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?
**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. **
Food for discussion.
excellent post.
An observation here, based on the matrimonial aspect in the article. I have posted an article I wrote on this topic below. I think one of the greatest issues in the modern day church on this issue is due to the fact that no one understands exactly WHAT matrimony IS, therefore they do not understand why it impedes a man in his vocation to the priesthood. The article attempts to explain the marriage covenant. My apologies if this post is long...
Falling in love. One of Gods most wonderful gifts, and lifes most incredible pleasures. That moment when you realize, this is THE one. Your heart skips a beat every time you see him, and you cannot believe he feels the same way as you. Wedding bells toll, and so begins the first day of your new life.
Marriage is an incredible gift. It is horrifying that over half of the people who enter into it, including Catholics, leave when it gets tough. While I know that there are cases where seperating or even divorcing may be necessary, it is absolutely and without question a very low number; the same kind of numbers we are talking about for getting an abortion in the case of the mothers life being in grave danger - extremely low.
The reason for this astronomical divorce rate is tied to the same mentality as the astronomical abortion rate - the lack of understanding the sacredness of life, and by extension, marriage. The change that occurs when a couple stands before God and declares their consent to be joined together is an unbreakable covenant, no matter the difficulty.
The change that occurs at the altar is no less profound than the one that occurs on the altar. There is a complete and total giving of self to the spouse. In Gods eyes, and the Churches, I am no longer me, but us. My husband is no longer him, but us. The two have become so completely one that we are indistiguishable as an individual.
The mystery of the covenant of marriage is mirrored in the mystery of Transubstantiation. The bread BECOMES the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. It is not a symbol. It is not a bunch of words the priest says and then we hope God accepts the gifts of bread and wine as His Son; it is the complete, total, and absolute change from bread and wine to the Eucharist that occurs, same as when 2 people stand at the altar. The accidents of bread and wine are still present after the consecration, same as our married bodies are. This does not, however, diminish that which took place; we are one flesh!
With this view, the very way God sees us after marriage, divorce becomes an absurdity. The only thing you get when you divide one is half of one. You cannot be complete outside your vows. You lack that which made you whole. You cannot unring this bell.
To drive home this point even further, God in His infinite wisdom, designed us to participate with Him in our married love to bring forth life. The married state can be looked upon in design as a model of our Triune God. Two become one, and from that union as one, the family grows to become 3, or more! God speaks to us about His love, through the joining of the 2 who became one. The love you feel for your spouse in your most intimate moments is about as close as our human hearts can get to Christs love for His Bride, the Fathers perfect love for the Son, and by extension, His adopted children - all of us. God wanted us to know life giving love, and what better way than to make love life giving!
Sadly - love, commitment, and marriage have been divorced from sex in our culture. We find all kinds of ways to remove the life-giving aspect from love, and therefore, remove God from marriage. The end is predictable; contraception, infidelity, divorce, abortion, spousal abuse, pornography, the list goes on and on. Each time we make love to our spouse, we are renewing the covenant we made on that day. By removing God and His Will , we are reduced to having sex steered only by our fallen nature, and our covenant is weakened and eventually destroyed. We “fall out of love” with our spouse and start seeking that which we think will fill us with happiness again.
Jesus had some specific things to say about divorce when He was questioned on it. He told us that divorce was never in Gods plan, but OUR hardness of heart made it necessary for Moses to allow. He said that whatever God joined together, man could not divide. He said that a man should leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife, as the two were now one flesh. That we have forgotten this is evidenced by all the divorce and “shacking up” going on today.
The Church is the Bride of Christ. He refers to our entrance into Heaven as coming to the marriage supper of the Lamb. He refers to Himself as the Bridegroom. We must, as a Church, begin to take our vows and marriage covenant deadly serious; it is apparent all through Scripture that Christ uses marriage as an analogy to our relationship with Him. I can only pray that His view of the marriage covenant is not what we have allowed ours to become.
How dare the Hierarchy create such an open Hypocracy and expect the morale of Catholic Priests to remain high.
In order to lead people in any work situation, the rules must be equal and fair through out the work environment or anger and Chaos will prevail.
I’ve spent my life leading men and such a prospect like this is intolerable.
These Guys in the Vatican are Nuts.
Since “celibate” really means “Not married” (not “doesn’t have sex”) this is a totally non-sensical thing.
In addition, it was my understanding that Anglicans who came to the RC church were allowed to stay married, and (presumably) fulfilled their vows of physical relations, a vow made very explicitly in the RC vows. What changed?
I’m unclear on whether new priests, under the Anglican arrangement, will be required to be celibate. Do you know?
The discussion of the relationship between marriage and Holy Orders in the East is correct regarding the priesthood (though it overlooks the fact that deacons and even us lowly subdeacons may not marry and remain in our orders), but not quite correct in discussing bishops: a bishop must be celibate. Most often candidates are selected from among priest-monks, or other celibate clergy, but widowed priests are sometime elevated to the episcopate (for instance, there is a Ukranian Orthodox bishop in Canada whose son is on the Canadian Supreme Court).
In the Orthodox understanding of marriage a marriage does not disolve at death—hence the very penitential nature of the rite of second (and even more so third) marriage, which exists only as a condescension to human weakness. There is no “’til death do us [or you] part” in the Orthodox rites of betrothal or marriage (crowning), so it is not correct to characterize a widower who has been elevated to the episcopate as “unmarried”.
There is also an even rarer circumstance, for which the notable example is Patriarch Philaret of Moscow. He and his wife agreed to both pursue the monastic life (there is a very beautiful, though rarely used rite for this—though in their case political pressures compelled them to the decision), and parted to each live out the remainder of their life in celibacy. Rather ironically for Patriarch Philaret’s political opponents, as Patriach, which he could not have become without parting from his wife, he became functionally co-Tsar.
I am actually coming to the conclusion that (with the possible exception of widowers), celibate clergy without some formal connection to a monastery are a bad idea. (And I thoroughly support the celibate episcopate—I just think bishops should be monks, ideally monks who have to be cajoled or even dragged unwilling from their cells to their consecrations.)