Celibacy is Nonsense...

Celibacy is nonsense if you just see priests in terms of function. If he is just there to offer Mass or run a parish there is no reason on earth why he shouldn't marry, indeed if he is just a Church functionary it is most probably much better for him to marry and be surrounded by a large Catholic family.

If on the other hand a priest is a sign of absolute commitment to God, of communion, of prayer, of otherness, then celibacy is of supreme importance.

The ancient discipline of priestly celibacy, is not easy. Not having a sexual relationship is reasonably easy, most people in my congregation are in that situation, often for most of their lives, either because they are single, widowed, divorced or because of their sexual orientation. Those who choose celibacy voluntarily accept loneliness and a sense of being unfulfilled by anything here on earth. Doing that all one's life confronts one with a deep craving, a desire to both possess and to be possessed, so often that can be sublimated, golf, hypochondria, cats and dogs, or plain eccentricity but real celibacy is about living with an open wound, totally unsatisfied by anything here on earth. It should be prophetic, about the Creator not creatures.

Like a hair shirt celibacy is constant reminder and an expression of the bald fact that God alone can satisfy our deepest longings. Celibacy is about the Kingdom of God, about prayer, about the spiritual life, about communion with God but it only works with faith.

I think the debate about celibacy which Cardinal Schönborn among others recently called for is actually a debate about the very nature of the priesthood and therefore about the nature of the Church, by extension it could be seen as a debate about the nature of Grace itself. This debate has brewing for sometime, I think, ever since Pius XII gave permission for married German Lutheran converts to ordained to the priesthood.

Sandro Magister puts forward, sketchily, the historical context of celibacy, which if you are unfamiliar with the arguments is well worth reading.

Sorry you apparently had a bad experience in seminary, presumably decided that celibacy was not for you and now wallow in jealous resentment that the Church won't let you dictate terms to it as to how you would like to be a married priest. We did not let Martin Luther dictate those terms either.

I did not see that list of spouses of Christ, His Apostles, or those popes. They must have been deficient somehow as Catholics for lack of sexual relations. Is that it in the sexually obsessed fever swamp of liberal "Catholicism?"

The Church got along quite nicely without you before it met you and can, if need be, get along without you now.

Notre Dame University is a phony and antiCatholic institution posing as something Catholic. Ditto St. Mary's. The Land o' Lakes Conference in your native Wisconsin, organized by ND president Theodore Hesburgh, stripped all but 6 American "Catholic" colleges of their designation of Catholic to free them up to whore after worldly standards in academia. Grand theft academic.

In Wisconsin, you had the despicable likes of Archbishop (and arch rumpranger) Rembert Weakland. In California to which you chose to move, you will find more like him (it?). Don't make believe that they are typical.

As to your remarkably high number of molested friends, theirs are not typical experiences. If 2 or 3 or even 5% of priests were perverts, they could do some damage but the hysteria of the Church's ever-present squad of anti-Catholic critics, internal and external, and reality are entirely different things, Get control over Pelosi and her constituents and then get back to us.

If you ever make it back to Wisconsin, drop down to Rockford, IL, on any Sunday at 9 AM and you will discover not liberalism in "Catholic" garb but the Church founded by Jesus Christ and guaranteed by Him. You can find the Church at St. Mary's Oratory in downtown Rockford. I can introduce you to any number of priests in this diocese to whom you can repeat your baseless slanders but have your medical insurance in shape.

Other than mouthing off behind the internet curtain of anonymity, just what are you actually doing to protect, etc., etc.

The new Archbishop designate of Los Angeles will be a considerable improvement over McPhony, the sooner the better. Do you have a problem with a Mexican American being appointed to a largely Hispanic Archdiocese? Do you have a problem with Mexicans?

Have you considered a switch to Unitarianism-Universalism??? When (if) you pray, you can begin: To Whom It May Concern or Oh God, if there is a God....

If you are desperately unhappy as a Catholic, why stay? No one is drafting you. No one needs you or others like you. Thank God you did not become a priest. It is long past time to strip the professional whiners from the ranks and to hunker down in renewed defense of civilization.

Also, bad news for the Catholic bashers. Rome is appointing a new generation of bishops to clean out the worst dioceses in America: Fort Worth, Galveston-Houston, Los Angeles, Milwaukee (2 stars in a row), St. Louis (2), Kansas City, Detroit, and so on.

Be sure to check under your bed tonite to make sure that no gay priests are lurking there. What you really find terrible is that someone actually Catholic blatantly refutes your antiCatholic views in public.

Ideally, perhaps. But based on my experience most American clergy are either gay or are otherwise incapable of achieving a marriage. Perhaps your experience is different from mine, I certainly hope so. But in my parish in Wisconsin we had as pastors while I was growing up one certifiable crazy and a chain of more-or-less openly gay men after that....When I was in college I volunteered at a much larger parish downtown. The pastor at that parish is doing a thirty year sentence for molesting boys.... The pastor at my sister's parish in the same city very probably molested my nephew. That priest died of AIDS.... One of my best friends was molested by a priest - that priest killed himself (probably) when he was finally called on it.... I myself was in a seminary for a couple of years and essentially all of my fellow seminarians were gay. I was one of the rare exceptions.

OK... I'm going to start with this - You experienced some of the worst of the worst of the homosexual crisis in the Church. I'm sorry for that.

I see in you a sort of "battered wife's syndrome" that seems tragically common among the American laity. Our clergy are predominantly gay or otherwise very messed up, and as gay men they generally harbor a deep-seated fear and resentment against "breeders." I think that you fail to realize just how common a sneering contempt for the common laity is among priests. The anti-breeder sentiment in the seminary I attended was palpable. You're in deep denial about the depth and breadth of the rot in the clergy. It's long past time that you woke up.

But now I have to tell you that your experience is not the reality that we are in NOW - I say this as a CURRENT SEMINARIAN. The seminaries that had been "pink palaces" have been purged and that "anti-breeder" sentiment that came with the HOMOSEXUAL crisis is gone. For an anecdote: when the previous music director at my seminary announced to the community at dinner that his wife was pregnant, the whole refectory ERUPTED INTO APPLAUSE.

The times have changed - we live in a time where there is little advantage to become a priest... quite a few of my fellow seminarians have given up careers in prominent and well paying fields... some have even given up girlfriends... precisely because God is calling them to this vocation. And there is no advantage for the true deviants to stay - they can live as deviants openly on the outside. The psychological exams upon entry weed out most of the guys that are otherwise "messed up."

And the heterodox crap is passing away too - it's not entirely gone from the classes... but few if any of the seminarians buy into it.

Yes, there is still a lot of filth to clean up in the priesthood - but let's put the blame where it belongs - blaming the practice of celibacy doesn't help anyone.

Your post reflects a terrible denial of reality. Snap out of it, man.

I'm afraid that it's you who don't have a grasp on reality entirely - and I won't blame you, because of all of the horrible experiences that you had. Praise God the tides are turning.

Celibacy is not the problem... we have seminaries turning out happy, healthy, holy celibate priests. I would suggest that you try to interact with some of them and see if your view changes.

From:The Life of Fr. De Smet, Apostle of the Rockies:

Pg 176 - How is the phenomenal success of these missions to be explained? Many of the Indians possessed admirable natural virtues; they but needed to know Christianity to embrace it. Even the most degraded had preserved a high ideal of the greatness of the power of God. Blasphemy was unknown among them: not presuming to address the “Great Spirit,” they entreated their manitous to intercede for them. Superstition if you will, but beneath it was a religious sentiment which the missionary had only to enlighten and direct. None held back through false pride or prejudice. Even the Sioux, the proudest of the Western tribes, compared themselves to children bereft of a father’s guiding hand, and to the ignorant animals of the prairie, and with touching humility begged the missionary to “take pity on them.”

Such elevated, upright souls could, moreover, appreciate the chastity of the Catholic priesthood. With rare discernment, the Indian understood that, belonging as he does to all men, a priest cannot give himself to one person, and not for an instant did they hesitate to choose the Black Robe, who had consecrated his life to them, rather than the minister in lay dress, installed in a comfortable home with wife and children, devoted to the interests of his family, giving only the time that remained to distributing Bibles”.

Pg 52 - The Indians, meanwhile, were not overlooked. Dispossessed of their lands and driven west by the whites, they now found refuge and support in the Catholic Church. A considerable number of them, whose fathers had been instructed and baptized by the Jesuits, were well disposed toward Catholicity. Protestant ministers made repeated attempts to gain their confidence, but were always coldly received." "What had they to do," asked the Indians, "with married preachers, men who wore no crucifix, and said no rosary? They wanted only the Black Robes to teach them how to serve God. They even went so far as to appeal to the President of the United States, asking that the married ministers might be recalled and Catholic priests sent in their place."

Pg 117 - I was given the place of honor in the chief's tent, who, surrounded by forty of his braves, addressed me in the following words: 'Black Robe, this is the happiest day of our lives, for to-day, for the first time, we see in our midst a man who is near to the Great Spirit. These are the principal warriors of my tribe. I have invited them to the feast I have prepared for you, that they may never forget the great day.""'

It seems strange that with the savages the fact of being a Catholic priest merited a triumphal reception for the lowly missionary, while in other times, and to men proud of their civilization, he would have been the object of suspicion. During the repast the great chief showered attentions on his guest, even to giving him a mouthful of his own food to chew, a refined usage among his tribe.

At night, after the missionary had retired and was about to fall asleep, he saw the chief who had received him with so much honor, enter his tent. Brandishing a knife that gleamed in the light of the torch, he said: "Black Robe, are you afraid?" The missionary, taking the chief's hand, placed it on his breast and replied: "See if my heart beats more rapidly than usual! Why should I be afraid? You have fed me with your own hands, and I am as safe in your tent as I would be in my father's house." Flattered by this reply, the Blackfoot renewed his professions of friendship; he had wished only to test the confidence of his guest.

Pg 86 - Protestant ministers tried to compete with the Catholic priests; but between a salaried official who distributed tracts to inquisitive members of the tribe, and the missionary, devoted body and soul to their interests, the Indians did not hesitate to make a choice." They refused the most alluring offers from Protestants and came from all directions to ask for a Black Robe to show them the way to heaven.

"After five years' residence with the Otoes, the Protestant minister has not yet baptized one person, and the greater part of the Protestant missionaries who overrun the Indian Territory make no better showing." (Letter of Father De Smet to Father Verhaegen, June, 1838.)

Great post. Moses and the Patriarchs were all married. King and Prophet David was married many times. That man was about as sexually active as any man could be, and he wrote most of the Psalms.

The celibacy rule is fine for some but in today's world it should be as an exception for a small number of men who are called to live in monasteries.

Celibates - men walking around with an "open wound" in their souls per the article above - have no place in parishes filled with families. Placing these "special" men in parishes and in positions of authority and trust with children is the main cause of the current pedophile crisis in the Church. Men who choose to go through life with an "open wound" in their souls for the greater glory of God really need to be someplace else, perhaps tending to other men with the same wounds.

Based on my experience, in this day and age most men who choose to inflict upon themselves such a "wound" are either lying (intending to live a gay lifestyle) or are doing it to cover up some other basic emotional defect.

Even the best of them who choose celibacy for the most lofty motives are only human, and they'll find themselves in parishes constantly tempted. And given that so many of them are gay (a percentage so large it can only to some degree by design of the hierarchy) the temptation will be directed toward our sons. So many of our sons were molested by priests. How can anybody here fail to see this? How can anyone's heart not be raised in anger against the celibacy rule for parish priests?

So many here are in total denial of the simple facts of life. A lifetime of sexual denial is beneficial only for a few - it works terrible harm on the souls of most men. It is the judgment of both Nature and Nature's God. As God said "it is not good for the man to be alone." Amen to that.

Nursing and tending your resentment over the failure of any vocation you may have imagined yourself to have, you turn your guns on one current seminarian who seems destined to succeed where you have failed. The gates of hell will not prevail whatever you may wish in your cultivation of sour grapes.

Oh, there are no sour grapes here. I simply didn't have a vocation. And that's okay with me. Things worked out quite well for me. A wife, kids, career. I have no complaints. God has blessed me richly.

And I don't want to see hell prevail. Quite to the contrary. I want to stop the infiltration of the ranks of the clergy by homosexuals and other sick men that the celibacy rule for parish priests so much abets.

Ending the celibacy rule is quite obviously the most direct approach to severing the direct connection the Church has with the sewer pipe of the World. The fact that you so adamantly defend the connection to the sewer places you on the side of Hell, not me.

The anger that you correctly discern actually comes from my extensive exposure to your beloved "celibates." One of my parish priests really should have been in a mental institution, the poor man. He certainly should not have been in charge of a parish. I don't doubt that the "open wound" of a years of unnatural living contributed to his pathetic condition. Another very probably molested my nephew, yet another certainly molested a very dear friend of mine, even as his diocese did all it could to protect the molesters. A whole parade of others preached homosexuality from the pulpit and did everything that they could to advance the homosexual cause in the life of the parish. One of my parish priests is doing 30 years for molesting a whole series of boys. Another of my parish priests actually wrote his doctoral thesis on how the Holy Spirit is calling the Church to acceptance of same-sex "love." He shouted this stuff from the rooftops, and our Pope-appointed bishop did nothing. Archbishop Weakland - well, what can I say? The name says it all.

I could go on and on, but I'll spare you the gory details.

Like I said above, based on my very extensive experience, the "celibate" clergy are the biggest collection of "nuts, flakes and fruits" this side of a granola bowl. And the celibacy rule is very clearly the main cause of this horrific calamity that has befallen our Church.

Only very rarely would a psychologically healthy man in this day and age choose the "open wound" of a lifetime of celibacy. Much more often, the "wound" is chosen as a cover for very sick men who want to worm their way into the lives of normal people. Especially those with the desire to molest boys.

And what I said to the our seminarian here is simply true. No sane parent would ever trust anybody in a Roman collar with the wellbeing of their children. This young man faces a lifetime of suspcion by the very people he would purport to help. Given that, I think it's incumbent upon any would-be priest to ask himself how much he can actually serve people who naturally fear him and suspect him of the worst sort of intentions imaginable.

Why take on a lifetime of the "open wound" when it's very understandably going to be taken as the mark of evil and not as a mark of holiness? Couldn't such an intelligent and sensitive young man better serve the people of God by getting married, having kids, getting a secular career and being active in the life of his parish? Wouldn't it make more sense to actually enter into real community with the people of God than to place himself into a position of lifetime suspcion?

It certainly would seem that way to me. But it's his choice, obviously.

Maybe it's not pleasant to hear, but what I say about the natural suspcion of Cathlic priests is pretty obviously true, as tragic as that fact may be.

I was asked above what I am doing about this. First, I never allow my kids anywhere near a Catholic priest, at least unless I'm standing exactly there to supervise. For the safety of my children it is incumbent upon me as a father to assume the worst at all times, especially of priests, who have earned the reputation that they have. I would never send my kids to a Catholic school since this almost invariably entails contact with priests. We talk about why it's important to stay away from priests and why we must assume that they're wicked for our own safety, even if they're not. I make sure that they watch the documentary on Fr. Oliver O'Grady (excellent flick, by the way, if you can stomach it) and all of the boys and girls he destroyed with the complicity of the hierarchy. I would have them talk to my friend who was molested and who so heroically dealt with the horrible trauma of his ordeal.

And to their credit I'd say the celibates generally catch my drift and respect the boundaries I've set as a father. I'm sure that most of them aren't child molesters, but they seem to accept that I must assume that they are without exception. Good for them.

I also never give to any diocesan cause and will not until the Church gets serious about addressing the problem by requiring - as in the Eastern Rite - that parish priests be married men.

I also talk to as many of my fellow Catholics as possible about these matters and try to get them to see the dangers that the celibate clergy is to us and to our children.

I'm also open to suggestions. As a layman my options are obviously limited. But I do what I can do. I'd be very grateful for any helpful suggestions as to how I can better help the Church see the error of the celibacy rule for priests.

“1. Moses...was so holy that God did not even allow him to enter the Promised Land. Further, you have no idea what his sex life was like. You have no idea whether he became celibate.

2. Peter...had a mother-in-law, but we have no idea whether he practiced celibacy or when he began.”

Moses had children, so he had sex. At least twice. In for a penny, in for a pound.

I know he was a sinner, too, and didn’t get to enter the promised land. However, priests sin, also. Everybody sins. I know that.

Peter, if he were celibate while married, would have been disobeying God’s command that husbands and wives not deprive one another.

You seem to be somewhat hostile, thinking I am against celibacy. I am not. I am saying, though, that it does not make one person holier than another.

Gahndi was celibate. He was not holier than Moses or Peter or George Whitefield or Billy Graham. He did not even know Christ.

So celibacy does not equal holiness.

“Moses had children, so he had sex. At least twice. In for a penny, in for a pound.”

I refuse to believe that you are stupid enough to say such a thing seriously, and therefore conclude that you are merely baiting me.

Just in case someone might be misled by your nonsense, I will note that celibacy *never* implies that one has never had sex, but only that one is not having sex while celibate. A person could be celibate between marriages.

“Peter, if he were celibate while married, would have been disobeying God’s command that husbands and wives not deprive one another.”

Not if his wife also accepted celibacy, not if she was deceased, and not if she abandoned him.

“You seem to be somewhat hostile, thinking I am against celibacy.”

I am hostile to shoddy thinking and bad logic, which inevitably lead to incorrect conclusions.

“I am saying, though, that it does not make one person holier than another.”

Don’t try and rephrase the proposition to make your position look sensible. Never was it posited that celibacy *makes* one person holier than another. I said that while some celibates were not among the most holy, all the most holy are celibate. The clear meaning of that is that celibacy *allows* the growth of holiness, while lack of celibacy impedes it.

“Gahndi was celibate. He was not holier than Moses or Peter or George Whitefield or Billy Graham. He did not even know Christ.”

If you’re not even going to pay attention to the arguments advanced against your position (see above), there’s no point in discussing the issue.

“So celibacy does not equal holiness.”

Once again you restate my position in such a way as to make it seem unreasonable. I call that a “dirty little leftist debate trick.”

Nobody said that “celibacy equals holiness.” Arguing against nonsensical propositions of your own devising is a waste of everyone’s time.

My favorite adventure book, and it's all true, a real account of the American Indians as told by one who lived with them. Was a best seller in Europe in his time. Here's some more snippets:

THE LIFE OF FATHER DE SMET, S.J. Pg 114 Every day, in fact every hour, the travelers beheld signs of the near presence of the dreaded Blackfeet. "Such solitude, with its horrors and dangers, has one great advantage; man is face to face with death and realizes how completely he is in the hands of God. Hence, it is no great thing to make to God the sacrifice of a life that belongs less to one's self than to the first savage who wishes to take it. In the face of danger one prays more fervently, and when saved makes better resolutions. In the desert I made the best retreat of my whole life.

Pg 150

"Wild with joy, the Indians declared this to be the greatest day of their lives. They entreated me to take pity upon the tribe and remain to teach them and their children to know and serve the Great Spirit. I promised them a Black Robe, on condition that the chief would undertake to abolish thieving, so frequent among them, and reform the degrading corruption of morals that reigned in his tribe.

"These Indians have one thing in their favor upon which I base great hopes: So far they have resisted the efforts of American merchants to introduce intoxicating liquors into their tribe.’ What is your fire water good for?' said the chief. 'It only does evil. It burns the throat and stomach and makes a bear of a man: he bites, growls, yells, and finally falls down like a dead body. Take this liquor to our enemies; they will kill each other, leaving their wives and children in a pitiable condition. We do not want whiskey. We are crazy enough without it.'

"Before departing I witnessed a touching scene. The chief asked to see my crucifix. Taking advantage of the occasion I told them about Our Lord's sufferings, why He gave His life for us, at the same time putting the crucifix into his hands. Reverently he kissed it, and pressing the image of Our Saviour to his breast, with eyes lifted toward heaven, cried out: 'Oh, Great Spirit, have pity upon Thy children, and show them mercy.” 17

“These Indians” (the Crow),” wrote Fr. De Smet “ are without doubt the most enquiring, the most eager for instruction, the cleverest and most civilized of the western tribes, and, furthermore, great friends and admirers of the white man. They plied me with questions, and among others wished to know the population of the white man. 'Count,' said I, 'the blades of grass in your vast prairie and you will then have some idea of their number.' This occasioned general mirth. No such thin, was possible, they said, but they nevertheless understood what I meant. I then told them of the white man's villages London, Paris, etc.; of towers high as mountains, and churches vast enough to contain all the Crows and Blackfeet at one time; of the streets in these great villages filled with hurrying men and women in more compact masses than the buffaloes ranging their prairies. Such marvels left them speechless with wonder; and when I described moving tents drawn by a machine that vomited forth smoke and outdistanced the fleetest horse; boats that traversed the ocean, transporting in a few days the inhabitants of an entire village from one country to another; men rising in the air and soaring in the clouds like mountain eagles, their astonishment knew no bounds. Closing their hands over their mouths, they emitted screams indicating admiration. 'The Master of life is great,' said the chief, 'and the white men are His favorites.'

“You’re clearly the one with the closed mind. You simply dig your heels in shut down mentally”

Utter nonsense. I explained at some length just exactly why your premise is incorrect; you responded by completely ignoring that explanation, with the result that it stands unrebutted.

You can’t address it rationally and rebut it, so you just pretend it was never offered. It’s very sad, really: you cling like bloody death to this ridiculous notion that one of God’s blessings attracted sodomites, when we know for a fact that it was the result of attacks by the enemies of the Church. Nothing, apparently, that mortal man can do is sufficient to open your eyes.

“when confronted with the simple truth that the celibacy rule is the main reason that we have all these homosexuals”

That doesn’t even make sense. You don’t even try to explain how it is that a requirement for celibacy should attract men with a disorder that burdens them with the compulsion to practice unlimited promiscuity on an uninterrupted basis.

That notion is ridiculous on its face. The disordered are attracted to situations that further the acting out of their symptoms, not those that interfere. Such a man could find a job paying $1,000 per month in some SE Asian country, visit the boy brothels every night — and morning, and noon — without let or hindrance. Why in the world would he choose the priesthood, were Satan not impelling him?

“And I’m not the only one saying this”

So what? The Vatican was also infiltrated. The smoke of Satan entered the Sacristy in all lands. What you have not uttered is **any** support for your preposterous assertion that the requirement for celibacy attracted men whose compulsion to constant sodomy is so strong that some have been seen to die rather than relinquish it.

Get it? You have offered **no arguments or evidence** in support of that nonsense. In contrast, much has been posted in rebuttal thereof. The reason for that is that your assertion cannot be rationally supported.

“Cardinal Schonborn said the same thing recently. And if he says it, you know for sure that...”

...he is a heretic, and most probably a boy-bonker.

“it’s a flag that the Vatican itself raised.”

No, it is a flag that enemies of the Church and of the Holy Father have raised, in the full knowledge that they are spouting nonsense that will fool some of the people all of the time.

“Celibacy for parish priests is on its way out”

Buncombe. It is on its way back in, because those who think like you are nearing or past the ends of their lifespans, Deo gratias, and the Church is working to ensure that a new generation of Satan’s agents doesn’t take their places.

“You might want to drop in sometime and check out the whole reality concept.”

You really should ask yourself this question: “Why can I offer no rational argument in support of my position? Why am I limited to nothing more than mere repetition?”

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.