Vatican Document Calls Celibacy Non-Negotiable

The San Diego Channel ^ | 6/28/03 | Associated Press

[MVV]

UPDATED: 4:42 p.m. EDT June 28, 2003

VATICAN CITY -- The Catholic Church's celibacy requirement for priests is non-negotiable.

That's the word from the Vatican.

The celibacy rule was reaffirmed in a wide-ranging document issued Saturday.

It acknowledges that fewer and fewer men are signing up for the priesthood. But it says letting priests marry isn't the answer.

Instead, it says current priests should dedicate themselves to attracting more candidates by better explaining the priesthood to lay Catholics, and by encouraging children to consider religious vocations.

The document touched on a host of other issues, including a call for Europe to be more welcoming to immigrants.

It also called for the "full participation" of women in the life of the church. But the Vatican says that doesn't mean as priests, since only men can be ordained.

Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[DallasMike]

You know what,I am sorry that you cannot see and perceive nor hear and understand.

What exactly do I not see, perceive, hear, or understand? I quote you scripture and you have no answer for that. All you have is a conjecture that Peter wasn't married while he was an apostle even though Paul specifically describes Peter as having a wife. And your conjecture is not based upon Catholic teaching or history because the Catholic Encyclopedia describes a writing of Clement of Alexandria stating that Peter had children and that his wife was martyred at approximately the same time that he was. Check out the link -- you can even find translations of Clement's Stromata on the internet, but I'll leave that as an exercise for you.

Have you noticed that the scriptures I've quoted all agree with one another, and that they also agree with early church documents and tradition? It's no accident.

I think that I'm not the one with the problem seeing, perceiving, hearing, and understanding. Don't feel sorry for me.

[DallasMike]

I think it is wrong to interpret a few scraps of Scripture and ignore was was the common practice of the Church from New Testament times alone.

So you choose to ignore scripture for the sake of your traditions? Good. Real good.

What about the Catholic Encyclopedia article I referenced a post or two back discussing Clement's description of Peter as having a wife who was martyred for the faith as he was? It seems that whoever told you about the tradition that no apostles were married was not telling you the whole truth.

You should stay away from traditions that contradict scripture. Jesus knew what he was talking about.

[DallasMike]

But I would like to pursue this belief of yours that celibacy is a crushing burden on priests.

Paul made it clear that some have the gift of celibacy while others don't. He also specifically allowed clergy to marry, which was also consistent with historical Jewish practice (e.g., Aaron, the first high priest, was married).

Forcing priests to be celibate even if they don't have the gift of celibacy can only lead to trouble -- you only have to check the news of the past few years to figure that out. I hate to be rude and say that it's a no-brainer but I have to wonder why several on this list have a hard time accepting Biblical truths.

[sinkspur]

I assert that it is no harder for a priest to remain celibate than it is for a man to be faithful to his wife.

It is harder for some priests to be celibate, just as it seems to be harder for some men to be faithful to their wives. However, since the natural state of adult men is to marry or at least seek out the companionship of a woman, celibacy is much harder for the man not called to it, than any marriage.

It was much harder for me to deny companionship with any woman at all than it is for me to deny companionship with any woman that comes along, now that I'm married.

In fact, I've had no trouble at all.

[sinkspur]

Well, the Church also puts a burden on married couples that many cannot bear: that they cannot re-marry in the Church after divorce.

To be truthful here, almost any Catholic that seeks an annulment will be granted one.

[saradippity]

Regards the Bereans,before I started on the religious forum,I must admit I didn't read a whole lot of scripture for anything other than for a better understanding of Jesus and man.

When I started to read for confirmation of my belief system I realized just how incredibly biblical all Catholic beliefs were. That is when I discovered that the Four Gospels,which come right from Jesus through the Four writers do not demonstrate that any of the Apostles had spouses when Jesus selected them.

You as yet have failed to show that any of the Apostles were married,care to try again?

[sinkspur]

If we of this age are going to convert the world to Christ, it will take something as powerful as an army of celibate,chaste priests,giving up everything to follow Christ,offering up their everything to convince the world that there is another Way that brings us to Truth and that leads to Life,everlasting.

If they're all your and my age, celibacy will be no problem.

[sinkspur]

Certainly,it is in the best interest of those wishing to perpetuate and extend this "animalizaation" of America to deny that anyone,including Jesus Christ Himself could live without sex.

It's not just about sex. If somebody has to have sex, he can find that, in the phone book of any major city.

Marriage is much more about companionship, a bond between a man and woman that makes the two, one, and makes them both stronger. Hell, the older we get, the less sex there is (no surprise, huh!)

But, I travel, and I can't stand to be away from home for more than three days. I miss my girl, and, after 26 years and two grown kids, I want to be around her more than ever.

Just being in her presence brings me immense joy.

I'm sorry any priest has to give that up. I really am. He deserves heaven, just for denying himself that.

[fatima]

Permanent deacon -
A man who has been ordained to the order of deacon and who will remain as such. The restored diaconate is open to single and married men who assist priest in the administrative and pastoral care of souls. They may proclaim the Gospel, preach the homily, assist at Mass, administer baptism, distribute Communion, preside over funeral and burial services (but not celebrate the funeral Mass), and act as official witnesses at weddings. Unmarried candidates must observe clerical celibacy. Married men ordained to the diaconate are prohibited from remarrying if their wives die.

[fatima]

A man who has been ordained to the order of deacon and who will remain as such,did you take a vow?

[sinkspur]

Yes.

And?

[sinkspur]

A man who has been ordained to the order of deacon and who will remain as such,did you take a vow?

Yep.

I also took a vow when I got married 26 years ago, and I haven't been chasing after you, have I?

So. That ought to satisfy you about my ability to take vows.

[fatima]

Wrong again.

[DallasMike]

You as yet have failed to show that any of the Apostles were married, care to try again?

I provided the Scriptural references to the Catholic Bible. I also provided a reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia describing a document by Clement of Alexandria that tells of Peter having two children and that his wife was martyred about the same time that he was.

You can see for yourself the portion of Clement's stromata that refers to Peter's wife thusly:

"They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, 'Remember thou the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them."

In case you don't understand: the early Church understood that Peter was married. The Bible describes Peter as married. Only your so-called Tradition (which you have never yet pointed me to) claims that Peter and the other apostles were not married.

Tell me where I've failed? Do you not believe the Catholic Bible or do you not believe the Clement of Alexandria as referenced in the Catholic Encyclopedia? Which one is wrong?

I'm not the one with the problem here.

[BenR2]

A rule so ancient can hardly be called arbitrary.


////////////
Check your logic on this one, please. There are no time limits on arbitrary and foolish decisions. (Look how long Roe v. Wade has survived, for a more recent and less impressive example).

Furthermore, the G.O. Church may indeed give greater honor the celibates in its midst, but it still wisely gives its priests the OPTION to CHOOSE.

Rome does not; it is a red-flag that something is "rotten in Denmark."

[BenR2]

The fact is that Smedley and others are trying to defend the indefensible. Requiring priests to be celibate is plainly unbiblical and is not something that was practiced by the early Church. History and the Bible are on my side; the ability to hurl insult after insult is on Smedley's side.

////
Good post.

[BenR2]

But I would like to pursue this belief of yours that celibacy is a crushing burden on priests.

////////////
Are you for real? Ever heard of the problem of homosexuality in the Roman priesthood? Turn on the news.

[JohnnyZ]

But, I travel, and I can't stand to be away from home for more than three days. I miss my girl, and, after 26 years and two grown kids, I want to be around her more than ever.

Just being in her presence brings me immense joy.

I'm sorry any priest has to give that up. I really am. He deserves heaven, just for denying himself that.

Um, the priest has Jesus, you know. That's the idea, the priest is married to Jesus -- obviously it's a bit different, but that's the idea. Just being in His presence brings immense joy. AND all his parishioners for a family, much larger than any he could hope for with a wife and kids.

[DallasMike]

Check your logic on this one, please.

Logic? I ain't seen no logic with these folk. All I've seen is poorly-formed opinions backed up by nothing more than a cantankerous attitude.

Jesus could walk in the door and show them the wedding pictures of Mr. and Mrs. Peter and they would argue with Him.

[Notwithstanding]

Sink,

Did you write this piece of am-church agitprop?

---

http://www.mlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news-0/1056984432297850.xml

---

Married priests' ordainment will have far-reaching implications

Monday, June 30, 2003
By PAUL F. HUGHES-CROMWICK

Despite the near complete lack of coverage concerning married priests being ordained into the Roman Catholic Church with the approval of the bishop of Lansing, I believe this to be a watershed religious event, perhaps the most significant in this 40-something Catholic's life. (On May 26 The News carried a brief Associated Press feed on page B3.) I predict three outcomes stemming from this authorization will have far-reaching implications.


First, married priests will be overwhelmingly welcomed into their respective parishes. (According to the AP article, the Diocese of Lansing will ordain three married Catholic priests; there will be about 200 nation-wide.) Sure, the novelty will upset traditionalists, but others, especially married parishioners who never fully understood or believed in the church's prohibition, will be very comfortable with the change and joyful about new opportunities. One can easily imagine a more "normal" social milieu taking root between parishioners and their priest's family. (When's the last time you invited your priest to dinner or golfing?) This will result in the laity accepting and even demanding married priests in growing numbers.

Second, current priests will obviously react to this development, but how do we predict their sentiments? For some, perhaps most, the change will be greeted by angst and disdain. They will see such a change as yet another cultural pathology only this time striking very near to home. They will profess that this change has no place in dealing with the grave problems the Church confronts - everything from a loss of moral authority because of pedophile scandals, to the resulting monetary strains from ongoing litigation settlements, to the central underlying crisis of too few priest candidates. But others, including many priests I have known over the years, will gladly accept this overdue policy. And let's be frank: some priests will advocate for their own permission to marry in the fullness of time. These developments will exert even greater pressure for overall acceptance of married priests.

Third, priestly "first ladies" will be accepted by most parishioners and their roles in the church will evolve and be transformed into wonderful benefits for the faithful. As above, there will certainly be resistance by parishioners who will have difficulty accepting the basic notion of married priests, let alone involvement, and assistance, from their spouses. But over time it is difficult to argue that their strong participation won't be welcomed if not demanded. Their potential for meaningful contributions is large indeed. This experience will add further to the pressure for married priest acceptance, and who knows, may even lay the ground work for female ordination. (God forbid!)

My hypothesis is that press coverage of this event mirrors the likely Diocese (and Vatican) perspective that this change represents an exception, used in the past under strict conditions, to a well-established prohibition. Why devote attention to a footnote in church history? From my vantage point, however, there is reason to believe that the faithful will view this "exception" not as an arcane, rarely exercised prerogative of the church but instead as a key stepping stone to rescission of the rule - an outcome that might spawn even more revolutionary changes in the Catholic Church, especially during the reign of Pope John Paul II's successor.

Paul F. Hughes-Cromwick is a resident of Ann Arbor. News readers can contribute essays of general interest to Other Voices. Please call the editorial page editor at (734) 994-6764.