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.
+
Well and truely said.They know the rules when they apply and when they become a priest.They chose, not with a gun to their head.
The Catholic Church forbids the Sacrament of Marriage to no one. Those who seek the Sacrament of Holy Orders do so of their own free will under no compulsion and after several years of deliberation. Should a man who takes a vow of celibacy later find that he cannot live up to that vow he can request laicization and be freed from said vow. The Church doesn't have a seminarian paddy wagon in which men are forced at gun point into the clerical life. Your argument is disingenuous and fatally flawed.
Incorrect. The words are synonyms. All single Christians are called to live lives of celibacy/chastity outside of marriage. Sex outside of marriage, known throughout Scripture as fornication, is a sin. One could rightly define it as a doctrine of the devil. Although, from reading your convoluted logic, you probably don't.
celibacy (sèl´e-be-sê) noun
1. Abstinence from sexual intercourse, especially by reason of religious vows.
2. The condition of being unmarried.
chastity (chàs´tî-tê) noun
1. The condition or quality of being pure or chaste.
2. a. Virginity. b. Virtuous character. c. Celibacy.
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Wrong. Crack open a dictionary.
This has nothing to do with celibacy.
Wrong. You are distorting my position. Celibacy is not evil, but mandated celibacy for some religious REQUIREMENT is.
No distortion at all. just using what you've written verbatim to disprove your argument. You need to make up your mind and stop the tap dance. Are you now inferring that a "doctrine of demons" as you earlier claimed celibacy to be, is in fact not evil? You are contradicting yourself. You do understand that celibacy is a discipline and not a doctrine, don't you? You also no doubt understand that Christ counsels His followers to perfection: Matthew 5:48, 16:24, 22:30. The vows of poverty, celibacy and obedience are part of that counsel. Christ Himself was celibate, obedient and lived a life of poverty. He also tells us that in heaven we shall neither marry nor be married. Obviously celibacy is a higher calling and hardly a "doctrine of demons," as you would want us all to believe. You ignored the question about why so few "Bible believing" ministers practiced the discipline. One has to wonder why.
Priests cannot marry, and nowhere in the Bible is a priest forbidden to marry. Yes, indeed, they took a vow to do so, but where in the Bible is there a rule that you must take a vow to be a priest? In fact, the priests of Catholocism are not biblical at all. Purely man's tradition.
Incorrect. Paul wrote that bishops and deacons could only be married once. If they were widowers and remarried they were not to be chosen. Priests who were baptized Catholics cannot remain in active ministry and marry in the Latin Rite. Priests can request laicization and then marry if they choose. Once the Sacrament of Holy Orders, ordination, is conferred upon a man he remains a priest even if laicized. A laicized priest may not administer the Sacraments. A person only ceases to be a priest when he is dismissed, known in the secular world as "defrocked", from the priesthood. You do know of course that there are priests in the Catholic Church who are married, don't you? Married Protestant ministers who convert to the Latin Rite may, with the Popes approval, be ordained and remain married. However, they agree, prior to ordination, that if their spouse should die that they will adopt the discipline of celibacy and be as Paul wrote "the husband of one wife,". You also surely know that there are 22 Churches in communion that form the Catholic Church, don't you? As for your claim that "the priests of Catholocism(sic) are not biblical at all. Purely man's tradition." you also know that that is false or you are ignorant of Scripture. The word priest first appears in Scripture in Genesis 14:18 with regard to Melchisedech. We also read in Psalm 109 that once a priest always a priest. In Hebrews 7 and 8 we read of the priesthood of Christ according to the order of Melchisedech, a priest without geneology; no wife and no children.
We know from John 21:25 that not everything Jesus did was written down and we also know that Apostolic Tradition, whether oral or written, is to be adhered to: 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:14, 3:6. We also know that the Apostles gave up everything to follow Christ according to His instructions.
Where in Scripture is it written that one must take vows in order to be married? That discipline should be done away with as well, right? Where in the Bible do we find the words "incarnation", "Trinity" and "Bible"? We do know that the Apostles made solemn promises to Christ in order to follow Him. A vow is a solemn promise to God. There were no caveats. You also know where the Bible came from as well, don't you? Another thing we know from Scripture is that "Bible alone" isn't in there. It's nothing more than a man made doctrine.
Please point out where I've resorted to name-calling.
Stay Safe !
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.