Posted on 06/28/2002 10:05:57 PM PDT by Polycarp
Opinion
Has the Time Come to Consider Making Celibacy Optional
In the Western Church?
In the wake of so many scandals which have brought such pain to the Church and to so many victims all over the globe in recent years, more Catholics are beginning to wonder out loud whether the time has not come to end mandatory celibacy in the west, and, as with our sister churches in the East, consider allowing married men (1) into the ranks of the priesthood if they are already married when they present themselves for ordination, per precedent in Church history. The choice of that venerable calling, celibacy, would then be more truly voluntary and thus presumably more secure; and, as also in the East, bishops would be drawn exclusively from those celibate ranks as in the ancient tradition. Celibacy was originally a monastic discipline.
The option (of also having a married priesthood) would increase the pool of good vocations----sorely needed in today's critical vocations shortage--- and decrease the pool of the sexually immature / promiscuous / dangerous.
Certain facts should be faced. Sexual pressure in our age of instant communications and multi-media is ubiquitous. William F. Buckley recently said that irreverent and salacious imagery in advertising---to say nothing of outright pornography, whether there is a difference can be debated--- has indeed become "the wallpaper of our lives". Are priests expected not to be affected? In the light of the ubiquity of such sexual pressures in our age of mass media it is arguably becoming harder and harder for men to choose celibacy for life. Those who do are arguably showing heroic virtue. It also becomes easier for men who are not truly capable of it to end up hurting themselves, their vocations, and others if and when they fall. In the best of times men are highly charged sexual creatures, it goes without saying.
These are not the best of times.
In Africa the problem of sexual abuse seems to be largely heterosexual See the NCR Report on this which cannot be simply dismissed. Traditionalist priests are hardly exempt from abuse problems either as the recent ICK leadership (Institute for Christ the King) scandal showed. And all of this on top of a general vocations crisis---which is getting worse as priest's retire. Only the magisterium can interpret, mediate, and revive aspects of the Tradition. Cardinal Ratzinger, while certainly preferring the status quo relative to celibacy, and suggesting it exists "on good biblical grounds" and goes back even earlier than many suggest, said, "no it is certainly not a dogma, it is an accustomed way of life that evolved gradually" and belongs, rather, to the Church's disciplinary legislation which could change if the Church sees fit ( Salt of the Earth,Ignatius, p. 195).
A question may have to be asked in the future: Is it really necessary to impose heroic virtue on all who wish for priesthood?
There are many truly orthodox and committed married men who may very well beat seminary doors down if given the opportunity to serve as priests (again, previously married only). Who knows but that this might mean the very death of neo-modernism and retro-liberalism, and an end to the vocations crisis at the same time.
Married men, understanding the needs of family life today, I think, would be apt to be more sensitive and sympathetic to the need for the Natural and moral laws in society, especially today, and louder advocates for the whole of the Church's social teachings in our day. They would not be as preoccupied with their own sexual tensions and thus less likely to make an agenda for "acceptance" of "sexual diversity," as is heard too often today.
Certainly there will be all the predictable problems which family life may generate, but it will solve more serious problems, I believe, than it will create. People at least naturally empathize with family problems.
Only the Church can decide (is already deciding in certain circumstances as we see with certain Episcopalian ministers who convert and enter priesthood. The married deaconate also may point in this direction). Good Catholics will not agitate in any rebellious way for such an option---much less engage the issue polemically ala Luther---but await all Church decisions with docility. But we can humbly propose such a solution and let the Church know that we understand that the times have changed, and that we can accept such disciplinary changes ---even with relief--- for the good of the Church, if she so decides.
This, please note, is not an argument urging the abolishing of celibacy. To the contrary, it would arguably place voluntary celibacy on a more sure footing.
Regarding the practice of mandatory celibacy in the West, the late Fr. John J. Hardon wrote:
Early Church discipline on clerical celibacy varied in the East and West and sometimes from province to province. During the first three centuries, although practiced by a considerable number of the clergy, it was not of general obligation throughout the Church. The requirement for all the clergy of Spain at the Council of Elvira about the year 305 marked the beginning of official divergence in the practice of Eastern and Western Christianity.
In 315, two local councils in Galatia and Cappadocia forbade priests to marry. At the First Council of Nicea, a vigorous discussion took place over the proposal to forbid married bishops, priests, and deacons to live with their wives. Paphnutius, a bishop of Upper Egypt, settled the dispute by persuading the Council to follow the ancient tradition that prohibited marriage after ordination.
Gradually the law of celibacy in the Western Church became more definite and strict. A council held at Rome under Pope Siricius in 386 and two councils held at Carthage a little later imposed continence on all bishops, priests, and deacons. This decree was enforced to a certain extent throughout the West and was strongly favoured by such Fathers of the Church as Augustine and Jerome...
It was not until the eleventh century, however, that clerical celibacy became effectively obligatory. Significantly, it was part of a general reformation of the Church after centuries of conflict and turmoil...With the death of Gregory VII, the tide had turned. From then on, in spite of severe pressures to relax the law, the Western Church has not wavered in its celibate requirements for the clergy. ---The Catholic Catechism: A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church. (New York: Doubleday and Company Inc, 1975)
I am not unaware that many orthodox Catholics whom I greatly respect do not want this issue discussed and consider it as more properly belonging to the liberal / dissident agenda. I respectfully disagree.
I think the age of Gregory is over--- and that the Church ought to consider calling a Synod one day with a view to reconsidering this matter. Can the Church afford not to? ---Stephen Hand, editor, TCRNews.com
(1) Exclusively heterosexual, monogamous marriages, of course, per the Natural Law and tradition. That we even have to add this shows the times.
+
Pinging
Cathway, I'm afraid I cannot answer this. You know the author of this editorial personally.
Could you please get the author's response?
I know it appears that the author is undermining JPII's clear statements that celibacy is not at the root of the crisis, and in fact, its not even open for discussion, but I'm sure somehow we are misunderstanding the author, the self proclaimed last faithful orthodox and true defender of the Pope.
If the Catholic Church is to survive as an institution for more than the next generation or two, it will have to look wherever it can for clergy, and that includes those who would practice heterosexuality with fidelity, and both genders. The numbers of men signing up for the priesthood have been in severe decline for many decades now.
Surely, as families have gotten smaller, its more of a sacrifice of potential grandchildren to encourage one of your three children to enter a Catholic religious vocation, than it was for our grandparents generation (with 8 or 10 kids, you're gonna get grandchildren, for sure!) Now, the Catholic parents with boys who are potential priest material have to ask themselves if they really want to encourage that young man to go into an institution where they might very well be surrounded by gays. The current crisis has focused those parental minds on that aspect quite clearly. It will have more than a nominal effect.
We are in complete agreement.
I think this author has made a grave mistake and tactical error by exposing his views on this issue. It calls into question the rest of his work. He has swung from the ultra right, across the middle, and now appears to be heading off to the left.
He does the Church a grave disservice by bringing this issue up, because it plays into the hands of the liberals/modernists and secularists. And it openly flaunts the disire of this Pope that his orthodox faithful set aside this issue while we try to heal the damage and claen these homo pederast SOB's out of our Church.
Hand is full of fecal matter. This piece is worthy of wrapping fish in, nothing more.
Bravo sierra. Jesus Christ Himself and Paul never said such a thing. Quite the contrary. Provide a scriptural reference for your claim of a doctrine of demons. By the way, all unmarried Christians are called to live lives of celibacy until and if they marry.
But the time has also come for the Western Church to divest itself of its bad bishops and replace them with good men -- or, if that's too hard, then randomly chosen men (the ethical average could only improve).
"When asked whether the Church was considering changing its rules, Cardinal Arns said that with Pope John Paul II that would be impossible. He said the Pope had made his views well known and had even prohibited discussion of the issue."
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.