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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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

I would not want to be the wife

My wife likes being my wife, and, given her family history, will likely outlive me.

[fatima]

He does not Lurk for you."VATICAN, Mar. 23, 01 (CWNews.com) -- According to informed sources within the Vatican, discussions between the Holy See and the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X have reached a critical point, and a dramatic move to bring the Lefebvrist faction back into communion could come soon.

Vatican officials have refused to make any public comment on the latest discussions with the traditionalist group. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the head of the Vatican press office, has confirmed that the discussions are ongoing, but refused to offer any further information about the content of those discussions or the schedule for further talks.

Nevertheless, sources suggest that a sort of "summit meeting" may take place in Rome-- perhaps as early as next week-- bringing together Vatican officials with the bishops ordained by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The purpose of that meeting would be to end the schism that began when Archbishop Lefebvre went ahead with those episcopal ordinations despite the Vatican's opposition.

Pope John Paul II, it is generally understood, is very anxious to bring the division caused by that illicit ordination to an end as soon as possible. He has asked Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos-- in his capacity as prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and president of the Ecclesia Dei commission-- to make the efforts to reconcile the Society of St. Pius X a top priority. Last December 29, at a meeting with Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Bishop Bernard Fellay-- the superior of the Society of St. Pius X-- said that his group sought three concessions from the Vatican: a lifting of the ban of excommunication, a regularization of the status of the bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre (and a fifth bishop ordained by them), and the establishment of the Society as an order of pontifical right. In February of this year, in a letter to the Pope (with copies to the heads of the Roman Curia) Bishop Fellay suggested a slightly different set of terms: the lifting of excommunications and the announcement that every Catholic priest has the right to celebrate the Mass according to the traditional rite. This latter condition would mean an end to the "indult" approach to the traditional Mass, which requires the approval of the diocesan bishop.

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos replied to the traditionalist bishop's suggestions by saying that the first condition-- the lifting of the excommunication-- did not present any problems. However, the cardinal indicated that the Holy See was not prepared to accept the second point.

From the perspective of the Holy See, the difficulty with the Society of St. Pius X involves more than the use of the Tridentine-rite liturgy. The traditionalist movement has raised serious questions about whether the Novus Ordo Mass is valid, and has also questioned the authority of some Vatican II documents. The Society of St. Pius X has also generally opposed Vatican statements and actions in the fields of regarding ecumenism, inter- religious dialogue, and religious freedom. Thus the question of accepting the traditional Mass is bound up with larger questions about the traditionalists' acceptance of Church authority and Catholic teachings.

The next step in the discussions between the Society and the Holy See, according to Vatican insiders, might be a meeting in Rome. Bishop Fellay would lead the traditionalist contingent at that meeting, but would also be accompanied by three of the four other bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. (The fourth, Bishop Williamson, has indicated opposition to the latest efforts at reconciliation.) Another likely participant would be the Brazilian bishop, ordained by the other bishops of the Society, who now serves a "para-diocese" in Campos, Brazil, unrecognized by the Holy See.

Vatican officials, speaking anonymously, indicate that such a meeting could take place very soon: perhaps before Easter, and possibly as soon as next week. One source suggested that the meeting would begin on Tuesday, March 27.

If such a meeting does take place-- again, according to reports from Vatican insiders-- the Holy See might even propose a juridical solution to the status of the Society of St. Pius X. Several possible solutions have been mentioned in the rumor-mills of Rome.

One possibility would be the establishment of a new personal prelature for traditionalist Catholics. The personal prelature-- a recent canonical invention-- allows a good deal of latitude, and since only one personal prelature (Opus Dei) has been recognized, the "ground rules" of that structure are not firmly established. However, it seems unlikely that a personal prelature would give the traditionalists the autonomy they seek, since it would not allow for recognition of religious congregations or of the Brazilian traditionalist diocese.

Another approach would be the establishment of a new patriarchate. But while that possibility would suit the traditionalists' needs, the prospect would appear to be unlikely. The Holy See has been reluctant to establish a patriarchate for the Ukrainian Catholic Church despite years of entreaties from that Byzantine-rite community. It seems unrealistic to suspect that a schismatic group would receive a status which has been denied to Catholics who suffered through persecution and remained loyal to Rome.

Nevertheless, rumors about the possible creation of such a new structure continue to swirl around Rome. And those rumors may help to explain the renewed interest in the discussions between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X, as well as the new sense of urgency to bring those discussions to a conclusion.

The last several months of discussions were triggered by a Jubilee pilgrimage in August of last year, which brought 5,000 traditionalists to the basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome. During that visit, Bishop Fellay told the monthly magazine 30 Days that he would answer any invitation to speak with the Pope, out of "filial obedience to the head of the Church." In September, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos told the same magazine that the Holy See was ready to entertain proposals from the traditionalist Society, and that any such proposals "would be examined with respect from the perspective of the authentic welfare of the entire ecclesial community."

[sinkspur]

Oh, no. Don't tell me he's another Lefebvrite!

Reuniting with the SSPX may or may not happen, but it's a nit, in the long run, whatever happens.

[fatima]

sinkspur,He does not lurk for you but other souls.

[fatima]

sinkspur,My priest friends are at peace,"Yor are , after all, completely anonymous."

"Does your priest friend care to comment on anything? Maybe how he feels about mandatory celibacy?
He is, after all, completely anonymous. He said you are not prudent"-if you have Jesus Christ in mind to bring to others on this forum you have failed as a Deacon of the Catholic church.

[sinkspur]

He said you are not prudent"-if you have Jesus Christ in mind to bring to others on this forum you have failed as a Deacon of the Catholic church.

Tell him that I will pray for him, as I hope he will for me.

[saradippity]

Thankyou for stating that aside from the fact that we know that Peter,had at one time been married,the Gospels are silent on the marital status of the Apostles.

There is actually no point in continuing this since we will then go onto Paul,where you will translate or interpret two cites that contain a word which you will contend means wife and I will assert means sister or woman.

You will cite some passages and verses that you claim were meant for all men and I will say that I think they refer to all men except priests,those called,who chose to follow in His footsteps and bring Christ to the world.

You will tell me about the Bishops who can only have one wife and I will argue that it was necessary to appoint men who were married to be in charge of churches on an emergency basis when they realized Jesus was not coming back in their lifetime,so they had to work with known adherents. In some areas,those who had been taught by the Apostles may have all been married. Or maybe that these men,who may have been unmarried even at the time,were not to have been divorced and remarried.

In the end,I will remain convinced that a celibate priesthood is the best way to lead man to God and you will disagree.My point has always been to persuade you and hundreds of others,that the old canard "all of the Apostles were married" is not a fact,and that it is every bit as likely that "none of the Apostles were married".It is only by striving to seek truth in all things that we will ever arrive at Truth,Who is God.

When we start down a path with a map that's in error (false premise)getting home is time consuming and fraught with difficulties and danger.

[ninenot]

You and RobbyS are being far more patient with this troll than I could. Best wishes, but St. Jude may encounter exhaustion before this bloke, DalMi gets it.

[ninenot]

BTW, the fact that Peter had a mother-in-law does NOT confirm that Peter and his wife engaged in marital relations after the Call.

Further, it doesn't even tell us that Peter's wife was alive at the time of the reference--or healthy, for that matter.

[ninenot]

Sink, the Real Presence can be in the Tabernacle (you remember them, don't you) even if there is no priest who is available every Sunday.

Further, there are lots of priests in other lands who would be happy to come here on a 'mission' assignment.

Married deacons made their choice.

[sinkspur]

Sink, the Real Presence can be in the Tabernacle (you remember them, don't you) even if there is no priest who is available every Sunday.

Yes. But the Lord said "Take and eat," and it is the Mass that is the central act of celebrating that Real Presence. The Mass, which can only be celebrated by priests.

Further, there are lots of priests in other lands who would be happy to come here on a 'mission' assignment.

America is not a "mission" country. Let Africa keep her native priests while we develop our own.

Married deacons made their choice.

Yes, they did. The Church wasn't admitting married Protestants into the ministry prior to 1980, either.

[k omalley]

Our bishop has decided not to allow priestless Sunday liturgies. He has pretty much stated that if you have to drive a little farther to Sunday Mass then so be it. He has exhorted the faithful to continue praying for and encouraging vocations.
I guess I have to step to the left of my usual Neanderthal opinions and say that I am in favor of the Eastern model of married clergy. I believe that it would attract a few more good men and is an altogether healthier situation.

[DallasMike]

You and RobbyS are being far more patient with this troll than I could. Best wishes, but St. Jude may encounter exhaustion before this bloke, DalMi gets it.

Do you have any useful to offer or are you still at the name-calling level?

You know, Paul said that we are supposed to be able to give a defense of the faith when asked. Have you met that call?

[DallasMike]

BTW, the fact that Peter had a mother-in-law does NOT confirm that Peter and his wife engaged in marital relations after the Call.

Further, it doesn't even tell us that Peter's wife was alive at the time of the reference--or healthy, for that matter.

At least saradippity made a reasonable effort to present her case.

You say that Peter's wife might not have been alive or might not have been healthy? So how you explain Book VII of Clement's Stromata that talks of Peter's wife like this:

"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."

The writing is mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia's discussion of Peter. Clement of Alexandria was the mentor to Origen and is recognized as a Father of the Church.

Why do you not accept your own church's tradition?

And why can't you just accept your own church's translation of the Bible when it says:

"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?"  I Corinthians 9:5.

I give you hyperlinks to Catholic sites and the Catholic Bible. You and your friends call me names, say things that boil down to "well, Peter coulda', shoulda', woulda'" and never point me to anything that states the tradition you claim to defend. Where is this "tradition" in the Catechism? Where is this "tradition" in a respected work, like Ludwig Ott's book?

As far as I can tell, I'm the one holding to Catholic tradition and you're not.

Sinkspur:  What do you think, Sinkspur? Is it worth trying to reason with these people to bring them out of superstition and into a walk with the one true God?

I had a friend over the other evening and I showed her some of these posts. She's Hispanic and a former Catholic, and all she could do was shake her head. Well, that, and mutter a few choice words about some of these posters. She has little good to say about growing up Catholic in a Spanish-speaking church -- she said that she learned a hodge-podge of superstitions but never learned the Bible and what it said about God. I ended up defending Catholicism to her, as I have a number of times in the past!

You know, I cringe when I hear people on Christian talk radio call in and say, "I'm a Christian but I used to be Catholic." It really pains me because I admire much in the Catholic Church. However, arguing with these folks makes me sympathize a little more with those callers. All I see here is adherence to a "tradition" that they themselves can't even cite and a propensity to call people names if they dare question their "tradition." They don't know the Bible, don't know their own church's history or traditions, and are unable to give any sort of reasonable defense of their faith. They treat knowledgeable Catholics like yourself horribly. In short, they behave like a bunch of ill-tempered 5-year olds.

[DallasMike]

I guess I have to step to the left of my usual Neanderthal opinions and say that I am in favor of the Eastern model of married clergy. I believe that it would attract a few more good men and is an altogether healthier situation.

Prepare to be torpedoed by the Neanderthals that post here!

[saradippity]

Our bishop has decided not to allow priestless Sunday liturgies.

That is interesting,I think that could be a very good decision,who is your Bishop? Thanks.

[DallasMike]

Thankyou for stating that aside from the fact that we know that Peter,had at one time been married,the Gospels are silent on the marital status of the Apostles.

All truth is God's truth and I am not afraid of it.

Thank you for writing a reasonable post that addresses at least some of the issues that I and other have brought up.

 

There is actually no point in continuing this since we will then go onto Paul,where you will translate or interpret two cites that contain a word which you will contend means wife and I will assert means sister or woman.

I stand by the translation of the NAB (Catholic) Bible. What do you know that they don't?

 

You will tell me about the Bishops who can only have one wife and I will argue that it was necessary to appoint men who were married to be in charge of churches on an emergency basis when they realized Jesus was not coming back in their lifetime,so they had to work with known adherents. In some areas,those who had been taught by the Apostles may have all been married. Or maybe that these men,who may have been unmarried even at the time,were not to have been divorced and remarried.

That's a very novel idea! My point is that you have to come up with all sorts of exceptions and contorted situations to support your belief. My belief is defined by the plain meaning of the words of Scripture and actual church history.

 

In the end,I will remain convinced that a celibate priesthood is the best way to lead man to God and you will disagree.My point has always been to persuade you and hundreds of others,that the old canard "all of the Apostles were married" is not a fact,and that it is every bit as likely that "none of the Apostles were married".It is only by striving to seek truth in all things that we will ever arrive at Truth,Who is God.

You do get points for a reasonable post, but your belief is simply not supported by Scripture or tradition. Where does your belief that none of the apostles were married come from? I haven't found it in the catechism or in recognized works like Ludwig Ott's book. Was this something that was told to you by a nun or priest as a child and you've just always assumed it was true Catholic teaching?

What do you think of the bones found under the Basilica of St. Peter per this story (also repeated in many other places). The bones, which seem likely to be those of Peter, were mixed with those of a woman and another, younger man. The story ends with "And is it possible, finally, that the remains of a woman found in Peter's grave were those of his wife? Perhaps you would sooner see the Pope married than believe that."

 

When we start down a path with a map that's in error (false premise)getting home is time consuming and fraught with difficulties and danger.

I've had no difficulties or danger. My biblical citations are internally consistent with one another and with early church documents and tradition. Your belief is the one that is fraught with difficulties and danger.

[ninenot]

It's perfectly clear that your interlocutor ought to be elected Pope. He knows everything, is conversant with several variants of the Bible, and even quotes apocrypha for his own purposes.

But I'll take PopePielI instead. PopePielI doesn't "share the pain" of the Catholic Church losing members. PopePiel1 doesn't have ex-Catholic visitors who wander about mumbling vague imprecations about Catholics.

Most important: PopePiel1 has NO delusions whatsoever about actually running the Church. He won't.

[DallasMike]

It's perfectly clear that your interlocutor ought to be elected Pope. He knows everything, is conversant with several variants of the Bible, and even quotes apocrypha for his own purposes.

Like clockwork, you do a drive-by to hurl childish insults yet refuse to discuss substantive issues on an adult level. You prove my point perfectly.

[saradippity]

It is a false premise to state "all of the Apostles were married". My point was,there is no way,and I repeat,no way, that statement can be proven true. The gospels and the reat of New Testament scripture is silent as to the marital disposition of the individual Apostles.

If you want to continue this debate then you and I need to go down another path. I thought I was clear that going down the exact same path everyone has been going down always led to the same place. A place where I was firmly convinced that "celbacy" was the state most pleasing to God for those that would be responsible for carrying out the "Great Commission". You on the other hand,do not agree.

I believe that legitimate debate on issues we disagree on must start at a totally different place. To that end could you please tell me what you think the "Word" is?