Posted on 04/28/2002 12:35:48 AM PDT by history_matters
A message from Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., Publisher, Ignatius Press.
In the papers, on the talk shows, the mantra is repeated: the cure for the present scandals is a married clergy. Of course, celibacy has nothing to do with these scandals: 1) Look at the Anglican church, which may soon be bankrupt in western Canada because of sex abuse lawsuits. 2) The majority of reported cased are of homosexual relations with young boys, not pedophilia; the perpetrators wouldn't be marrying women even if they had the chance. (And what kind of woman would marry these twisted souls?)
And, of course, all the discredited myths about the discipline of celibacy in the Catholic Church are trotted out.
For example:
The truth is that the Church's obligation of celibacy goes back to the apostles in an *unbroken* line. And the motivation for celibacy was the closer following of Jesus Christ, who required his apostles to leave wife and family, to become "eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom". But don't take my word for it. Ignatius Press has published a number of books which demolish the myths and provide compelling evidence for this unbroken tradition, the jewel of the Catholic priesthood:
By the way:
Books on Celibacy and Related Issues Published by Ignatius Press:
Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy |
||
The Case for Clerical Celibacy |
|
NEW - Priesthood and Diaconate |
||
Celibacy in the Early Church
Stefan Heid Heid presents a penetrating and wide-ranging study of the historical data from the early Church on the topics of celibacy and clerical continence. He gives a brief review of recent literature, and then begins his study with the New Testament and follows it all the way to Justinian and the Council in Trullo in 690 it the East and the fifth century popes in the West. He thoroughly examines the writings of the Bible, the early church councils, saints and theologians like Jerome, Augustine, Clement, Tertullian, John Chrystostom, Cyril and Gregory Nazianzen. He has gathered formidable data with conclusive arguments regarding obligatory continence in the early Church. |
|
Women in the Priesthood? |
||
Deaconesses
Aime Georges Martimort Since the 17th century the history of deaconesses in the Church has been the subject of numerous monographs. What is most evident about the history of deaconesses, however, is how complex the whole subject is. In this exhaustive and thoroughly researched work, Martimort presents a very readable analysis that has become the standard study of the role of women deaconesses in the early Church. He presents in as complete and objective fashion as possible the history, who and what these deaconesses were and what their functions were. |
|
Truth About Homosexuality |
||
I can "one-up" you on McBrien. He wrote a blasphemous column that appeared in my then local Diocesan paper. In that column he said that Jesus was in error, ignorant and sexually tempted.
I wrote, protested etc against this column and demanded an apology be issued.No apology was ever issued.
Now,it can accurately be stated that those things can honestly be said about Martin Luther King but not about Jesus. It is just as accurate to say that NO Diocesan would ever dare to print such truth about Martin Luther King. Apparently, only blasphemous lies about Jesus are permissible.
Now, let me close by citing a Prelate who "one-uped," the blasphemous McBrien. The Bishop of Portland (the entire state of Maine) was quoted to me by his spokesman, Mark Mutty, "The Bishop agrees with McBrien.".
That Prelate's name is Bishop Joseph Gerry.
If folks don't think this rot, corruption and evil is both deep and wisespread, then they are kidding themselves. Many Dioceses are simply dead.....
The motivation for celibacy was the closer following of Jesus Christ, who required his apostles to leave wife and family, to become "eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom".This is perhaps the only objective statement I can find in the piece, and even this shows a bias. It is certainly true that many of the early Christians practiced celibacy in imitation of Jesus, but to say that Jesus required his apostles to leave wife and family is a bit of a stretch. Here are the verses in question about becoming eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom:
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."Although the apostles who were married were not required to leave their wives and children, however, there is evidence that they actually did so:The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." (Mt19:8-12 (NIV); emphasis added.)
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."Moreover, even if one were to understand Jesus remarks in Mt19:8-12 to mean that celibacy was a requirement for apostleship, its clear from Pauls writings that the apostles did not require their successors to be unmarried. (Cf 1Tim3:2, 1Tim3:12 and Tit1:6)When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?" Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first. (Mt19:23-30 (NIV); emphasis added.)
Remaining single for the sake of the kingdom is a wonderful spiritual gift, and Jesus urged those who received the gift apostles and disciples alike -- to exercise it. There is nothing to suggest, however, that Jesus required his apostles to leave their wives and family or that the apostles required celibacy of their successors.
Good post. I was under the impression these myths were true until Catholicguy told me about one of the books in a previous thread.While I admire Fr. Fessio's advocacy of obligatory priestly celibacy, IMO, he overplays his hand. Take the following, for example:
The truth is that the Church's obligation of celibacy goes back to the apostles in an *unbroken* line.I have one of the books listed in Fr. Fessio's "message" with me right now -- Celibacy in the Early Church, by Stefan Heid (the original German edition was published in 1997) -- and everything in my post #23 above is based on that book. Here's an extended excerpt from Chapter 1:
The broad outline of the last fifty years of celibacy scholarship shows that something has occurred that not infrequently causes misunderstandings in historical research: a one-sided formulation of the question has produced one-sided answers. Scholars took the present discipline of celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church as their point of departure and searched for a pattern of clerics in the unmarried state in the first centuries. This, however, they did not find -- at any rate, not for all clerics. The question that they should have asked is whether the early Church perhaps knew a different discipline of continence. This was the approach of the older German scholarship in the nineteenth century. But that was though to have been refuted scientifically, and so these contributions were consigned to oblivion.The word "exclusively" emphasized above is significant. Heid is not saying that the Church did not practice clerical celibacy prior to Trent, but that the exlusively celibate diocesan priesthood has only been around for about 450 years, or about one-quarter of the Church's history. (Indeed, as I'm sure you're aware, there are presently former Anglican priests who are now married Catholic priests in the Roman rite, as well as Eastern-rite married Catholic priests who are in communion with Rome). Accordingly, one should exercise restraint in trying to read the tridentine model of clerical celibacy back to the apostolic age.Actually, if this deficit has not become evident already, it ought to when on looks at the Church's legislation. That is to say, according to canon law an exclusively unmarried clergy, as we know it today, existed at all only after the Council of Trent (1521-1545). Even the above-mentioned Second Lateran Council, which is repeatedly cited as the beginning of the history of celibacy, did not intend to exclude married men from holy orders; it merely declared marriages contracted after the reception of orders to be invalide (canon 7). [Emphasis added.]
Agree wholeheartedly.
Courage, an apostolate of the Roman Catholic Church, ministers to those with same-sex attractions and their loved ones. We have been endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family.Thank you for keeping your Catholic brothers and sisters in your prayers. God bless.
Until today I have not realized that there are conservative Catholics who feel the Church would be bettered served by the changing or ending of this discipline. It is a lot for me to digest, and I feel very confused about the state of the Church now.
Having lost confidence in the Princes of the Church, I am ready for a greater role for laity in the governance ... but I honestly don't know the what or how of that -- I just know the foxes guarding the hen house have to go.
I also know that pro-abort Catholics and their ilk need to be excommunicated and their influence in the Church brought to a swift end. When I think of the calls to end celibacy that I have read or heard, they have usually come from those who deny and reject doctrine that I believe cannot be abridged or glossed over.
You have given me food for thought and for prayer.
Thanks for your post.
Although he's viewed as a troll around here, Richard McBrien made the point this morning that mandatory celibacy IS related to the present crisis, if only because it draws certain kinds of personalities to the priesthood.
If a requirement for serving in Congress was mandatory celibacy for males, we would have an entirely different makeup in that body than we do today. And there would be more gays in Congress as well.
Those, like me, who argue for admitting married men to the priesthood recognize that the pool of candidates would be much larger, and seminary authorities could be much more selective in who they admit.
I find it rather odd that the American Catholic Church has a priesthood overrun with sexually active gays, when it could have had a priesthood overrun with sexually active married men if optional celibacy had been considered at Vatican II.
I find it rather odd that the American Catholic Church has a priesthood overrun with sexually active gays, when it could have had a priesthood overrun with sexually active married men if optional celibacy had been considered at Vatican II.Thanks for your post, sinkspur. JPII was on the commission at Vatican II that wrote the Dogument Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, and he has recently reiterated his personal opposition to a further relaxation of mandatory celibacy. IOW, I don't look for a further relaxation of mandatory celibacy to happen in this pontificate, if ever.
I concur with those who say that a married Catholic diocesan priesthood is not a panacea for the present problem, but then again, I haven't heard such a naive claim from any source I would informed and orthodox. IMO, there is room for both married and celibate diocesan priests in the Church.
More important, although I concur with those who deny a causal relationship between the infiltration of active homosexuals and pedophiles among the clergy and an exclusively celibate priesthood, I concur with you that the latter provided the proper conditions for that infiltration to flourish, and that a further relaxation of mandatory celibacy should at least be considered as part of any effort to rid our clergy of these deviants.
Gays are being kicked out of the services in record numbers, or haven't you heard?
No one is saying that gays would never find their way into the priesthood if priests were allowed to be married. Fewer would, however, if there weren't a gay network screening candidates.
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.