Unrest in German Catholic Church

Pope Benedict is scheduled to visit his homeland, Germany, this coming September. No doubt the German Catholic church will be in the headlines between now and then.

Recently, eight prominent politicians of the Christian Democratic Union (Angela Merkel’s party) called on the bishops work for the admission of married men to the priesthood.

But on Saturday, Der Spiegel journalist Matthias Matussek published a critique online of these politicians. “Certain circles and levels of Catholics, of whom the Pope spoke in his book The Light of the World, are just waiting to strike at him.” “It is always bewildering, how ready these ‘certain circles’ in the Church are to capitulate to the demands of modernity. They genuflect before it. Precisely in an era of watered down wellness religiosity and Protestant notions of taking time for reconsidering, one can only wish the Catholic Church had full pride in its tradition, full resistance to the world and steadfastness. Without a doubt, celibacy is a part of this.”

Yesterday, the former abbot of St. Boniface Abbey in Munich, Odilo Lechner, took the politicians’ side. Celibacy is a great value and was the right decision for him, he said, but celibacy should not outweigh the higher value of providing for those communities, increasing in number, in which it is no longer possible to have Sunday Mass because of the shortage of priests.

It is estimated that 2/3 of Catholic parishes in Germany will be without a resident pastor by 2020.

Editor

Katharine E. Harmon, Ph.D., edits the blog, Pray Tell: Worship, Wit & Wisdom.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

99 responses to “Unrest in German Catholic Church”

  1. Mark Miller

    I thought “taking time to reconsider” was a more “catholic” value.

    Reply
  2. Rita Ferrone

    Mark is right. Taking time to reconsider is part of spiritual discernment which is indeed a strong aspect of the catholic tradition.

    The urging of reconsideration on this disciplinary matter is also a sign of prudence, which I wish we saw more of in our episcopate. Eucharist is being held hostage to the celibacy rule. The result is not that more young men are thereby moved to embrace celibacy, but rather that more communities of the faithful are going without both priests and Eucharist. Where is this policy taking us all?

    Reply
  3. Jeff Rice

    I ask these questions in all honesty, not knowing the answer… Is there any evidence that admitting married men to the priesthood would have a substantial impact on reversing the declining trend of vocations? Is there a similar lack of clergy to replace retirees in the Anglican or Lutheran churches despite the allowance of married men and women to serve? Has there been any study into the issue of how a married priest’s service to his congregation would differ from a single man?

    Reply
    1. Rita Ferrone

      One of the places to look for insight might be in the Catholic experience of the permanant diaconate. Of approximately 17,000 permanant deacons in the US, 92% are married.

      http://www.nccbuscc.org/cclv/diaconate-post-ordination-report2009-2010.pdf

      The numbers of Catholic married deacons is on the rise worldwide.

      As for comparisons with other Christian bodies, others may be able to speak to that question.

      Reply
      1. Cody C. Unterseher

        Right now in the Episcopal Church, there is an abundance of young, seminary-trained clergy. I don’t have statistics nation-wide, but last year, only about 2/3 of the graduates from my alma mater, General Seminary in New York, found placements.

        Of course, the numbers vary from diocese to diocese. Rural communities in many places have largely gone the way of the probandi, with locally apprenticed sacramentalists. While these fill the gap sacramentally and are affordable alternatives to seminary trained clergy for small parishes, something is lost where a robust theological education is absent from the scene.

    2. Brigid Rauch

      Just food for thought , but – there are something like 510 priests in the Society of St. Pius X Worldwide. Look at your own diocese, and count the number of men who’ve left the active priesthood in order to marry. Then ask yourself why the Vatican is working so hard to bring the Lefebvrerites back into the fold, but has turned its back on a married clergy.

      Reply
  4. Robert B. Ramirez

    Eucharist is being held hostage to the celibacy rule.

    There are many blessings to the married state, but the luxury of being able to “take time to reconsider” is rarely one of them.

    Young men have no difficulty giving their lives away for a generous and noble cause. They’ll step forward when the Church reveals herself as a serious contender for that gift.

    Reply
    1. Cody C. Unterseher

      And how many celibate priests lack the charism to live out their vocation fruitfully? This isn’t about stepping forward and making a sacrifice: it’s about having a pneumatic gift and offering it for service.

      How many single Catholic men are charismatically celibate and don’t realize it — just living as confirmed bachelors, working whatever jobs they find themselves in?

      Celibacy is a discipline of the Latin Church; indeed, a hallmark of that church as it is understood today. It hasn’t always been so, and may not necessarily be so in the future. That even one church community passes the Lord’s Day without the Eucharistic sacrifice, or one faithful person dies without the comfort of the sacraments, should give everyone in authority pause to “reconsider.”

      Reply
    2. Joe O'Leary

      Young men will see visions, but do old men dream dreams?

      Reply
  5. Philip Sandstrom

    One useful way to approach this question is not necessarily to start with the example of our Protestant brethren, but rather to look at the Eastern Churches. Both our Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brethen have many centuries of ‘practice’ concerning both chastely married and also monastic/celebate clergy. It certainly should be useful to seriously consult with them — especially after both the recent Mid-Eastern Synod and the increasing diaspora of Eastern Christians into Western Europe and the Americas. Despite some of the books published recently in the West on this subject, the practical truth is that the generalized imposition of clerical celebacy in the Latin Church has more connection with the arguments about ‘lay investiture’ during the time of the Cluniac Reforms and their successor those of the Cluniac monk Hildebrand, who became Pope Saint Gregory VII, than the necessary eremitical/monastic spirituality which is now demanded of all men going to Latin/Roman seminaries.

    Reply
  6. Jeff Rice

    As a priest in the Latin Church, one basically gives himself totally to both the diocese/order and the people he serves. It’s pretty clear to and for whom one has a responsibility. The same can be said for a married man’s obligation to his family. If the Church were to generally permit married men to be priests, it would have to answer the question of the order of obligation. When the inevitable situation arises that what the bishop asks comes into conflict with what’s best for the family, how is that decision made? Do the promises made in the sacrament of holy orders trump that of marriage, or the other way around?

    Reply
    1. F C Bauerschmidt

      This conflict could equally arise (and does) with regard to aged parents. Do the promises made in the sacrament of holy orders trump the 4th (or 5th for protestants) commandment, or the other way around? Certainly a wise bishop would not command a priest to undertake something that would force him to sacrifice the well being of his dependent parents.

      Reply
      1. Jeff Rice

        Your point regarding aged parents is well-taken, but in that case it is an unavoidable tension…. priests have parents. But whether or not they have spouses is something that the Church can decide upon. Further, a situation where one has to take care of an ailing parent is not usually a lifelong commitment.

      2. Rita Ferrone

        Perhaps it would be good to acknowledge that familial consideration is already being provided — in addition to the support of aged parents — in a small but growing number of exceptional circumstances:

        1. Married priests coming from other Christian denominations.

        2. Men with children who are ordained as widowers or after a divorce.

        There is also the anomalous situation of priests who father children out of wedlock. There was a celebrated case in the news sometime in the past year where the religious order paid and paid often for the ongoing care of an illegitimate child.

        There’s the ideal, and there’s what really happens.

        If we doubled the workforce but had to accept some limitations in the way assignments are made, making room for family consultation, would it be worth it? That’s a great point to debate.

      3. Joe O'Leary

        Good point.

    2. Jeffrey Herbert

      Jeff;

      Along the same lines, I have wondered aloud at times what would be the process for dealing with another “inevitable situation”… divorce. Laicization? Perhaps just the removal of faculties? Or would these couples simply plod on unhappily for the sake of his “career”?

      Could a Priest go before a tribunal and argue that he didn’t understand the nature of the sacrament and so was unable to enter into it with full consent? I don’t think so. And to imagine that married priests won’t result in divorced priests is naiive.

      Also, the situation of married Protestant clergy is not entirely analogous for the reasons you point out… the issues of obligation, obedience and the authority of the Bishop throw quite a few wrenches into the gears…

      Reply
      1. Rita Ferrone

        Jeffrey,

        I agree with you that the possibilites for divorce ought to be looked at realistically. I would just add that there are other factors that do sometimes enter in, other than not understanding the nature of the sacrament. I am thinking of tragic cases where a spouse succumbs to addiction or mental illness and even becomes a threat to the family. Legal remedies are sometimes very important, and the situation is not necessarily one that an innocent party could foresee or forestall. I’d like to think that married priests would receive compassion just as the rest of us would want to receive it under similar circumstances.

      2. Bill deHaas

        Rita – you make some excellent points. IMO, you may also need to split diocesan priests from commitments to religious orders.

        That being said, would caution some who raise some of the old, tired, standard responses e.g. celibate man is married to the church, etc.

        – like any life decision, have heard religious superiors talk about their priest members as they direct assignments, etc. One comment stuck in my mind: 30% are willing to look at new assignments, challenges; 30% are old/health reasons, etc. and can’t be put into current apostolates; 30% basically do their own thing Well, may be this does reflect normal life as defined as married folks.
        – increased percentage of dedicated priests are burnt out; are overwhelmed by multiple assignments or the necessary “circuit riding” that is required today; suffer from anxiety or depression; battle morale issues

        Divorce – would suggest that this would need to be determined in confidence between a priest and his bishop; even Protestant denominations have moved from automatically removing pastors who have divorced. This may also force the church to reconsider how it currently deals with divored and remarried

        80% or better of any diocesean personnel now are lay e.g. parish ministers; school teachers/administrators; etc. Why would adding the remaining 20% or less to this create any more of a financial issue? Initially, yes; but think what could happen in terms of the future. In some ways, the current discipline is penny wise and pound foolish.

      3. Jim McKay

        Why does divorce pose any problems?
        Scandal? Don’t some celibate clergy behave scandalously?
        Annulments? What effect do they have on anything? Some of the holiest people I have seen are those who remain faithful to their marriage vows despite divorce or annulments.
        Remarriage might be an issue if we are discussing the ordained getting married, but for now the discussion is just about ordaining married men.
        So how does divorce or annulment enter the picture?

        I suspect wild, rebellious teenage children might pose more problems…

      4. Jeffrey Herbert

        Rita;

        I was just giving one example concerning reasons for divorce. I know that there are many reasons, and I still fear that all of them would surface among a group of married Priests with equal frequency as they do elsewhere.

        Perhaps there could be some kind of a qualifying test… maybe candidates could carry a phone-like device that would go off at random times with no warning, giving instructions to go do things or complete tasks at that moment regardless of what they are doing at the time. Then several times throughout the period of a year, they would be suddenly moved to an entirely different city with two days warning, having to pack up an entire household and move it themselves… with the phone-like device still disrupting them throughout the process. This while serving a 6-7 Mass weekend schedule, a hospital visitation schedule, regular confession times and daily office hours. They must always do what the phone tells them to do, and they can’t miss scheduled duties or appointments. That would be a pretty good replication of the situation… 🙂

      5. Jeffrey Pinyan

        +JMJ+

        Jim, I think part of the issue is that the scandalous behavior of celibate clergy is a factor in the desire for married priests. But if there is scandalous behavior among married priests, what next? What’s the solution? Some people might rashly write the whole clergy system off, since all they see is scandal after scandal.

        I would suspect that while some of the problems and temptations that a married man experiences are different from those an unmarried man experiences, a good number of them are the same. It’s not so much the marital status as it is the presence of and response to grace.

        And I am sure the discussion will eventually turn (maybe not on PTB, but elsewhere) to the ordained getting married — whether it’s the unmarried ordained getting married, or the divorced or widowed ordained re-marrying.

      6. Frank Agnoli

        The best referent in Catholic experience (at least in the US) is the “permanent” diaconate. True, there are a few priests who are married who minsitered in other communities and then came into full communion with the Roman Church. And, true, there are those who have been ordained after being widowed or divorced (in these cases, the children are normally older than 18 so parenting in the more immediate sense is not an issue; and in the latter case a decree of nullity would be required since, in the eyes of the church, the individual would still be married & and therefore not eligible for priesthood).

        But, deacons comprise the greatest number of married clerics here. And, yes, rarely, married deacons do divorce. Based on the specifics of each situation, the Bishop would need to discern if the deacon required time away from ministry (and how long) or not. I suppose in some cases one might have to consider formal actions, such as removal of faculties or even laicization. I would refer you to the Directory for the Formation, Ministry, and Life of Permanent Deacons in the US #76).

        Annulment is a completely different issue. Deacons, in case of divorce or death of their spouse, are bound by the law of celibacy. If one were to desire to remarry, it would require a dispensation from that discipline (rarely granted by Rome) in addition to a declaration of nullity (if applicable). Married priests would be held to the same discipline.

        Could a married deacon (or priest)–or their spouse–apply and receive a declaration of nullity? Of course. The declaration addresses the condition of the parties at the time the vows were exchanged; it has nothing to do with subsequent developments in the marriage (for good or ill), including ordination.

        Of course, the best remedy is prevention – and the experience we have gained in forming married men for the diaconate (and Eastern priesthood) cannot but be of benefit should celibacy be made optional for the priesthhood.

      7. Rita Ferrone

        Poor Jeffrey! Are you a harried (not to say hen-pecked) husband?? 🙂 But now we are getting into the question of “selection process” and that goes beyond this thread!

      8. Brigid Rauch

        Perhaps if some priests were married, we’d have a more charitable understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage!

    3. Joe O'Leary

      Sounds like a false problem to me; I never heard that it was a serious issue for Anglican or Lutheran pastors in general.

      Reply
  7. Jordan Zarembo

    I’m impressed with the level of probity in this thread. I’d like to note that there is a relatively strong backlash against optional celibacy in certain quarters. While I’m 300% behind optional celibacy for diocesan seminarians who wed before diaconal ordination, some sensitivity towards our brothers and sisters that uphold clerical celibacy is necessary if we are to live in peace with a decision either way.

    Jeff and Rita have touched on an important point: what happens if a priest’s marriage is annuled or even divorced? I agree with Rita that divorce is often a tragedy that only the affected parties can understand. Nevertheless, some will inevitably convert a priest’s private matter into a matter of public scandal. Some in the anti-optional-celibacy camp fear that priests might exempt themselves from certain disciplines such as NFP or even the indissolubility of marriage. Some devoutly observant laity who struggle mightily with the often difficult sexual prescriptions of the Church would rather have a celibate clergy than countenance a frail and human married clergy who also struggle with the Church’s sexual prescriptions.

    Of course, a married priest’s (consensual, marital) sexual life is not his parish’s business. Many of us realize this and are willing to give a married clergy the benefit of the doubt. Still there are others that are willing to overlook the current psychosexual illnesses of some celibate clergy to avoid the possibility of fallible and human married priests. Some compassion is needed here, even if many of anti-optional-celibacy “arguments” are merely emotive.

    Reply
  8. Joe O'Leary

    I think it is excellent for pastors to also uphold normal human commitments — to aged parents, siblings, spouses, partners, children, adoptees. A priest unburdened by any such ties could just be a lazy bachelor.

    Reply
  9. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    What struck me about the article is that it was members of a political party in Germany with Christian leanings who called for the admission of married candidates to the priesthood. As an American, that makes me uncomfortable but it also shows how some places in Europe the separation of Church and state is not as clear as here.
    With that said, there has long been a push in the Latin Rite to ordain married men and using the model of the Eastern Rite Church–the Church, headed by the pope, already has married clergy, priests and deacons. And in the Latin Rite we have former Episcopal priests who are now married Latin Rite priests and more to come in the Anglican Ordinariate. Having had a married priest as a parochial vicar for 14 years (former Episcopal, who also had bi-ritual faculties in the Melkite Church) he worked happily in a rather traditional parish in Augusta. The only problem I ever had was explaining to our visitors who saw me after Mass when our married priest celebrated Mass who asked me if they were in a Catholic Church because the priest kept talking about his wife and six children in his homily. His wife happened to be one of the lectors at the Mass. That was the extent of the problem. I happily explained.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Herbert

      ” (in) some places in Europe the separation of Church and state is not as clear as here.”

      Fr. McDonald;

      Not being argumentative, but I have a hard time seeing how the separation of Church and State is clear in the U.S.

      True, there is a constitutional provision that keeps government from involving itself in religion (the First Ammendment only prohibits the gov from establishing a state religion), however that provision has been extrapolated to prohibit religion from involving itself in public life, not quite the same thing and a development that has had disastrous consequences for both the Church and society in general.

      There is a tendency to emphasize the first clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion), but minimize or not even mention the second part (…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof). We have, through the application of local ordinances, court precedence and pressure from interest groups added a de facto third clause (…unless somebody claims to be offended). Like Free Speech, the exercise of religion is going to be offensive to some… that is in no way clear in the US today.

      Reply
      1. Karl Liam Saur

        Don’t forget, Jeffrey, the 14th Amendment has a synergistic relationship with the First Amendment (as well as other parts of the Constitution) – it means government can’t favor one belief system over another.

        Thus, for example, if one were to allow public school personnel to lead or structure public prayer as part of the mandated school day, they would not be allowed to prefer Christianity over Wicca or occultism, but would have to give equal time to all belief systems. Most Christians, when faced with that prospect, would probably prefer the schools to shut up then. The US is not homogeneously Protestant any more, and that has in general been good for Catholics, who have overall benefited immensely from the 14th Amendment’s interaction with the First Amendment.

      2. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        Jeffrey, I was thinking more in the sense of a group of Catholic senators or congressmen forming a coalition and asking the Vatican to change a Church discipline. That kind of rankles American sensibilities in terms of the scope of politicians’ involvement in Church policy.

  10. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    In terms of divorce or sexual misconduct of married priests we’ve already had to deal with that in some of the married clergy in the Latin Rite who are former Episcopal priests. There is a procedure for that which could lead to an annulment but the priest couldn’t marry again, or to the priest’s suspension or laisization. What has always been somewhat fascinating to me is that no one goes as wild about a married clergyman having extra-marital affairs (maybe Fr. Cody could inform us of this phenomenon of the those in the ranks of married clergy), as they do when a Catholic priest fails to honor his promise/vow to celibacy/chastity. Our culture is more voyeuristic about Catholic priests in this regard than with married clergy who fail in their marital promise/vow to fidelity which is no small number.

    Reply
    1. Brigid Rauch

      If we have a married clergy, we will have some priests who engage in extra-marital affairs and/or end up getting divorced. On the other hand, today we have the ongoing scandal of priests who break their vows of celibacy. Even worse, we see priests abandoning their lovers and sometimes even their children in order to get back into the good graces of their bishop.

      Even more scandalous, today we have many who teach that God demands that priests must suffer. Does God really demand that men go against their very nature, the nature that God gave them, and live lives of loneliness in order to serve?

      Reply
      1. Samuel J. Howard

        Even more scandalous, today we have many who teach that God demands that priests must suffer.

        Of course priests must suffer to follow their Christian vocation. It’s not something unique about priests:

        Luke 9:22-24:

        He said, “The Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.” Then he said to all, “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.

        The teaching of the Church is that for those called to it (and Abusus non tollit usum.) celibacy is not a denial of human nature, but a fulfillment of it. The “nature” that bars men from accepting celibacy, or from fulfilling the obligation undertaken, is not nature at all, but the corruption of a person’s nature by sin, both original and in their his or her own life.

      2. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        And God knows that there are many married men who suffer and some of these are celibate too. 🙂

  11. Jeffrey Herbert

    Karl;

    I would say that the example you give speaks more to why the government shouldn’t be involved in education than why schools shouldn’t be promoting religion, but that’s just me. I do understand quite well the very close relationship between the First and 14th Ammendments.

    I would go as far as to say that school personnel shouldn’t be conducting prayer… not exactly their forte! My problem is with the expunging of religion from academic subjects where it is most certainly relevant… most specifically history at the secondary level -how exactly do you teach about the history of Western culture without getting into the history of the Church? And teaching literature, particularly classic literature without references to the symbology and references to the Bible… Western literature from the 14th-20th centuries didn’t derive from a variety of Islamic or Oriental foundations… it comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition. How does one teach about the philosophies of the Rennaissance without a solid foundation in the theology of the Church in the Middle Ages, or the Enlightenment without a real knowledge of the role of the Church in France previous to it?

    Not establishing a “State Religion” is a very different thing from sanitizing the content of academics to accomodate the delicacies of various interest groups. That’s my complaint, not teachers leading prayer.

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      I think your fears of such sanitization are overblown. I can see, however, that you might not like the perspective from which the Church and Christiantiy are addressed critically within public school history, literature and humanities classes.

      I know that my public schools did not shy one bit away from teaching Church and Christian history as part of Western and American history and literature. Not one bit. They just didn’t uncritically parrot a perspective ad intra. Sometimes, their perspectives ad extra were faulty, too, but in each and every case, the public school teachers I knew acknowledged that when the were confronted with it – they were honest and forthright when confronted with their own cognitive blindspots in that regard. One cannot reasonably expect more.

      Reply
  12. Jeff Rice

    In the article from Reuters the proponents of married priests suggest only opening it up to men who are proven and pious, and whose wives are beyond child-bearing years. Perhaps there should be a minimum age, a limitation to have been married for a certain number of years, and obviously a wife would have to provide formal consent. I believe these are standard requisites for married men entering the permanent deaconate.

    It seems there is a reluctance even now with the current shortage for dioceses to put up the resources for an older man, say above 50, to become a priest. With the retirement age of 65 or even 70, as well as the rising cost of healthcare as one advances in age, is it prudent or even feasible for a diocese to invest thousands of dollars in a man, married or unmarried, who might only be able to serve for 10-20 years? I’m just not sure this potential allowance would increase the number of priests to make an impact, especially considering the complications it involves.

    Reply
  13. Samuel J. Howard

    Bill deHaas :
    That being said, would caution some who raise some of the old, tired, standard responses e.g. celibate man is married to the church, etc.

    You realize this “old, tired, standard” response comes from St. Paul right? 1 Corinthians 7:32-34 reads in part:

    An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided.

    Reply
  14. Bill deHaas

    Jeff – dioceses are doing that now but for men whose wives have died or, in some cases, have been divorced for years and received an annulment. Dallas has had three that fit this category in just the last 5 years.

    Reply
  15. Jack Rakosky

    Mark Chaves, Congregations in America (2004), was the first random sample study of congregations. He found there was more of a problem with staffing small Protestant congregations than with staffing Catholic parishes. Many of these congregations are very small (less than 200 adults) in rural and inner city areas. It is not that there are not enough ministers in the denominations. Many ministers simply do not want to serve in these undesirable places at undesirable salaries.

    Catholic dioceses should be able to solve the salary problems. But would married priests want to take their wives and children to these undesirable locations? Finding a home in a desirable school district is often a high priority for parents. Would we have married priests in the rich suburban parishes and single priests in the inner city and rural parishes? Would single priests still be able to be recruited under these circumstance? What happens if all the visible role models for most people growing up are married priests in the rich suburbs?

    Reply
    1. Claire Mathieu

      The priest doesn’t have to live in the parish that he serves. He could just commute to work, just like millions of other people. That might even help his work-family balance problems.

      Reply
      1. Jeffrey Pinyan

        +JMJ+

        That would make it harder for him to be present to his parishioners in their times of need.

      2. Claire Mathieu

        Indeed. But still better than not having a priest.

      3. Rita Ferrone

        Jeffrey, perhaps you are not aware there are many dioceses where the pastor does not “live above the store” or very near his flock.

        First of all, consider all the priests (this is now a fairly large group) who serve more than one parish — some serve 3, 4, 5 parishes. It’s obviously impossible for them to live in any but one of them.

        Second, in a number of dioceses priests are not required to live in a rectory or parish house. They have an apartment or a home apart from church grounds. Nobody wants to be saddled with a huge commute, but there are many who do commute already.

        The bigger question I see in this line of argument is the assumption that wives and families are not willing or able to share the “missional” settings to which their husband/father is called. That is a big assumption. I know of parents who have taken their children around the world because of their calling, and spouses who have been willing to make huge sacrifices to support the mission of the church.

        Yes, to go and serve in disadvantaged areas is full of challenges, but there are challenges among the suburbanites too!

      4. Jeffrey Pinyan

        +JMJ+

        Oh, I am aware that not all pastors can be in the thick of the flock, just expressing what I think to be the most advantageous arrangement. Hopeless ideals, and all that.

        the assumption that wives and families are not willing or able to share the “missional” settings to which their husband/father is called

        Yes, the sacrifices a priest has to make for his ordained ministry are shared in a more direct way by his wife and children than by his brothers and sisters and parents (speaking generally).

  16. Bill deHaas

    Mr. Howard – would suggest that when reading scripture you use the Catholic approach which is “contextual” – not literal.

    Paul’s comments in his time, society, culture are just that. We live almost 2,000 years later. Paul said a number of things that make so sense today. Please!

    Reply
    1. Samuel J. Howard

      Mr. deHaas, I’d rather not descend into a debate of more Catholic than thou.

      Pope Paul VI, however, whom I hope we can both agree, qualifies as someone who knows how to use scripture in the service of Catholic theology cites this very passage in paragraph twenty of Sacerdotalis Caelibatus:

      “… But Christ, “Mediator of a superior covenant,” (26) has also opened a new way, in which the human creature adheres wholly and directly to the Lord, and is concerned only with Him and with His affairs; (27) thus, he manifests in a clearer and more complete way the profoundly transforming reality of the New Testament.”

      (26) Heb 8. 6.
      (27) See 1 Cor 7. 33-35.

      The testimony of Pope Paul’s example should make it clear that my use of scripture is well within the bounds of Catholic practice. These inspired words cannot merely be contextualized away.

      Reply
      1. Bill deHaas

        Mr. Howard – do you know what an “exegesis” is? Quoting from a low level papal document which pulls a scripture quote from here and there merely reflects the writer’s theme or agenda. It has very little to do with the original scripture passage; its context, meaning, etc.

        Not saying that Paul VI did not use this passage to clearly support his document but that does not necessarily mean that this scripture or passage has the meaning that he has given it. This is his opinion – and by the way, folks quote the same scripture passage all the time but place it within their writings for whatever purpuse – rarely is it the same purpose, meaning, etc.

        Finally, not big on letting popes and their opinions be the defining guage by which I determine the meaning of scripture, etc. The Magesterium is so much more than a pope.

      2. Cody C. Unterseher

        I think the bigger issue here is the fact that, regardless of how one construes inspiration regarding Paul’s letters, the fact of the matter is that they really don’t apply: no one denies that the western church has had married priests in the past, and no one has asserted that the adoption of clerical celibacy is a de jure divino development. It is simply the current discipline of the Latin church.

        However much one wishes to spiritualize or scripturalize the topic, the fact of the matter is that in its origins and in its maintenance, mandatory clerical celibacy is a political and financial institution, not integral to the theology of priesthood. . . with the possible exception of those who actually have the vocation to and charism for it. Anyone who attempts to make it integral shows a weak sense of history and of current theological views on the topic, and a low regard for the Eastern churches (nevermind the Western churches not in communion with Rome — some of which have happily celibate clergy working alongside happily married clergy).

      3. Samuel J. Howard

        O.K. So how about a document of Vatican II:

        “Indeed, celibacy has a many-faceted suitability for the priesthood. For the whole priestly mission is dedicated to the service of a new humanity which Christ, the victor over death, has aroused through his Spirit in the world and which has its origin “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God (Jn 1:13). Through virginity, then, or celibacy observed for the Kingdom of Heaven,(37) priests are consecrated to Christ by a new and exceptional reason. They adhere to him more easily with an undivided heart,(38) they dedicate themselves more freely in him and through him to the service of God and men, and they more expeditiously minister to his Kingdom and the work of heavenly regeneration, and thus they are apt to accept, in a broad sense, paternity in Christ.”

        37. Cf. Mt 19:12.

        38. Cf. 1 Cor 7:32-34.

        That from Presbyterorum Ordinis.

        The point is not that the one quote from St. Paul is dispositive, but that you can’t simply dismiss this part of the argument that has been made by the Popes and the Bishops as “old, tired and standard” as you have done.

        The teaching of a council or of a Pope in an encyclical (which is usually not referred to as a “low level papal document”) is something more than an “opinion” as you put it.

        Father Unterseher, the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church happens to be that Paul’s letters do apply to this question, even if they’re not the final word on whether or not priests should generally be married in a particular time and place. The question I’m addressing is not the question of mandatory celibacy, but the blithe dismissal of Paul as an authority.

  17. Jack Rakosky

    Decades ago, an early sociological study of academia distinguished between “cosmopolitans,” faculty who mainly were interested in publishing for peers around the world, and “locals”, faculty who were interested in teaching, community service and administration. Perhaps we could foster a similar division of labor between single priests and married priests in our dioceses.

    Already we have moved in recent years in terms of deacons and lay ministers to emphasizing selection from within the local parish and for the local parish. “Promotion within the ranks” is what some lay ministers call it. This has both advantages and disadvantages. We have all probably seen or heard of parishes where a new pastor (liberal or traditional) comes in and sweeps aside the existing ministry structure. The more people we have in the parish that are from the parish, and appointed by the bishop to a position in the parish, and expected to stay there, the more difficult it will be for pastors to completely sweep aside the existing ministry structure.

    On the other hand, we all know of parishes with entrenched people, and they are not always priests. Sometimes they are not even paid employees! Well meaning volunteer leaders often do not perceive how their leadership discourages other people from stepping forward. So pastors need to have an outside perspective and be able to change things, but not in unlimited and unaccountable ways.

    If we recruited married priests as associate pastors but reserved the office of pastor, and of course that of bishop for single priests, we might be able to foster a balance of local and cosmopolitan talent. Since Orthodox have celibate bishops, it would move us toward their model, except in our case we would be applying celibacy to pastors, and retaining some of our tradition.

    Reply
  18. Bill deHaas

    Sorry, Jack…..this is a very bad idea. It is what many contend with now which is, in essence, a two level or even three level pecking order.

    For example, lay deacons are not permitted to hold the same positions as ordained priests even if they may be better suited, educated, etc. Ordination trumps everything.

    There are a number of dioceses (Dallas, for example) where the chancellor is a lay woman/man but then the bishop has to have a cleric over the priests – this creates multiple levels in terms of assignments, flow of communication/information; etc.

    Can live with the Orthodox model for transition only. What we really need is to look at ministries rather than the Thomistic “ontological” framework.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      +JMJ+

      What is a “lay deacon”?

      Reply
      1. Frank Agnoli

        Exactly: “lay” deacon is completely inappropriate. Deacons are ordained and are considered clerics in the law.

        Also: the role of chancellor in the law does not include being “over priests” … a chancellor serves as archivist and notary, not as a “second or third in command” (like a Vicar General). Bishops may add duties to what is required (for example, some chancellors may also serve as pastors or vocation directors, etc.) – but those roles are not necessarily part of being chancellor. That’s why it is not required that a chancellor be a cleric.

      2. Joe O'Leary

        James A. Froude, the great historian, bullied brother of Newman’s friend Hurrell Froude, unwisely got himself ordained a deacon, and then found himself saddled with restrictions placed on clergy in British law. Notably he was blocked from taking up his preferred second career in medicine. He begged his friends not to address him as Reverend. The diaconate is very definitely a clerical state. However current Catholic married deacons are liable to be thought of and treated as lay people, which is ok.

      3. Frank Agnoli

        Joe, I disagree that it is “OK” that deacons are thought of and treated as lay people…. This leads to all sorts of problems… such as demanding that a priest and not a deacon preside at a wedding, funeral, or baptism. It distorts the diaconate as well as the presbterate, the latter becoming the only “real” ministry. It leads to deacons being marginalized in discussions of ministry across a diocese. Canonically and ministerially, deacons are clerics — while at the same time the lifestyle of a deacon is much closer to that of the laity than of priests. In other words, deacons are deacons… and to try to force them into the “priest” or “layperson” mold because that’s what one is more comfortable with is erroneous, and not “OK.”

  19. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    While I certainly am not closed to the possibility of married priests according to the ancient custom of the Church of the East, both Orthodox and those who have remained in union with Rome, I do think the history of “mandatory” celibacy is more complicated than what many posit as its reason going back to the 12th century. In addition to economic and property concerns there were also spirituality concerns.
    Be that as it may though, there are lessons for us today from Protestant Evangelical denominations that are cropping up all over the place. Many of these are incorporated businesses and when the “CEO” i.e. pastor, dies or retires the business goes to another family member; they inherit it. Two examples of this phenomenon are the Rev. Robert Schuller’s mega church and the Rev. Joel Osteen’s. There are many more of these types of much smaller denominations opening up all over the country. They are family businesses. There’s nothing new under the sun. Maybe one day the congregations of these family businesses will demand mandatory celibacy for their pastors so that their spouses and children don’t inherit the whole kit and caboodle. Maybe they will demand a reform of their clergy’s spirituality also.

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      Or maybe everyone will move more toward democracy, as in religious orders. Celibacy can thrive as an authentic practice, and people are responsible for their leadership.

      Reply
      1. Karl Liam Saur

        Maybe collegiality is a better word than democracy for that.

  20. Bill deHaas

    Here is a link to an article today about pastoral leaders in the indigenous people in southern Mexico – http://ncronline.org/news/bishop-ruiz-sought-priesthood-culture

    Hope that this broadens the conversation from the “old, standard” ways of looking at things through a Eurocentric lens.

    There are signficant issues here that go way beyond some of the comments to date. Fr. Allan – as you say, the history is more complicated; so is the recent history, current realities, and the future. Don’t see anything in this article about evangelical CEOs (you do realize that Schuler’s empire has crashed financially).

    Highlight: “Three days after I entered the seminary the rector asked me if I had a woman somewhere round here. He began to tear up the ground as if he was about to plant a tree. I took the spade and asked if I should continue to dig.

    “ That’s enough,’ said the rector.

    “And what are we going to plant — a tree?”

    “ ‘We’re not going to plant a tree. Put your Indian complexes here, turn the earth on top of them, and be the same as the rest of us.’

    “Well, I felt like a fish that had to live out of water. And I learned to live out of water. But after I’m ordained, the bishop sends me to my home community where my parents, whose language I had forgotten, still lived. And the people rejected me because I had betrayed my community.

    “I set out seriously, however, to relearn my own language and to reassimilate my culture until one day they come and say to me: ‘Father, we now understand that this brother really wants to live with us.’ … week later, I hear the music of the village band coming toward the priest’s house. What’s going on? By now I can see the municipal president.
    What’s up?”

    ‘Nothing special – you are now a true Indian, and you are telling us and we know that you want to live with us.’

    “And the municipal president steps forward. ‘Just to make it formal, here is my daughter to marry…

    Reply
  21. Jack Rakosky

    Bill and Fr. Allan,

    The uncreative non discussion of celibacy needs to become more creative, hence the “cosmopolitan” and “local” analogy. It offers a vision about the current dilemma of Catholicism that is less loaded and either/or than center versus periphery. Our challenge is to be both as cosmopolitan and as local as we can simultaneously everywhere.

    Celibacy helped make Roman Catholicism more cosmopolitan (along with trans-diocesan and international religious orders, the use of Latin in the liturgy, etc). We need to be even more cosmopolitan in new ways in our global world.

    The cosmopolitan value of celibacy is more than its “anti-local” value of being an antidote to family empires. Although (as Fr. Allan points out) those are still with us, their relative threat is much less than that of national and international institutions running amuck (e.g. sexual abuse and financial scandals). We need stronger, enhanced local parish structures, including priests and deacons rooted in parishes, as a balance to more enhanced cosmopolitan structures.

    I prefer the language of “single” priests and “married” priests, and to identify differences between them in functional terms that adhere to offices rather than in terms of spirituality, e.g. celibacy, that adheres to persons.

    A cosmopolitan single priesthood focused upon the pastoral office should have additional requirements of historical competence including Latin, Greek and Hebrew, and experience pastorally in another language and culture. We are entering a global world and we need pastors to have global experience (including the historical dimension). It may take a while to define this cosmopolitan “global” experience.

    Both single and married priests should have had years of pastoral experience as laypersons and deacons. We should not be ordaining young “presbyters” whether they are single or married.

    Reply
    1. Ren Aguila

      One of those who has a similar but a little more “radical” vision of a dual priesthood is Bishop Fritz Lobinger, a former bishop in South Africa, whose 1998 book Like His Brothers and Sisters–and others that followed–proposed that celibate clergy be given a separate formational role alongside married clergy in the local communities.

      Much of his work is predicated upon the experience of the Basic Ecclesial Community movement and I think Bill has hit it right on the head when we have to think about questions of priesthood, celibacy and marriage outside a Euro-centric framework. In my country, the BEC idea has been grafted unto a parochial framework, but has become a little more crucial as a priest shortage is emerging in mostly rural areas and some urban ones. (The Philippines has not adopted the permanent diaconate, which worsens the problem somewhat.)

      Reply
    2. Jordan Zarembo

      Jack, you are right that seminary education, as a whole, often neglects education in the classical and sacral languages. At a very minimum, all priests should be able to read the propers of the Mass in Latin or read from the Vulgate. Greek and Hebrew are important for philosophical and exegetical studies, but not necessary for effective pastoral ministry. Education in a second language, especially Spanish, is undoubtedly crucial for ministry in the US. That said, I’ve noticed that some seminaries tend to place more emphasis on Spanish than Latin, or replace Latin with Spanish entirely. I do not know if this is entirely wise as this strategy privileges pastoral abilities over theological and liturgical knowledge. Liturgical, pastoral, philosophical, and theological acumen is necessary for any well-rounded priest and layperson.

      I do not agree with any artificial division in the sacerdotal ranks. Fr. Cody has spoken on the diversity of callings within the Anglican churches. I’ve noticed the same in my experiences with a local Anglican church. The celibate rector and married associates fluidly share pastoral duties. Stipendary and non-stipendary priests share equal positions in the parish. In my opinion, an effective optional celibacy incorporates both callings seamlessly. Artificial differences only hinder the work of priests.

      Reply
      1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        I agree with you about making no distinctions between married and celibate priests in terms of ministry. I don’t think there are many in terms of Episcopal priests ordained as Catholic priests under the pastoral provision, although there is some prohibition about them becoming pastors, but that is easily dispensed. But there are natural differences, where the married priest will live and his salary. My married parochial vicar made a whole lot more money than me– I would have liked to have been his equal there! 🙂

  22. Jeffrey Pinyan

    +JMJ+

    Joe: However current Catholic married deacons are liable to be thought of and treated as lay people, which is ok.

    It might be okay to some lay people and deacons, but I imagine there are some deacons who aren’t pleased as punch to be considered lay people. Not that there’s anything wrong with being a lay person — I’m one and don’t resent it.

    Reply
    1. F C Bauerschmidt

      In my experience, most people treat me as something different from a lay person, though I’m also not seen as a cleric in the same way a priest is (which is fine with me, since for me the clerical state is lived out in a way that is quite different from the way a priest lives it out).

      Reply
      1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        But FC, it is not how you live it out, but rather your “canonial status.”

      2. F C Bauerschmidt

        True. But surely canon law doesn’t require one mode for living out the clerical state.

      3. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        This is true, but the living of it has nothing to do with it. It is a canonical status or issue. I am a priest forever since I am validly ordained, at least I hope, but I can be “canonically” returned to the lay state and thus I would be a canonical layman, although an ordained priest.

      4. F C Bauerschmidt

        Again, I agree. My point was simply to report that people do not view me as a layman, but they also recognize that I do not fit their standard model of a cleric (i.e. a priest). I agree entirely about clerical status being a matter of canon law. I guess I am having some difficulty seeing where we are disagreeing.

      5. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        We’re not disagreeing. The canonical status has nothing to do with how we live out our ordination. Each person, priest or deacon lives it out a bit differently. But if either of us is laicized, then we are lay people from the canonical point of view. But from the sacramental perspective we’d still be a priest and deacon but not allowed to function as such in the clerical state.

  23. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    While the term “married” priests doesn’t bother me so much, I don’t like the term “single” priest as it connotes being a bachelor. Celibacy implies imitation of Jesus and His “marriage” to the Church which is His bride. He is not exclusive with anyone, but inclusive of all who are baptized, confirmed and renewing those commitments in the Sunday Eucharist and the other sacraments.
    For the “married” priest, the same occurs in the exclusivity of the marriage vows which also point to Jesus and the bridegroom/bride symbolism. In the Eastern Churches even those in union with Rome the presbyter’s wife is often referred to as Presbytera.
    What we have seen since Vatican II, although I suspect it was present even before, is a “bacherlorizing” of those making vows or promises to celibacy or chastity. In some diocesan directories you might look up where religious women live and you’ll find in the same city and the same order that they don’t live together but each in their own apartment, sometimes ten sisters of the same order having ten apartments in the same city. They might as well just be bachelors.
    Celibacy or consecrated chastity should be seen as a gift embraced (given and received) to live a different type of spirituality and commitment than what married “clergy” can do; not necessarily to be more available to do more “work” or “ministry” than what the married can do especially when they have young families, but to be available to to more praying and contemplation having no exclusive marital relationship other than the one they have with the Church collective symbolized by the parish one serves or the particular religious order one has joined.

    Reply
    1. Jim McKay

      The Online Etymology Dictionary says:
      celibacy 1660s, formed in English from L. caelibatus “state of being unmarried,” from cælebs “unmarried,” probably from PIE base *kaiwelo- “alone” + lib(h)s- “living.”

      Very few RC women promise celibacy. Consecrated virgins? The differences drawn between celibacy and vowed chastity are important for understanding the development of these two distinct disciplines.

      Hermits are celibates who have vowed chastity with poverty and obedience, so I guess vows do not preclude celibacy.

      Reply
  24. Jack Rakosky

    Actually “single” and its related words in other languages, has an older and more distinguished spirituality IMO that those of the celibate or monastic (i.e. withdrawn) spiritualites.

    The basic spirituality of singleness is integrity, of being single minded, and single hearted in one’s relationship to God. Such a spirituality is open to everyone, although early Christians realized that being single in social status might give one an advantage.

    It seems to me that singleness is a much more positive concept than celibacy or monasticism which seem to define themselves over against things which they are not, i.e. not married or not of the world. Fr. Allan’s attempt to define celibacy as a different type of marriage seems a far fetched way to make something positive out of a negative definition.

    Integrity has a strong relationship to the priesthood as is evidenced in the Eastern ordination rites. Most of those ordinations were of married men.

    Back in 2004 the local VOTF group held an off the record meeting with a group of local priests as part of their second goal which was to affirm priests of integrity. They asked me to find an appropriate prayer to start the meeting. So I got out Bradshaw’s book of the texts of the ordination rites of various Eastern churches and found what had had expected lots of language around the theme of integrity. So I copied out a lot of phrases, reassembled, consulted a thesaurus to reduce duplicate phrases. What resulted is the following prayer which is full of a spirituality of integrity.

    Reply
  25. Jack Rakosky

    Prayer of Affirmation for Priests

    Divine Grace, which always heals that which is infirm and supplies that which is lacking, has called our beloved brothers to sacred ministry. Let us pray that they be confirmed and strengthened With the grace of the Holy Spirit.

    Fill them with grace and counsel, that they may love you with all their hearts, all their minds, and all their strength.

    Grant them irreproachable conduct, steadfast faith, and good works so that they may help and guide your people with unselfish motivation.

    Grant them wisdom, let their minds be sober and watchful, so that they may be filled with works of healing and words of instruction. May they teach your people in meekness and serve you in holiness with an undivided mind and a willing soul.

    May they be the light of your only begotten Son that the word of your gospel may be spread and your name may be glorified in every creature. May they serve at your holy altar with pure hearts and good consciences.

    Grant that they may prosper in all your commandments and the keeping of your laws, so that they may be able to minister joyfully on the day of your coming.

    Reply
  26. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    This is probably the most thorough explanation for celibacy/consecrated chastity that I’ve read in some time. It addresses some of the issues others have raised in comments above:
    http://www.zenit.org/article-31587?l=english

    Reply
  27. Bill deHaas

    Fr. Allan – this is a typical in house discussion that shows very little imagination, connection to “on the ground” reality, etc.

    Baptism calls us all to chastity and to the kingdom of God – not just celibacy.

    Here is a link to a recently released letter in 1970 signed by Ratzinger:

    http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3840

    In place of your link, would draw your attention to reading and studying a book by Donald Cozzens called “Freeing Celibacy”. He does a much better job of a theological investigation using historical theology that goes well beyond the past 100 years. His distinctions and definitions are very helpful versus this apologia that picks and chooses quotes.

    Reply
    1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

      Bill, there is a school of theology that Joseph Ratzinger may well have embraced in the late 1960’s which he has repudiated, the theology of “reform through rupture” with the past. This is a new day and age and Pope Benedict acknowledges it. Do we need to keep going back and beating that same old drum from the 1970’s and theologians and others who were of that school of rupture.I think not, we need to move one. The talk today is reform through continuity. That’s where it’s at, so to speak.

      Reply
      1. Karl Liam Saur

        “It’s a new day and age . . . ”

        Be careful: sounds like a rupture there.

        Which just goes to show the limits of the metaphors of rupture and continuity (or “spirit of [X]”).

        Metaphors are just figures of speech, not syllogisms, and typically buckle under the weight of overuse, especially as shibboleths.

        The more people want to make a “New Church” or “Continuity” or “[Whatever]” something we all have to salute to, the less likely folks are to salute it. It’s not so much an attitude of Non Serviam as it is people being so immersed in the experience of propagandizing rhetoric – especially through the news, politicians, public relations of business, and advertising. Preachers take note: rely on metaphorical commonplaces and epithets (in the classical rhetorical sense, not only nasty words) at your peril, because enough of the sheep will soon enough tune them right out (the “base” might get stirred up, but it’s never a majority for long).

      2. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        When I use reform within continuity I mean it exactly as Pope Benedict has described it to his curia a couple of years ago. That really does go beyond metaphors and propaganda and is a call to the world bishops in union with him and theologians who support the teaching authority of the church to exercise their role to teach, govern and sanctify according to the vision that he has so artfully articulated and continues to do so in so many varied venues.

  28. Bill deHaas

    Reform through continuity – euphemism for what? Ask three different people and you get three different answers. It reminds me of JPII’s Theology of the Body.

    Any reasonable historian of theology knows that VII was both continuity and rupture. (would argue that this is the meaning of ressourcement and aggiornamiento) You also know that much of VII was setting up principles and directions – these had to be implemented through the world in all of the diversity of dioceses, bishops, and conferences.

    Your “reform through continuity” can be used to interpret, defend, or whatever depending upon whomever is using/defining the phrase. Your approach is not nuanced and is very simplistic.

    The church is at its best when we live a “both/and”….not just one interpretation that carries a ton of baggage. Rupture does not have to be defined as “negative”….the church has had a history of rupture; in fact, would argue that conversion is rupture; penance is rupture or at least metonia.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      +JMJ+

      I do not agree that “ressourcement and aggiornamento” necessarily means “continuity and rupture.”

      And if the phrase “reform through continuity” can be abused, then it has good company with “the Spirit of Vatican II”.

      Reply
  29. Bill deHaas

    Thanks, Jeffrey; you made my point. Anyone can use these terms to appeal to their own agenda – that is what I was trying to direct to Fr. Allan’s comment about the “one, true way” as if B16’s opinion is dogma.

    Mauro Cardinal Piacenza: “…only celibates can show that God is alive…..”

    Vita of this Cardinal:

    15 September 1944 – Born in Genoa
    21 December 1969 [25] – ordained a Priest in Genoa
    13 October 2003 [59] – President, Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church
    15 November 2003 [59] – Ordained Bishop [extinct Diocese of Victoriana]
    28 August 2004 [60] – President, Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology
    7 May 2007 [62] – Secretary, Congregation for the Clergy
    7 May 2007 [62] – Appointed Archbishop [extinct Diocese of Victoriana]
    7 October 2010 [66] – Prefect, Congregation for the Clergy

    20 November 2010 [66] – Cardinal
    24 January 2011 [66] – Address to Priestly Celibacy Congress in Ars [France] – “Only Celibates can show that God is alive” [Zenit]

    Curious about the 30 years between ordination and his elevation to the episcopal ranks. Hopefully, he has a little pastoral experience that can relate to the “average” diocesan or missionary priest in the field. Sorry, his speech truly does resemble a archeological dig into the past 100 years but not much linkage to current reality on the ground. If we are going to quote from popes, can we include the behavior of popes during the Renaissance; for example, Julius III, who made a 15 year old Parma boy found on the streets a cardinal and then secretary of state.

    From Teilhard de Chardin, “The Evolution of Chastity”:

    “Every unborn and new-born child is a Gift-from-God – “A-Deo-Datus” – the name that Augustine (354-430) gave to his only son (372-389) before they were Christened together in 387.
    However `sublimated’ man may be imagined to be – he certainly is NOT a Eunuch. Spirituality comes down NOT upon a MONAD but upon the human DYAD.
    First we have the appearance of a Reflective MONAD [individual] and then – to complete it – the formation of the Affective DYAD [loving couple].
    There is no future in Celibacy – no earthly future. The Celibate has no personal stake in the Future. On the other hand, we are all called to CHASTITY – Celibate Chastity [unmarried and childless] or Conjugal [Married] Chastity.
    Thus we have the Evolution not of Celibacy but of Chastity.”

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      +JMJ+

      Bill, did you read the ZENIT article, or are you simply copying and pasting (without attribution) from the Catholica forum? Or are you “Roch” there?

      You put “only celibates can show that God is alive” in quotes and attribute it to Mauro Cardinal Piacenza. That is a blatant false attribution; you should have attributed it to Helen. Piacenza never said that, and you do a disservice to casual readers of this blog who don’t have the time to read Piacenza’s address. They see your sound-bite quote and think he actually said it.

      Here’s some of what he did say:

      > The essential question, then, is not to direct the debate so much to Celibacy as to the quality of the faith of our communities. Could a community which lacks great esteem for Celibacy, as an “awaiting” for the Kingdom or as a Eucharistic “yearning”, be truly said to be alive?

      > [W]e must recuperate the reasoned understanding that our Celibacy offers as a challenge to the world, placing its secularism and agnosticism in profound crisis and crying out, through the centuries, that God is Present and Active!

      I challenge you to present evidence from his address that he believes that “only celibates can show that God is alive”, or else to retract the statement entirely.

      Reply
    2. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

      Papal encyclical teachings which are the sources of this presentation are some of the highest teachings of the papal magisterium. They’re higher than the pious and learned opinions of other bishops and theologians as valid as those opinions might be.

      Reply
  30. Bill deHaas

    Jeffrey & Fr. Allan – the original post was about German officials raising the “question – married men in the priesthood.” My frustration and suggestions are directed at that post – subsequently, Fr. Allan and SHoward posted a number of links to documents that only justified celibacy. Yes, have also posted links to comments – Cozzens in Freeing Celibacy; comments from an Australia, etc. Fr. Allan’s Zenit – instrument of Opus Dei publishing a talk at a forum expressely devoted to celibacy (not exactly objective).

    Question of married men in the priesthood:
    – not allowed to be discussed in VII
    – since 1967, this “question” has increased in significance and impact exponentially
    – popes/encyclicals may be higher legal documents but many encyclicals of the past and popes have been wrong in their statements e.g. slavery
    – the document by Picacenza is basically a “tautalogy” – statement which is true by its own definition and is, ergo, fundamentally uninformative.
    – Jeffrey – my post was a frustrated summary of this part of Piacenza’s statement……”With regard to this the Pontiff says: “although all those who have embraced a life of perfect chastity have deprived themselves of the expression of human love permitted in the married state, nonetheless it cannot thereby be affirmed that because of this privation they have diminished and despoiled the human personality. For they receive from the Giver of heavenly gifts something spiritual which far exceeds that “mutual help” which husband and wife confer on each other. They consecrate themselves to Him Who is their source, and Who shares with them His divine life, and thus personality suffers no loss, but gains immensely”
    – this led to the “frustrated” title that played on the phrase….”something spiritual that far exceeds that mutual help.” Really, this is based on what scripture; does this reflect the first century of church life, or is this again a repetition of a continued mantra?

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      +JMJ+

      The fact that ZENIT is an operation of Opus Dei has nothing to do with the this matter, and it irritates me when things like this are brought for no reason other than to imply guilt by association. The address by Cardinal Piacenza has nothing to do with ZENIT or Opus Dei; it has to do with papal teachings on priestly celibacy over the past century.

      Whether a previous pope’s encyclical on some topic was wrong has no bearing on whether these popes’ encyclicals on priestly celibacy are wrong.

      You say Piacenza’s address is uninformative; I disagree.

      You say several times that you are frustrated. Don’t let that prevent you from being objective about this issue. I do not see an immediate connection between “something spiritual that far exceeds that mutual help” and “only celibates can show that God is alive” — and I do not think you originated the latter phrase, I think Helen did. You may be taking it up as your banner of frustration, but I still think you did not make it clear that it was your frustrated interpretation of the words of popes and cardinals, rather than something Piacenza actually said.

      Pius XII’s encyclical Sacra Virginitas promotes “the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state” (SV 32), basing this upon the words of Christ and Paul, specifically Matt 19:10-12, 1 Cor 7:1, 7-8, 26, 33, 38. (SV 24) He also refers to the ST.

      Vatican II, in its decree on priestly training, also speaks of “the surpassing excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ [over the dignity of Christian matrimony], so that with a maturely deliberate and generous choice they may consecrate themselves to the Lord by a complete gift of body and soul.” (OT 10)

      Reply
      1. Bill deHaas

        “…frustrated interpretation of the words of popes and cardinals, rather than something Piacenza actually said…. BUT, Piacenze did say these things. He quoted, repeated, and re-emphasized many of these things.

        Pius XII and Vatican II statements that you now add do not really address the pastoral and eucharistic community question that the original post brought forward. Would also add your quote from VII and SV from Pius XII has outdated and needing much more theological investigation.

        You continue to just focus on reinforcing celibacy – fine. The post was about the value of married priests. That is the primary question which you avoid in your single issue discussion which is all about celibacy.

        But, if you want to play the “gotcha game”….guess you got me. Now, how about addressing the original post.

      2. Jeffrey Pinyan

        +JMJ+

        Okay then, for the value of married priests: I support the ordination of married men to the priesthood, even in the Roman Rite! Celibacy (i.e. being unmarried) is not demanded by the clerical state, that is clear; it may be particularly beneficial to the clerical state, and it may surpass the married state, but it is not a prerequisite.

        But I think any implementation of the ordination of married men to the priesthood must take into account the Latin tradition of celibacy and not lose sight of its suitability (pastoral and otherwise) to the clerical state. Y’know, like Vatican II said.

        I am also wary of any approach to solving the priest shortage which simplifies or reduces the priest to a mere “sacramental minister”. A priest is so much more — the priesthood is so much more. These parishes need pastors, not just the Eucharist.

      3. Jack Nolan

        I think Zenit is a Regnum Christi apostolate, not Opus Dei.

  31. Bill deHaas

    cont……

    Allow me to say:
    – celibacy is a gift and charism that has been and will be a value to the church. The original post is not about threatening or questionning the value of celibacy (that is what your links emphasize and thus shift away from the actual, posted question in a defensive manner)
    – but to equate celibacy with priesthood is to mix two different values. Piacenza deliberately states that to talk about a functional priesthood is to attack priesthood – that is his opinion but it gets to one element of this “question”
    – two, the church has now restricted, not allowed, and diverted any true consideration of the question for more than 50 years even tho we now have a eucharistic and community crisis in many parts of the world
    – three, Piacenze conflates too many elements of this question – celibacy is a charism; it is not part of the Ontology of priesthood (if you must use Thomistic terms); celibacy is a discipline. Using your approach, you have made celibacy the pre-eminent goal rather than the sacramental nature of community and priesthood as serving that community and called from that community. You have turned the question upside down and condemned those who want to start at the foundation – the needs of a eucharistic community…not the preservation of a charism.
    To quote from Cozzens: “…conflating charism and law is theologically problematic and logically contorted. It eventually appears to most as an argument that comes down to _____ it is so because the church says it is so.

    Jeffrey – you pull two statements out of Piacenza’s talk -a) to the first, I would simply answer – YES. The history of the first century church proves this.
    b) to the second, AGREE but you interpret and put it into a context that I do not agree.

    Have difficulty with Piacenza’s main topics
    – cultic purity
    – freely chosen/spiritual freedom
    – virginity and sacrifice
    – contemporary errors – opinion only
    – HOLY celibacy – phrase from…

    Reply
    1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

      Bill, keep in mind that in an earlier post I wrote that my problem with what was mentioned in the article was that German politicians were the ones rocking the boat, demanding a married clergy–much to the discomfort of my American sensibilities in terms of the separation of Church and State and even in terms of what Henry VIII did to the Church in England. Tell the politicians to butt out!
      But yes, I agree that there is room for discussion of a married priesthood in the Latin Rite. We already have them in the Eastern Rite, so it really isn’t much of an issue. I had a married former Episcopal priest as my Parochial Vicar for over 14 years. Pope Benedict is expanding the use of married clergy in the Anglican Ordinariate, the liberal that he is in ecumenism. And some of these married former Anglican bishops will become Apostolic Administrators as Catholic priests able to administer dioceses, wear a miter and use the crosier. That’s pretty amazing to me! So what’s your beef?

      Reply
  32. Bill deHaas

    Thanks, Fr. Allan. Yes, the part about politicians is noted but then the reality of Germany, its government tax, and church relationship is quite a bit different than the US set up. Also, think that you miss the fact that the question (whoever brings it up) needs to be addressed (the Ordinariate is not the answer and in fact only takes us further from a comprehensive approach and look at the question). The original post seems to tend to give this “question” even more emphasis when it is broached by everyday folks as represented by these German politicians (unlike you, I see no threat; mixing of church-state, etc.).

    Reply
  33. Bill deHaas

    Thanks, Jeffrey. Totally agree with your comment – do not make priests just sacramental dispensers. But, in reality, the current fixation on linking mandatory celibacy with ordination creates exactly that problem. We have more and more circuit riding priests – those who basically provide sacramental services at either multiple parishes or 5 or more services per week-end. We have bishops shopping for priests in the third world (as if they do not need priests) so we can dispense sacraments even if english is badly or poorly proclaimed; if their theology & ecclesiology is outdated, etc.

    First century – eucharistic ministers (presiders) were called from each community (geez, what a concept; it stops at least lots of clericalism; ambition and episcopal ambitions; you can also go back to the old tradition that a bishop stays in his diocese until death; no more climbing for power, ambition, ego, etc.

    Reply
    1. Jack Nolan

      All this discussion about celibacy in the Latin Church seems superficial without consideration of the way the discipline has enriched the western Church, benefited her mission of evangelization, and assisted the pastoral care of souls. Maybe Protestants would benefit from a renewed effort to promote clerical celibacy among their pastors so that their ministers are more available to their people, we also should talk to them about returning to a male only clergy. In the Eastern rites, we see that as many as 50% of Maronite clerics are celibate even though they permit the ordination of married men. Lastly, this discussion seems out-of-order because many are ignorant of the fact that marriage precedes ordination in the Eastern rites, ordination after marriage is not a norm.
      When I see in these discussions a seeming dismissive of the Ordinate and presumptives about what the 1st century Church may have looked like, sans hierarchy, as if the Holy Spirit was not active in the middle ages, I realize that the issue under consideration, just below the surface, is not the discipline of celibacy but something far deeper that runs contrary to Vatican II, especially Lumen gentium III. It is not that priests from the developing world follow an “outdated” theology Bill, it is simply that they don’t agree with the Progressive zeitgeist reflected in NCR, or apparently with you. Let’s not fear diversity Bill but rejoice in the way international priests broaden our catholicity & waken us from our 1st world presumptions about what Vatican II might have been.

      Reply
    2. Jeffrey Pinyan

      +JMJ+

      How do we know that the shortage of priests is due to celibacy?

      Sure, some priests leave the priesthood to marry, but they knew what they were getting into, didn’t they? (I suppose there could be priests who got ordained hoping the Church would permit, in their near future, priests to get married, but that sounds like foolishness to me. The best they could have hoped for was married men to become priests.)

      Are we sure that young (and not-so-young) men haven’t been entering the seminary because of celibacy, or because of some other factors? How big a role does the challenge of celibacy play?

      Reply
  34. Bill deHaas

    Both of you are grasping at straws and your comments reveal that you really do not know what you are talking about.

    “…but they knew what they were getting into…” typical mantra that says what? Fact – if you know anything about human psychology than you would know that this statement is ridiculous. No, many (most) did not know what they were getting into any more than folks who marry and are unable to make first/second marriages succeed.

    – enter because of celibacy….geez, hope not; because that is not the point of priesthood. Again, you turn things upside down. Mr. Nolan – your comments go even further; for you, celibacy is the key. You also conflate how celibacy became mandated. It was not in the Middle Ages….it did not impact the Eastern half of the church. It may have been a valid reform given the crisis of the church in the 11th century but like many reforms, it had unintended consequences. Fact – saints such as Ignatius of Loyola and Vincent dePaul in the 15th/16th centuries were still having to instruct and preach about mandated celibacy hundreds of years later.

    Reply
    1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

      I wonder if they had to preach the same about mandatory chastity (fidelity) in marriage too centuries upon centuries after the 10 Commandment were given to Moses?

      Reply

Posted

in

by

Editor

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading