Posted on 06/28/2003 2:21:40 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
VATICAN CITY — The Vatican reaffirmed celibacy for priests Saturday, rejecting arguments that the Roman Catholic Church (search) could resolve the "crisis" of decreasing numbers of clergy by opening the priesthood to married men.
Instead, the Vatican (search) said, current priests should dedicate themselves to attracting more candidates by better explaining the priesthood to lay Catholics and encouraging families and children to consider religious vocations.
The reaffirmation was contained in a wide-ranging document issued Saturday as the final conclusions to a meeting, or synod, of European bishops held in 1999. Pope John Paul (search) II held back on issuing the final document until now, because he wanted the timing to be right in Europe, Vatican officials said Saturday.
In fact, one of the major thrusts of the document is a reiteration of Christianity's heritage in Europe, and an exhortation by the pope that European leaders drafting the first EU constitution make reference to the role Christianity has played in shaping the continent.
Earlier this month, EU negotiators finalized a draft of the constitution that made no reference to God or Christianity, despite lobbying from the Vatican. Opponents argued such a reference could undermine the secular nature of the bloc.
Italy, which takes over the EU presidency starting Tuesday, has said it plans to reopen the debate over including the reference when governments begin a final review of the text in October.
"This is a constitution that does not yet exist," Cardinal Jan Schotte, head of the synod, told a press conference launching the document. "For me, nothing is definite."
Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham, England, a secretary of the synod, said omitting a mention of Christianity was "unworthy" of the constitution's authors because "no presentation of Europe can be honest if it fails to recognize the part already played, and still played, by Christianity in the shaping of Europe."
The document touched on a host of other issues, including a call for Europe to be more welcoming to immigrants, for the Catholic Church in Europe to engage in a "profound and perceptive" dialogue with Islam and Judaism, and for the "full participation" of women in the life of the church.
Schotte said that didn't mean women could at present be heads of Vatican congregations, since that would require they be ordained. The Vatican reserves the priesthood for men.
The document acknowledged there were fewer and fewer men signing up for the priesthood, but said removing the celibacy requirement wasn't the answer.
"A revision of the present discipline in this regard would not help to resolve the crisis of vocations to the priesthood being felt in many parts of Europe," the document said. "A commitment to the service of the Gospel of hope also demands that the Church make every effort to propose celibacy in its full biblical, theological and spiritual richness."
There has been a steep decline in the ratio of Catholics to priests worldwide over the past 20 years. In 1978, there were 1,797 Catholics for every priest. In 2001, the number was 2,619, according to Vatican statistics cited by Catholic News Service.
Lookit that though. An AmChurch family with a son who thinks he has a vocation! God works in mysterious ways.
Just finished "What went wrong with Vatican II - The Catholic Crisis explained" by Ralph M. McInerny. Basically this book outlines how the theologians set themselves up as an alternative teaching magisterium. After Humanae Vitae was published, a bunch of them took out a full page ad in the NY Times and stated that the HV teaching was in error. If I had the time or the inclination to type, I'd type out the content of the ad. It is astonishing in its presumption. And it confused the laity. And here we are.
Regarding the priesthood. My parish priest (aged 68) has addressed it several times. Tells us to prepare for a desolate priesthood in the future unless the Church admits a married clergy as it did before it invented celibacy in the 11th century (I purchased and read Cardinal Stickler's book on the celibate clergy, but decided not to give it to this priest although I probably should - don't think history matters much to him unless it fits in with his fuzzy agenda). God help him, he is so uninspiring anyway, I can't imagine any boy or man looking hopefully and prayerfully at a priestly vocation.
I don't support women priests.
I also think it's rude as hell not to ping someone to a thread in which you're not only disparaging them, but you can't get their name right, either.
The Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church has had married priests for a thousand years. And no women priests.
How far down the slippery slope of heterodoxy you going to roll?
Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine, so there's no heterodoxy involved.
You are right in what you say, of course, celibacy is a discipline and not dogma.
And there are pros and cons to both sides of celibacy. But it has served the Latin Church well... I think of Padre Pio and wonder if he could have lived the life he did while married and raising a family.
The thing is, it seems that *most* supporters of a married clergy also support a female clergy as well. Plus a more democratic form of Catholic Church. So usually, all of these issues are intertwined to some degree. And it's kind of like the Texas sodomy case of last week... knock down one thing and then another and where does it stop? I also believe the reason celibacy has evolved the way it has is that Jesus Christ is indeed at the helm. But it is doctrine and not dogma because we have had some holy and pious married converts over the years who have made the leap from minister to priest - the doctrine of celibacy permits that. Celibacy as a dogma would not.
The celibate priest who is the head of my parish is always asking for money for this and that, as is each and every priest and bishop. Right now our regular parish account stands at $750.00 after all the bills for the month have been paid. Thank God the priest doesn't need money for dancing lessons, piano lessons, groceries for a family, an addition for all the kids, lunch money, and money to clothe a family. And I left out all the small sundry expenses we all have when we have kids and a wife.
I dunno. Did you feel that all the precepts of the Church would come tumbling down when Paul VI suddenly decreed that we wouldn't be doing time in hell for eating meat on Friday?
? I also believe the reason celibacy has evolved the way it has is that Jesus Christ is indeed at the helm.
Well, where's He been for the last 30 years, when priests have been bailing out of the priesthood to marry while the seminaries have filled with homosexuals?
I agree with you. I think Christ is at the helm, and I think He intends to preserve celibacy for those who are called to it.
There are pros and cons to celibacy, like everything else, but the biggest con is the very real probability that some American Catholics who've become accustomed to attending Mass weekly will now have to settle for attending Mass monthly. I don't think that's a good thing, especially when these Protestant converts are PROVING that married men can serve the Church well as priests. And Catholics who are served by these men really don't understand why Catholic married men can't serve just as well as these guys.
There's no logical explanation as to why they can't, because, in fact, they can, but John Paul II doesn't want to be the Pope who compromises on celibacy.
Instead, the Vatican is reduced to exhorting priests to talk about the benefits of celibacy as a way of attracting young men to priesthood, when young Catholic men see the priesthood as a haven for homosexuals.
What young man with his life ahead of him would want to be a part of that?
If celibacy is more important than being served by native priests, then that's what will happen.
I shudder, though. Our parish is already served by a young Hispanic man, who struggles with English in conversation, and who has to read every word of his homilies.
Do you think Humanae Vitae is reformable?
That doesn't make rejection of the Pope's writings any less grave an error for amateurs.
The Pope writes against allowing married Catholic men to be priests, but allows married Protestant converts to jump the fence and be ordained.
Give me a logical explanation for that, other than "well, the Pope says so."
My father, my aunt and practically every Catholic I know says the very same thing. I myself just can't put "eating meat on Fridays" on the same level as the priesthood. Eating meat on Fridays is on par with Communion in the hand or on the tongue, bowing instead of genuflecting, etc.
He did say to give up everything and follow me. And a priest is acting "in persona Christi."
the biggest con is the very real probability that some American Catholics who've become accustomed to attending Mass weekly will now have to settle for attending Mass monthly
I'm sure any Catholic wanting to attend Mass once a week can find a parish within driving distance. Most of us drive a very great distance to bring the kids to baseball, hockey, soccer, etc. Some even travel to different states on the weekends for travel teams. Of course, it depends on one's priorities. And I'll say again, if we had more kids per family, the pool for priests would be greatly increased. We are paying the reaping what we've sown.
And what priestly shortage? With about 30% of Catholics attending Mass on Sunday and maybe 5% attending daily, how many priests do we need? I haven't been to a standing room only Mass since I was a kid. Empty seats all around, now.
A married clergy is OK in small doses. We have a married priest leading a parish about 25 miles from me. His parish can't support him so he "tag teams" with another parish and gets financial help from the archdiocese.
I would think that someone with a true calling would want to be a part of the priesthood - even if, as you say, they perceive the priesthood as a haven for homosexuals. Change occurs one by one.
Eating meat on Friday, prior to 1966, was a mortal sin.
So is attending Mass on Holy Days of Obligation, and the bishops are moving those around now at will.
I see a big difference between those and a pastoral practice like bowing or genuflecting.
? I haven't been to a standing room only Mass since I was a kid. Empty seats all around, now.
You've got Churches on every street corner in the Northeast. We've got parishes here in Texas, where I live, that are bursting at the seams, at every Mass.
One priest serving a parish of 7000 families is not unheard of.
We have a married priest leading a parish about 25 miles from me. His parish can't support him so he "tag teams" with another parish and gets financial help from the archdiocese.
The financial excuse is the last refuge for opposition to married priests.
People, especially Americans, tend to pay for what they get. Protestants support their clergy well if they are well served by them.
Catholics are cheapskates; we're used to people who live in poverty serving us.
Quibbling, sitetest.
Lots of families in my city live modestly, some ascetically, and they're not even clergy.
My suspicion has been, over the last ten years, that the underlying, unspoken reason for not looking at a married priesthood more seriously has been financial.
Look at the sexual abuse scandals. Bishops are acting like ogres toward suffering victims, all to save a buck or two in a civil suit.
You know as well as I do that there are some hierarchs who look at the checkbook balance before they get on their knees in the morning.
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.