Posted on 10/25/2009 4:31:29 PM PDT by Salvation
Phil Lawler is undoubtedly correct that the rule of celibacy will not be relaxed for Catholics of the Roman Rite when married Anglican priests begin to appear under a new Catholic ordinariate. He may also be correct that Eastern Rite churches will gradually permit more of their married clergy to serve in the West as we become accustomed to married clergy through a growing familiarity with our Anglo-Catholic brethren. (See The Anglicans and the Eastern Churches.)
But the official policies of the Roman Rite and the Eastern Rite churches do not exhaust the issues raised by an increase in the number of married priests. The first issue is whether those who want the Church to change the law of celibacy will use the occasion to increase their pressure. This must be answered in the affirmative by any sane observer of the dissident Catholic scene.
The second issue is whether the Church’s “celibacy morale”, so painstakingly rebuilt over the past twenty years, will be lowered once again. Will the faithful become even more confused about celibacy? Will some Roman Rite priests think it “hard” that no special provision is made for them to marry? Will some potential future priests begin to hope once again for a relaxation of the celibacy requirement? Surely all of this is likely.
After all, it is hard to justify the imposition of celibacy by law purely on the basis of “how we do things here” while maintaining the position that it is perfectly acceptable to do things another way “there”, especially when here and there are in the same culture. This is nothing new, of course, but insofar as the proposed Anglican ordinariate utilizes married priests who become familiar to other Catholics, questions and even doubts will invariably arise.
Celibacy is Always Preferred
For this reason, it is important to state the plain truth that celibacy is the preferred state for a priest of any rite. This is eloquently attested even in the Eastern Catholic churches by the fact that a priest cannot marry after he has been ordained, and that bishops cannot be married at all. The Eastern Churches will often ordain a man who is already married, but they will not permit an unmarried priest to marry later, or a married priest to remarry after the death of his spouse. Further, the fullness of the priesthood—the episcopate—can be exercised only by unmarried men.
On this last point, it will be interesting to see how the Vatican handles the problem of married Anglican bishops. We find a full-fledged commitment to married clergy only in Anglicanism, which developed largely in direct rebellion against the Catholic Church and under the influence of both the Protestant Revolt and the English monarchy. The Eastern Churches did not develop so much in rebellion against Rome, although rebellion certainly existed on the political level, as on a separate path in which a common Tradition informed the changeable provisions of ecclesiastical discipline in slightly different ways.
Some in the Eastern Catholic Churches (though not many, I think) might contest my statement that celibacy is the preferred state for a priest of any rite. But many would contest my own pragmatic reading of the current situation, which leads me to suspect strongly that only a monumental historical accident—consisting chiefly of the need to heal the grave wounds of schism—has prevented celibacy from being the rule for all Catholics of whatever rite. But since all ecclesiastical discipline is human, and no ecclesiastical discipline infallibly produces what it aims at, this is a debatable proposition. One can argue about which disciplines are inspired by the Holy Spirit and which are permitted by men “because of the hardness of their hearts”. Indeed, one can be appalled by Eastern Rite seminarians who delay ordination until they have had a chance to find wives; but one can also look askance at the attraction of Western homosexual seminarians to a celibate priesthood.
While my historical perspective is eminently debatable, however, the proposition that celibacy is to be preferred even when it is not legislated was clearly and authoritatively taught in Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (The Celibacy of the Priest), issued on June 24, 1967. The encyclical was promulgated not just to the Roman Rite bishops but to “the bishops, priests and faithful of the whole Catholic world”. In his encyclical, the Pope points both to the Eastern practice of requiring celibacy for bishops and the strong witness of the Eastern Fathers of the Church as evidence that a preference for celibacy is enshrined everywhere throughout the whole Church.
The Reasons for Ecclesiastical Law
The question, then, is not whether celibacy is to be preferred but whether it should be prescribed by ecclesiastical law. While recognizing the respect due to the alternative approach taken by the Eastern Churches, and to those among their priests who happen to be married, Pope Paul stresses the immense value and intrinsic superiority of celibacy for priests. This superiority consists in a greater conformity to Christ, who was celibate; a greater sign of the supernatural Kingdom in which we will neither marry nor be given in marriage; a greater sign of total service to the Church and to the nurture of souls; a greater self-possession and self-discipline; and a greater charity which, properly developed, will bear more abundant fruit in ministry.
It is this superiority, both as a sign and as an incomparable means of being configured to Christ, that led Pope Paul VI, in direct response to the near-overwhelming agitation for the elimination of celibacy in the 1960’s—and after carefully reviewing the major objections to it in the first part of his encyclical—to reaffirm that celibacy is as valid and important to the Church now as it has been at any time in history. He therefore established that it was wholly right and good to continue to give this singular Catholic tradition the force of law in the West. All Catholics, of both East and West, were intended to benefit from a deeper exploration of his reasons.
A. Conformity to Christ
The Pope’s points in favor of celibacy are divided into two parts. The first centers on conformity to the priesthood of Christ. “The Christian priesthood,” Paul writes, “being of a new order, can be understood only in the light of the newness of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff and eternal priest, who instituted the priesthood of the ministry as a real participation in His own unique priesthood” (19). The human priest looks to Christ directly as his model, Christ who brought forth a new creation through his total consecration to the will of the Father.
While matrimony “continues the work of the first creation”, Christ is the mediator of “a superior covenant”. As such, He has “also opened a new way, in which the human creature adheres wholly and directly to the Lord, and is concerned only with Him and with His affairs; thus, he manifests in a clearer and more complete way the profoundly transforming reality of the New Testament” (20). The Pope's namesake, St. Paul, gives advice to all Christians along these same lines: “The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided” (1 Cor 7:32-34).
As Paul VI points out, it was “wholly in accord” with his mission that Christ remained celibate throughout His whole life, “which signified His total dedication to the service of God and men.” This deep connection between celibacy and the priesthood of Christ is reflected “in those whose fortune it is to share in the dignity and mission of the Mediator and eternal Priest” (21):
To them this is the mystery of the newness of Christ, of all that He is and stands for; it is the sum of the highest ideals of the Gospel and of the kingdom; it is a particular manifestation of grace, which springs from the Paschal mystery of the Savior. This is what makes the choice of celibacy desirable and worthwhile to those called by our Lord Jesus. Thus they intend not only to participate in His priestly office, but also to share with Him His very condition of living. (23)
B. Supernal Charity
The second part of the Pope's argument centers on charity. “The free choice of sacred celibacy,” Pope Paul states, “has always been considered by the Church ‘as a symbol of, and stimulus to, charity’: It signifies a love without reservations; it stimulates to a charity which is open to all” (24). Just as the priest is more perfectly conformed to Christ through celibacy, so too does he partake more fully in “the charity and sacrifice proper to Christ our Savior”. Thus the bond between the priesthood and celibacy should be seen “as the mark of a heroic soul and the imperative call to unique and total love for Christ and His Church” (25).
Here it is important to recall the mystery of the marriage relationship which St. Paul ascribes to Christ and the Church (see Ephesians 5, concluding with verse 32). Paul VI explains that through consecrated celibacy, priests manifest the “virginal and supernatural fecundity of this marriage, by which the children of God are born, ‘not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh’” (26). Owing to his own life of marriage to the Church, the priest is called to meditate daily on the prayer of the Church, to be nourished by the Word, to united himself totally with the Eucharistic sacrifice, and so to permit his life to acquire “a greater richness of meaning and sanctifying power” (29).
“Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone,” says the Pope, quoting the Eternal Priest, “but if it dies, it bears much fruit” (30). He goes on to explain also that the celibate priest is a richer sign of the heavenly kingdom, in which marriage between men and women passes away (e.g., Mt. 22:30). He also points briefly to all the practical considerations that make it both easier and more appropriate for an unmarried man to give himself totally to the service of his people.
A Brilliant Jewel
In the remainder of the encyclical, the Pope takes up and answers various questions regarding the potential negative impact of celibacy on those who are unsuited to it, or on human nature generally (as was often urged in the years following the sexual revolution), and he considers the importance of proper discernment and formation. These considerations need not detain us. What is most important in today’s context is that, by urging the value and importance of celibacy and by maintaining it in law, Pope Paul VI hoped celibacy would again become a sign and stimulus of a greater reliance on Divine grace, first on the part of the Church’s ministers, and consequently for the entire body of the faithful. Consider the following inspiring passage:
Supported by the power of faith, We express the Church's conviction on this matter. Of this she is certain: if she is prompter and more persevering in her response to grace, if she relies more openly and more fully on its secret but invincible power, if, in short, she bears more exemplary witness to the mystery of Christ, then she will never fall short in the performance of her salvific mission to the world—no matter how much opposition she faces from human ways of thinking or misrepresentations. We must all realize that we can do all things in Him who alone gives strength to souls and increase to His Church. (48)
In the context of the differences among Rites and ordinariates, which are likely to bring the question of celibacy to the fore again in ways that are not entirely welcome, it is vital that we try to capture the essence of the Pope’s argument in Sacerdotalis Caelibatus. Its essence is this: Celibacy in the Roman Rite is not to be tolerated as a dull burden but, in Paul VI's own words, to be “guarded as a brilliant jewel”.
Peace/calm is it. : )
Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church's practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.
Matt. 19:29 - Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.
Matt. 22:30 - Jesus explains that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus' kingdom on earth, priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage). This also makes it easier for priests to be transferred to different parishes where they are most needed without having to worry about the impact of their transfer on wife and children.
1 Cor 7:1 – Paul teaches that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make.
1 Cor. 7:7 - Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is.
1 Cor. 7:27 – Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage. In Paul’s opinion, marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church.
1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 - Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”
1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church's celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.
1 Tim. 4:3 - in this verse, Paul refers to deceitful doctrines that forbid marriage. Many non-Catholics also use this verse to impugn the Church's practice of celibacy. This is entirely misguided because the Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant churches) exalts marriage to a sacrament. In fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving. Paul is referring to doctrines that forbid marriage and other goods when done outside the teaching of Christ and for a lessor good. Celibacy is an act of giving up one good (marriage and children) for a greater good (complete spiritual union with God).
1 Tim. 5:9-12 - Paul recommends that older widows take a pledge of celibacy. This was the beginning of women religious orders.
2 Tim. 2:3-4 - Paul instructs his bishop Timothy that no soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim his to satisfy the One who enlisted him. Paul is using an analogy to describe the role of the celibate priesthood in the Church.
Rev. 14:4 - unlike our sinful world of the flesh, in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.
Isaiah 56:3-7 - the eunuchs who keep God's covenant will have a special place in the kingdom of heaven.
Jer. 16:1-4 - Jeremiah is told by God not to take a wife or have children.
Where do you get "widowers"? It is not in the text, nor in the context.
It said that St. Paul is referring to widowers, not me.
Deacons are ordained clergy, not laity.
What about the sacrament of holy orders?
It’s not “hypocrisy.” It’s simply a way of dealing charitably with an existing situation...that is, many of these Anglican ministers who have served as priests and who will receive valid ordination to the priesthood are already married. It is very likely that new vocations even in the new Anglican Rite will not be permitted to marry.
And there are many other issues: for example, what about Anglican clergy who are divorced and remarried? And as for their current married bishops, they will not be consecrated as bishops and will merely be ordained and serve as priests. The bishop is considered to have the fullness of the priesthood and you will note that in the Orthodox Church as well, bishops may not be married.
This is a pragmatic solution. Interestingly, in the Anglo-Catholic movement of 19th century England, many of the young men who went into the priesthood voluntarily chose celibacy. I think you will actually see a deeper understanding of celibacy spreading into the Anglican rite, and that this in turn will reaffirm Latin Rite practice.
Celibacy for priests is a disciplinary decision and is not a matter of dogma. However, priests have not been allowed to marry in the Western Church since the very earliest centuries, and bishops have never been permitted to marry; doctrine and practice develop over time, based on precedent, and this was how it evolved in the Latin Rite. A rich theology of clerical celibacy has grown up around it.
There have, of course, often been corrupt clergy, including members of the heirarchy, who had their live-in girlfriends, illegitimate children, etc. But they are hardly a model to be followed, and much effort was expended trying to clean up practice in this area.
Another thing that affected it was the fact that forcing priests to marry was one of the first things that heretical groups or the Muslims did. When the Muslims captured parts of Spain, priests married (either in reality or in appearance) in order to be able to continue to secretly function as priests without attracting the attention of the Islamic authorities. The Protestants also forced priests to marry when they took over parts of Europe, and even evicted monks and nuns from their monasteries and forced them into “marriages.”
Clerical celibacy is an ancient sign of the Roman Catholic Church and it is usually one of the first targets of attackers.
You raise some interesting observations and look at my article in a unique way. Let me, right off the bat, say this; I do not hate men. I am in a traditional catholic marriage of 20 years. I am the barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and bedroom type. I homeschool my youngest son, my middle son is entering the priesthood next fall, and my oldest son is a devout catholic, preparing to enter the sacrament of matrimony in January, at the age of 22, to a wonderful young lady who plans to be barefoot and pregnant, stay home, raise a family, and respects my son as the head of their family.
I believe NO one has the right to abort a child. God is the author of life, he just allows us to participate.
It is not just the church that has become “pansified” as you put it, it is the culture itself. I am repulsed by the metrosexual man, who is worshipped today. My article pointed out nothing about making a man sensitive or pansylike, it sought to point out that marriage is a sacrament, and once entered into, unbreakable. To paint all women with this broad brush as you do, makes it seem as though there are none of us out here that value a man for being a man, knowing what a true man is, and submitting our authority to one.
Submission to our husbands is key to making a marriage work. Each week at Mass, when we both receive communion and return to our pew, we kneel and pray silently for a moment and then, we join hands and pray for OUR marriage and the strength to continue to endure in Gods will. When we are finished, I kiss his wedding ring as a sign of my fidelity and submission to his authority. He does not kiss mine. I do this publicly every week because I recognize his authority in the marriage and because I am so thankful for the gift of a real man who practices his faith without fear.
All this being said, the things you talk about ARE good material for an article. Prior to the 1960’s, the balance was as it ought to be within the church. The sexual revolution brought about alot of this change. The give peace a chance/make love not war mentality permeated the church, just as it did society, and the sexual revolution caused a paradigm shift in both. I do not know how it happened, but it was men who were in power in both the church and society, and women caused a coup in both and took over.
In fairness, your statement that absolute power corrupts absolutely goes both ways, or we would not have had treated women as property, men would not have been allowed to beat them as long as the stick width was not wider than their finger, and been denied the right to own property throughout history either. It is also very hard to submit to a man who takes longer in the mirror than you do, is abusive or devalues his wife, or worships football instead.
I absolutely see that real men today are given a bum rap. They are considered chauvanists,domineering, rednecks,and other derogatory terms designed to castrate them. They have had the right to have a say in their unborn childs life taken away, and that is tragic and must be changed (although I would be much happier if abortion was just against the law altogether since it is murder no matter who gets to “choose”). I also agree that women initiate more divorces, but, many of those are because men (at least until very recently) did most of the cheating, domestic abuse, leaving, becoming addicted to porn, substance abuse,etc. I think part of what happened was in the 60’s, men were confronted with the opportunities of sex and drug abuse in new ways and weren’t prepared to handle the pressure. If they had pushed back at that time, when they DID have the power, and squashed it, perhaps alot of these things would not be so prevelant today?
I have done the best I can to add 3 manly men to society by marrying one manly man. I am sad to see that instead of using your manliness to raise manly men, you have chosen instead to blame ALL women as well as marriage, for the failure of society. You have not helped to correct the situation by being fruitful and multiplying and training up a child the way he should go, you have left the task of doing to others. By withdrawing yourself from being eligible to marry and pass along the correct view to your children, you have weakened Gods army by the number of children you could have added to the fight. As to the Theology of the Body discussion, I have taken the course, and it is NOT in any way a teaching that a mans body is wrong and he has to submit to his wifes will, it merely teaches the couple to know when she is fertile and they can then CHOOSE to abstain from sex during that period to prevent pregnancy or to have sex and conceive. You know, God did create both sexes, and both are very different; complementary if you will. Neither is bad or wrong.
You are 100 percent correct in your last paragraph about matrimony. When it crumbles, so do our rights. It is precisely the reason I wrote the article in the first place, to explain WHY matrimony is UNBREAKABLE and to point out the importance God placed upon it and why. I am sorry you took away from it that I was a man hater from it, as nothing could be further from the truth.
Incorrect. Invest in a dictionary.
Explain the shortage of Priests in the 21 Churches in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church which ordain, as a norm, married men?
Based on your flawed and selective interpretation of Scripture.
It is implied. Is it your assertion that Scripture is always absolutely explicit?
nor in the context.
Based upon your interpretation. St. Jerome for one, who was a lot brighter than you are, disagrees.
If you believe what Cozzens writes, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
What on earth are you talking about?
9 No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, 10 and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.
11 As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 1 Tim 5:9-12
I'm pleased to see that although I'm getting up there, I would still be considered young enough to be married off again to keep me from causing trouble, LOL!
BTW, in 1 Tim 3, it goes on to discuss the qualifications for deacons...does that refer to widowers also?
Here's what my Bible says:
1 [1-16] After a few words of general advice based on common sense (1 Tim 5:1-2), the letter takes up, in its several aspects, the subject of widows. The first responsibility for their care belongs to the family circle, not to the Christian community as such (1 Tim 5:3-4, 16). The widow left without the aid of relatives may benefit the community by her prayer, and the community should consider her material sustenance its responsibility (1 Tim 5:5-8). Widows who wish to work directly for the Christian community should not be accepted unless they are well beyond the probability of marriage, i.e., sixty years of age, married only once, and with a reputation for good works (1 Tim 5:9-10). Younger widows are apt to be troublesome and should be encouraged to remarry (1 Tim 5:11-15).
Please apply some context:
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 1 Cor 7:1, 2 & 3
I think that's a stretch!
I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 1 Cor 7:6,7
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.