibility of considering mature married men who have served faithfully as Deacons as candidates for the priesthood.

However, in the Eastern Church, Catholic and Orthodox, we have the witness and the model of married men serving as priests even while still in childrearing years. Though it may be a different model, it is highly regarded by the faithful and seen as a gift to the Church.

This brings me to one of my strongest objections to this editorial. It is found in these words:

"The exaltation of celibacy does not in any way denigrate marriage. Nobody can outdo Pope John Paul II in praising conjugal love. And yet, as he points out in his famous talks on the theology of the body, marriage "is only a tentative solution to the problem of a union of persons through love." The final solution lies only in heaven, where, as Christ explained to the Sadducees, there is no marriage. Those who live celibately are, in effect, "skipping" the sacrament in anticipation of the ultimate reality, the "Marriage of the Lamb." They are an "eschatological sign" for the rest of us; their total gift of self, which includes their sexuality, to God anticipates the eternal union for which we were all created. The celibate vocation, West writes, "is ‘superior’ only in its more direct orientation toward man’s superior heavenly destiny."

Having studied the Theology of the Body at the John Paul II Institute, the same place where Christopher West studied, I agree that the celibate vocation is a more "direct orientation". However, I strongly disagree with Mr. Johnston’s notion that a celibate man has "skipped" the Sacrament. At the heart of both Christian marriage and consecrated celibacy is the singular Christian claim that all of those who are joined to Jesus Christ are, in a real and substantive way, invited into the great "marriage", the nuptial mystery of eternal communion with God. Consecrated celibates live that nuptial mystery in a unique, prophetic way, revealing the coming kingdom in our midst when there will be no "giving or taking in marriage." Then, we will all be married to Christ a as a part of His Bride. They are thus, in effect, not skipping but fulfilling the Sacrament of Marriage and witnessing to the rest of us through their prophetic life and service.

At the foundation of both consecrated celibacy and sacramental marriage is a call to participate in the nuptial mystery even now. The celibate does so in an immediate and prophetic way, while the married man does so in a mediated way, through the chaste love of one woman and their faithfulness to chaste love and openness to life. Both responses have a prophetic dimension. Yes, the celibates’ immediate witness is the greater way and makes them available in a different way for service. However, a married man is also called to chastity, holiness and service. Some may also be called to ordained service. We need good, solid, faithful teaching to all the faithful, lay and clergy, concerning the dignity of the human person and the beauty of human sexuality. Perhaps more than any Pope in history, John Paul II laid the groundwork for that kind of prophetic and profound renewal. The content of his teachings (compiled among other places in a volume entitled, "The Theology of the Body") on human sexuality should become the framework for this catechesis and the foundation for all catechetical instruction within the Church including in our Seminaries. This would result in healthy marriages, happy families and holy celibate vocations and communities. It would lay the groundwork for a genuine flourishing of holiness throughout the Church and in every vocation.

The call to consecrated celibacy must be presented as the sacrificial giving up of the good for the better! Therefore, marriage in Christ must also be presented as a vocational call to gospel life! Chastity must be presented as binding on all the faithful and practiced in accordance with one's state in life. Additionally, the classical "evangelical counsels" of poverty, chastity and obedience, too long considered only possible for "religious", should be re-presented as the building blocks of the universal call to holiness. The witness of consecrated celibacy (for the sake of the kingdom) goes back to the invitation of Jesus (Matthew 19:12) and His own witness. In His sacred humanity he was a celibate man. It is also bolstered by the witness of some of the Apostles and encouraged by the pastoral experience (see, e.g. 1 Corinthians 7) of the early Church. It forms an unbroken witness - and a treasure - both for those who embrace it and for the whole Church that has been enriched by those who have. The true original motivation for celibacy was the response to Jesus who invited his apostles to forsake marriage to become "eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom". (Matt. 19:12) This was even more "counter cultural" in the ancient Semitic world than it is today in the West. The prophetic witness of celibacy has endured beyond the ranks of celibate clergy. It is also preserved in the inspired vowed life of monastic orders, the sacrificial witness of religious men and women, and the increasing new ecclesial associations of lay men and woman, who have chosen it, not to avoid marriage, but to enter more fully into the very nuptial mystery that marriage reveals, in a unique and prophetic way.

Ordered service in the Church is an invitation to the Cross, a vocation, not a right or a job. It is also not some position of power but a call to serve. The clerical state is a call to a particular way of serving and an invitation to holiness. I served with great fervor of soul for decades as a married layman in both the Church and the world! When I was invited to Holy Orders as a deacon, I knew that it was a further and specific call, a vocation. I also came to understand the theology that I had studied. There is an "ontological" change that occurs at ordination. In fact, my life was turned upside down and has never been the same. Philosophers and Theologians often use the word "asymmetry" when trying to explain the great "mysteries" that are integral to the Christian faith. Very often the "answer" is not "either/or" but "both/and". At the foundation of all asymmetrical insights is the Christian claim of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. He is BOTH God and Man. Proceeding from this central claim are many other important understandings about God, the human person, our relationships with one another, life, death and the meaning of our lives. I believe there is an asymmetry that must be grasped if this entire discussion concerning whether married men should be admitted to candidacy for the priesthood once again in the Western Church is to bear good fruit.

I believe that in the unbroken witness of the East we find the best framework for this important consideration. It is not "either or" but "both and." I believe there is room in the whole Catholic Church for both a celibate and a married clergy, both deacons and priests. As the unbroken tradition of the East has shown, both celibacy and marriage are a response to the invitation to holiness and a gift to the Church. Both marriage and consecrated celibacy are a participation in the one nuptial mystery of following Jesus Christ. In our experience in the west with married deacons and our growing experience of admitting to priestly orders ministers from other Christian communities who came into full communion we now have the witness of a married clergy. We have many places of service where they are an asset and many needs that they could help to meet.

Is it time to for the Church to consider reopening the candidacy for priesthood to married men?

How sad and shallow. As the interview with Bishop Pell indicated, there are men who are ready to serve and would cost the Church nothing financially

As to Divorce, older men who have been married and have raised their children have nothing of "risk" as indicated in your shallow response.

Look at the current challenge of celibates who may have never truly had the celibate call.

I can imagine a Roman Catholic Bishop very grateful for a mature, married man who loves the Lord and the Church and is willing to serve as a priest

WAKE UP

*Readers ought be alerted to the backdrop for this piece.

TCR is the website of Steven Hand. Mr. Hand has been egregiously ugly and defamatory in debates with orthodox Catholics over his, Mr. Hand's, personal opinions about the Justness of this war. Hand is against it and makes innumerable unsupportable claims his personal opinion is the Pope's official position. He has alienated many with his crazy and angry assertions and several have, publicly, repudiated and severed all contact with him until he apologizes.

In addition, Mr. Hand has long advocated a married priesthood.

That said, IMO, all inertia is in the direction of maintaining The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy which just happens to be an invaluable text written by FR. Christian Cochini

I believe that in the unbroken witness of the East we find the best framework for this important consideration.

*Really? We in the West, the VAST majority of Catholics, have an unbroken different tradition (see the book by Cochini I cited) so WHY must the Majoritry change so as to mimic the minority?

If I was Chris Farley, I'd say to Steven Hand, "Hand, shut your big yapper."

Hey it's a great to see another Catholic opposed to the war.

I could claim no special expertise and was ambivalent about in 2003, not knowing what to believe but it was interesting to see the war debated in 2003 with Buchanan and other USA catholics opposed but most it seemed to me in favor of it, arguing correctly the Pope's views are not binding, somehow they knew better.

Well as it turns out that the Pope's views aren't binding---they were only correct, lol. For me it was another learning moment, the same Pope that acknowledged the US's right to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan said no to a war in Iraq.

I am in favor of the War in Iraq. With all due respect, the Vatican is NOT the source of geopolitical wisdom. We are in the early stages of the third world war and Islam is our mortal enemy - ever since it has been for these past 13 centuries.

Rome is waking-up, slowly, and that is evinced in L'Osservatore Romano's article re the dangers Islam presents.

The fact that huge Mosque was built in Rome is a sad and very tragic reminder of Rome's ill-advised tolerance which has not been, nor ever will be, reciprocated by Islam

Islam is indeed a formidable opponent, yet the recent catechism appears to soften and blur the differences, all of us being monotheistic children of Abraham and all.

As formidable as Islam is, western secular humanism may even be worse in the long run as the heat on Christian frogs gets slowly turned up.

The Supreme Court has permitted the killing of millions more Americans than Islam has committed. The Court is problem #1 in politics not Saddam, not that some strategic bombing of his palaces or munitions factories would be out of bounds either.

The fact is that many Anglican married priests who left their church have been received by Rome. The Roman Catholic church is in communion with Orthodoxy, which permits priests to marry. Historically, celibacy has always played an important role in religious faith -- but only when it's a proven and truly voluntary calling. For the first ten centuries of the Catholic church there was NO mandatory celibacy - this requirement arose when the great reformers of the church who ascended to the papacy were monks. Whether it's economically feasible for Rome to to allow clergy to marry is a PRACTICAL problem but doesn't touch on the problem (for some) of faith and order. Questions of divorce, etc. would be dealt with in the same way that others are -- homosexuality, paedophilia, alcoholism -- pastorally by the bishops and the church's counseling network. Throughout the long history of the church some have had the call to celibacy (perhaps beginning with Paul) and others to marry (as Peter, the first in apostolic succession). At the risk of being platitudinal, "no size fits all".

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.