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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[sinkspur]

Go to bed fatima. And God bless you.

[RobbyS]

How does tradition contradict Scripture? The tradition says that celibacy gives one both a practical and spiritual advantage over the person who would be holy. It does not prescribe this for all Christians but for the "strivers" for perfection. The model after all is not Paul but Our Lord himself. Do not forget that Our Lord on the edge of middle age when he began his ministry.He was unmarried. Is that really an insignificant fact? Would not the example he set have had some impact on his disciples. After all, what do they do as they followed him around. Were they not learning how he behaved as well as what he taught?

The Tradition teaches that to be like him is to act like him. Francis of Asissi, when he "got religion," first divested himself of everything. He abandoned his family life. In this he was imitating Jesus. He gathered a new family, his brothers. So was Jesus. There were also sisters, associated with Clare. All gave up possessions of every kind. Now Francis' claim on the allegiance of his new family was of course not the same as that of our Lord, but he had a great charism. His power over other men was very great, so that in the end a future pope was in his thrall. This is the Tradition: that we should imitate Christ. And you say this is inconsistent with the Gospel. It is the Gospel. That we should become like Christ.

[fatima]

sinkspur.This is my late night up,God bless you sinkspur.

[RobbyS]

The Church has beenfited greatly from clerical celibacy. After all, the men who evangelized Europe and then most of America were monks. The Spanish friars and French Jesuits get little respect now days among the PC crowd who want to think that
Christianity was a disaster for America, but the record is quite clear. Were their detractors required to face the Aztecs or the Iroquois AS THEY WERE they might have been less likely to think of them as "noble" savages and to to see the worship of Christ as considerable improvment over their dark gods.

[RobbyS]

To be truthful here, almost any Catholic that seeks an annulment will be granted one. Priests who do not believe in their own vows are unlikley to hold others to the observance of theirs. I think we both recognize this as a corruption of the teaching of the Church.

[sinkspur]

The tradition says that celibacy gives one both a practical and spiritual advantage over the person who would be holy.

So, the little mother who struggles with her family of five kids, tying shoes, and getting breakfast, and saying prayers, and herding them off to school is at a disadvantage, spiritually, to the monk who sits on the mountaintop, with no worry but when he will eat, which is provided for him?

There is a spirituality in action, which those actively engaged in the world participate in. They shepherd those in their care (the children of God) to fullness of life.

Mother Teresa, who was a women of prayer, but of non-stop action as well, said that the command of God was to love your family, and those in your immediate sphere.

Jesus prayed to His Father, yes, but He was a man of movement, of action, of discussion, of assistance. And He dove into life, with all kinds of people. Sinners, rejects, paralytics, pompous Pharisees, questioning Jews, dumb fishermen.

He reached down into all of these people and pulled out their core, for good or ill, and confronted them about it.

But He never demanded that His apostles or disciples leave their families. Some did, no doubt, but not all.

Let him accept celibacy who can.

[RobbyS]

One of the best "Jesus" movies was Pasolini's "Gospel of St. Matthew. Pasolin's Jesus was an odd-looking fellow who however had the force to convince me that here was man who meant what he said and could MAKE Peter and his fellows drop their nets and follow him NOW.

You don't have to reherse for me the virtues of the bourgeois life and the special kind of heroism that is required. I am only saying that the heroism of St. Francis Xavier is of another order altogether. I could say the same thing of John Wesley, who was not celibate --but should have been, for no Marine ever spent more time away from his family than he did.

[saradippity]

You wax so eloquently about things about which you have no clue. You keep repeating things that must have come to you in a dream. Scripture does not support your contention that the apostles were married.

Read what Robbys. is saying and all the implications.Jesus was the Word made flesh,those that are trying to follow Him,are doing it so that they can lead others to the Father. After all wasn't it Jesus who said "Father,that they all be One"? What better way to lead others than to emulate Him,in thought,word and deed.

He said:"I am the Way and the Truth and the Life",and He told us the only way to the Father was through Him. It seems clear that those best able to lead us to the Father would understand the need to live a life that was as Christlike as possible. What could the way possibly be but to live as He did? They knew they had to "walk the walk" since they certainly had heard Jesus chastise the Pharisees for "talking the talk" but not walking it.He told the Pharisees they placed heavy burdens on others but managed to avoid carrying burdens themselves.

I really believe that if you tried to think with the mind of the Church,and asked for guidance from the Holy Spirit some things would open up for you.

[DallasMike]

You don't seem to understand what I am asking and I refuse to go further than the Four Gospels until you or anyone else can answer this. Where in the four gospels does it show that any of the Apostles were married when Jesus chose them?I only say when Jesus chose them to save you from giving me the Peter's mother-in-law jazz.

• Why do you require something from only the 4 Gospels? What's the matter with the rest of the Bible? Do you believe in a hierarchy of scripture, where, say, 1 Timothy is somehow less scriptural than the Gospel of John? What about Luke and Acts, both of which were written by Luke? Is Acts inferior? Please explain where you picked up this belief.

• What's the problem with the writings of Clement of Alexandria that I pointed you to? Tell me exactly why you don't accept this early Church document by a Church Father?

• Can you show me proof that none of the disciples were married? I think not. I'll even accept your argument if you point me to something in the catechism.

I have shown you proof from the NAB Catholic Bible that Peter and other Apostles were married. I have shown you proof from your own Catholic tradition that Peter and his wife were together and martyred near the same time. You have shown me nothing except a half-baked opinion and a stubborn resistance to intelligent, scriptural-based argument. Your faith, I fear, is not founded upon a living relationship with the one true God, but rather upon the shifting sands of silly superstitions that you can't defend.

If you choose not to belief the truth, then that's your problem, not mine.

[DallasMike]

Scripture does not support your contention that the apostles were married.

I have shown you Scriptures from your own NAB Catholic Bible that says Peter and other apostles were married. What part did you not understand?

Dealing with people of your intellectual caliber probably makes Sinkspur glad he didn't become a priest.

[DallasMike]

How does tradition contradict Scripture?

• I provided you scripture in the NAB Catholic Bible that refers to Peter and other apostles as having wives. Explain your problem, please, with these scriptures.

• I provided you with a document by an early Church Father which speaks of Peter and his wife being together at her martyrdom. Explain your problem, please, with this early document.

Where's your tradition that none of the apostles were married? Point me to something in the catechism that supports your argument, point me to an early Church writing that supports your argument. You have pointed us to nothing.

Your problem is that you have no argument. What you are calling "tradition" is something that was told to you by a nun or priest when you were a child. This "tradition" of yours is in conflict with the scriptures and with the traditions of the early church.

It is a non sequitur to argue that (A) Because celibacy is a good thing for people who are called to it; then (B) the apostles must have all been celibate. That's all that what you call your "argument" boils down to, and I have proved that it is contradicted both by scriptures and by early Church documents.

Think for yourself, man. Be willing to give up your superstitions for the truth.

[DallasMike]

Oh,I just got out last night and described my experience to Dallas Mike,who is much more interested in trying to play gotcha and proveit than looking at reality.

Show me exactly where I'm not looking at reality. Put up or apologize for your rudeness. You talk big yet you know nothing.

[DallasMike]

...since they certainly had heard Jesus chastise the Pharisees for "talking the talk" but not walking it.

They had also heard Jesus condemn the Pharisees for placing tradition ahead of scripture. Think about that one a bit, Sara-poo.

[sinkspur]

Scripture does not support your contention that the apostles were married.

You believe the sources SMEDLEYBUTLER puts up; I don't.

We're just going to disagree over this, sara. I've studied the matter as much or more than you have and to believe that NONE of the apostles were married is simply beyond belief.

[Blzbba]

" Put the blame where it belongs, on naive, misguided or gay-pandering bishops in America who weren't willing to stomp on the 1-2% of priests who committed those horrible crimes, and who then did everything they could to please the media with zero-tolerance policies, passing the buck, when the scandal hit rather than take responsibility and do the right thing. "


You're right, in that it's the bishops' fault first & foremost. I just feel that JPII should've done more to address the issue on his last visit to the Americas, rather than avoid any contact with victims. But you're correct that the American bishops are mainly to blame.

[ThomasMore]

St Paul wrote to the Corinthians in reference to him and Barnabas,

[1 Cor 9:5] Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?

[ThomasMore]

army of celibate,chaste priests

An army of chaste priests is enough. There is an inordinate amount of sodomy occurring among the ranks. Chastity would be a breath of fresh air.

[RobbyS]

Are we talking past each other? Where did you get the idea that I denied that Peter or any of the other Apostles had a wife. Yes, I think that celibacy is good; Yes, some of the Apsotles may have been celibate. But the New Testament does not tell us much about this. Speculating I said where is the proof that some or many of them might not have been, like Jesus and John the Baptist, unmarried men? In an apocalyptic age, religious men are, after all, inclined not to become too attached to the normal things of life. The idea that Our Lord simply gathered up a representative example of ordinary Jews is as unlikely as the idea that he founded a company of monks. Is it not reasonable to think that they might not have already been "prepared." We do know that some were the disciples of the Baptist. We don't know what might have previously influenced the others. And we certainly don't know what Our Lord himself was doing during his "hidden years?" We do know, do we not, that he was not married? We do know, do we not that he was almost middle aged?

As to the Bible passages. Do they gave church officers a "right" to invoke against Church authority? No, they simply limit Church authority by showing that clerical celibacy is a traditional practice and not a dogma. It is a practice founded on the belief that virginity is better than marriage. One can. of course, say that it gives the official a claim that the Church must consider, but to say the Scripture simply overrides Church authority is first to accept that Scripture is the sole rule of faith.

[Aquinasfan]

Somehow, the phraseology suggests a tin ear.

The Catholic Church is the Universal Church, not the American/European Church. Overall, vocations are up. Between 1990 and 2000, total priests worldwide increased from 401,000 to 405,000. Missionary priests are beginning to come to the US.

[Aquinasfan]

When did the catholics go to celibacy, anyway?

1 Corinthians 7:1
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.