Irish Bishop Calls for Optional Celibacy
Reuters reports that Edward Daly, Retired bishop of Derry, has made a forceful call for a serious discussion about ending mandatory (diocesan) clerical celibacy. Money quote:
I feel now that celibacy is damaging to the church and I do feel now that we have to look at that issue very profoundly at this point in time and quite urgently.
Well then, perhaps he should convene a gathering of bishops who feel the same way, and present a common document to the Vatican? Some bishops might advocate such a move but might fear to be “outed” on this issue if they’re still active, not retired like Daly. So the document could be signed by name and status, or as “Anonymous, retired” or “Anonymous, active.” I will personally buy snacks for any such gathering. (Were I wealthy, I’d offer to host. One does what one can…)
An intriguing statement in the Reuters piece that took me by surprise:
Supporters of a married priesthood caused a stir earlier this year when they unearthed a 1970 appeal to ordain older married men signed by nine German theologians including the then Father Joseph Ratzinger, the present pope.
Pardon me for my lack of attention if this made headlines, but does anyone have any info on this? Did they use language of “viri probati,” i.e., deacons? And did they mean ordination, or expansion of diaconal duties beyond their current scope, but stopping short of priestly ordination?
While I’m stirring the nest, I wonder if religious orders with stable apostolates might also consider more complete inclusion of non-celibates? Yes, yes, community, but look at the deep devotion and assiduous labor of many associate members of men’s and women’s orders. I’m not at all sure that the apostolates of at least a substantial proportion of religious actually require celibacy to embody the charism of the institute.
But for now, a real push on the diocesan side is enough. And Bishop Daly, if you’re out there, let’s talk–chips and salsa? Honey roasted cashews? You name it, it’s there.
Here is a link to the document in German:
http://www.josef-bayer.de/akr/pipeline/210/zoelibat.htm
Actually I some of the new movements in the Church (Opus Dei, for example) includes non-celibates in their ranks as well as the Neo-Catechumenate. But I guess we can’t count those. They are just too “trad” for some.
The law of priestly celibacy was re-affirmed by Pope Paul VI in an encyclical in 1967, but this did not end the vigorous debate about the matter. When the ministerial priesthood was chosen as one of the two topics for the Synod of Bishops in 1971, the debate intensified. The result of the discussion at the Synod was a reaffirmation of the law “in its entirety,” for which 107 members voted while a counter-proposal urging the Pope to approve ordaining married men “of mature age and upright life,” which received 87 votes. It appeared at the time that the narrow margin of victory for retaining celibacy was only possible because of the votes of the substantial number of Curial figures who were voting members of the Synod. It is good to recall this little history at a time when many people, including bishops, think that the matter should not even be discussed.
This, you might note, was back when the Synod still had some character as an instrument of collegiality before it was turned, under John Paul II, into a rigorously controlled entity whose agenda is decided beforehand and whose conclusions are carefully monitored lest it propose anything to the pope that the pope does not want proposed. One U.S. archbishop, returned from one Synod, described it to me as “a farce.”
Inasmuch as ordaining only unmarried men to the priesthood is a strictly legal (not doctrinal) prohibition, the thing to do, if one wants to change the practice, is change the law. I’m not a canon lawyer, but there may be standard legal channels that Bishop Daly could pursue. For example, he could figure out a way to get it put on the agenda of his national conference’s next meeting. If he can swing a unanimous vote from his bishops in favor of ordaining married men to the priesthood, perhaps it would then have the force of particular law for Ireland?
There are 17000 married deacons in the USA most all are viri probati. . They, deacons, need to come forward and ask for full ordination or watch a 1000 more parishes close or merge. How far away is the USA having less attend Mass than the Chinese.?
Here is a translation into English:
http://www.pathsoflove.com/blog/ratzinger-rahner-et-al-on-celibacy-1970/
The document is signed by:
sig. Ludwig Berg, Mainz
sig. Alfons Deissler, Freiburg
sig. Richard Egenter, München
sig. Walter Kasper, Münster
sig. Karl Lehmann, Mainz
sig. Karl Rahner, Münster-München
sig. Joseph Ratzinger, Regensburg
sig. Rudolf Schnackenburg, Würzburg
sig. Otto Semmelroth, Frankfurt
There is a theology to celibacy in Holy Orders and in consecrated religious life, not merely a discipline or rule.
It is a theology that is much discussed by the Holy Father, as well as by many young recently-ordained priests who enthusiastically embrace it, for anyone who has a genuine desire to know. It is a theology that recognizes that priests and religious are, in fact, called to a spousal relationship that is both unitive and fruitful in its virginal love for Christ and the Church.
In fact, Pope Benedict spoke on this just last weekend in an address to priests, “You are the living sign that points to Christ Jesus, the only Good Shepherd. Conform yourselves to him, to his style of life, with that total and exclusive service of which celibacy is an expression. The priest also has a spousal dimension; it is to be lost in the heart of Christ the Spouse, who gives his life for the Church his Bride.”
And since I know folks around here are such a great fan of his, here is what Archbishop Charles Chaput said on the matter at his installation Mass last week —
“A married friend told me last week that getting ready for today reminded him of planning for a very, very, very big wedding. He was being humorous, but he was actually more accurate than he knew. The relationship of a bishop and his local Church is very close to a marriage. The ring I wear is a symbol of every bishop’s love for his Church. And a bishop’s marriage to the local Church reminds me, and all of us, that a bishop is called to love his Church with all his heart, just as Christ loved her and gave his life for her. Of course, my appointment to Philadelphia is an arranged marriage, and the Holy Father is the matchmaker. . . .
“For any marriage to work, two things need to happen. People need to fall in love, and together they need to be fruitful. That’s what we need to dedicate ourselves to today — to love one another and be fruitful together in the new evangelization. . . .
“What we embark on today is an arranged marriage, where someone who loves you, the Holy Father, is also someone who loves me. And the Holy Father knows in his wisdom that we will make a good family together. So we should see each other as gifts. I receive you as a gift from the Holy Father; and you receive me and my service as a gift from the Holy Father. And this requires us to make a commitment, an act of the will, to love one another, to be patient with one another, and to lay down our lives for one another.”
There can be no better marriage for a priest than that described here.
I believe that associating celibacy with the priest’s alleged spousal relationship with the Church is a very novel connection–that is, the idea that the priest stands “in persona Christi Sponsi.” Many of us priests by far prefer Augustine’s view that a bishop or priest stands in the relationship to Christ the Bridegroom that characterized St. John the Baptist and St. Paul, that is, they were “friends of the Bridegroom,” attendants upon him, facilitating the marriage between Christ and Church but not usurping the role of the Bridegroom. It was the Donatists, not the Catholics, Augustine said, who put themselves in the place of the one Bridegroom of the Church.
The ne plus ultra of this spousal fascination is the view of the Orthodox theologian who said that celebrating the Mass is a phallic act. God spare us!
I guess the good Archbishop’s annulment from his prior “marriage” to Denver was rushed through. Or maybe he and Philadelphia are living together as brother and sister. The name of the city, after all, suggests that resolution.
Catholic families are giving the strongest messages to the church by not sending their children to be clergy. Clergy from other countries are being paid to come here because of this. Meanwhile the need is greater in their own countries. But money talks. Chaput talks about a spousal relationship which is silly since the bishop’s “spouse” has no say. And what about Peter, who was married? What a bad example he was.
A Martian or any one that is objective can see that the Vatican gets more ridiculous each time it speaks on this subject. It is not a reductio ad absurdum. It is absurdum all the way.
Let’s not forget that there ARE some married priests in communion with Rome. Uniate churches allow married clergy if they are married before taking orders, and some of those converts to RC from the Anglican or Lutheran traditions are allowed to be ordained and keep their wives.
I’m interested in what benefits Catholics who support a married clergy expect to accrue.
I also hope that those called to celibacy, should priests be allowed to marry, not be viewed with suspicion. In many Protestant traditions, having a wife makes a male minister seem “safer.” Which isn’t always the case …
Bender, married St Peter must have been away when Jesus explained all that stuff. O! O! Jesus didn’t mention any ot that stuff? Metaphor is Truth?
Thanks to John Hayes for the English.
The document appears to present sharply and frame with great care the many aspects involved in the celibacy discussion considered by the signers to be necessary, urgently in 1970 – the propriety and necessity of discussion, the acceptance of the present role of celibacy, the possibility of other priestly “life forms”, the problem of transition if rules were to change, consequences of celibacy as it is, etc. It is a soundly reasoned presentation of the complex issue that needs to be addressed rather than proposed conclusions, which it explicitly avoids.
If it had been openly and honestly addressed in the last 40 years, the subject of celibacy wouldn’t be awash today in simplistic demands, one-point vague rejoinders, and absurd imagery like arranged marriage and a priest’s spousal dimensions. The signers note (Sect. III) that the present rule leads not only to a reduction in numbers but also to a reduction of talent. Perhaps that is what we see.
(If we were still in the less enlightened days of the 1970s, it would probably be safe to compliment the author above on her astuteness in recognizing that the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach.)
In case anyone besides me doesn’t know what vir probati means (Ed, 5:49 pm) :
“For example, he could figure out a way to get it put on the agenda of his national conference’s next meeting.”
A US bishop told me in 1978 that the Vatican formally forbids bishops from discussing celibacy; that was in the time of Paul VI. Presumably the same prohibition remains in force.
Paul VI was surprised when the 1971 Synod rejected the proposal to ordain married men. “Why did they turn it down?” he asked.
The Gospels certainly say that Simon bar Jonah had a mother-in-law, who waited on Jesus, which of course indicates that he was at one time married. But the Gospels say nothing of the wife of Simon, later Peter. Was she still alive when he was called by Jesus or when Peter later began preaching after Pentecost, or had she died by then? The Bible does not say.
Did Peter bring her along with him if she was still alive, or did he leave her alone at home? Again, the Bible does not say.
But one thing is clear from scripture and from Tradition — Peter did not continue in the married life that he had previously been in. And there are few, if any, indications that any of the other Apostles had ever been married.
Certainly, Jesus did not marry in the usual sense. His Bride is the Church.
And while His mom did marry, the marriage between Mary and Joseph was a virginal marriage, just as the marriage between Jesus and the Church is virginal.
And, of course, there is the eschatological dimension to the entire matter, not to mention the Trinitarian aspect. That is, the fact that Jesus has expressly said that we do not have husbands and wives in heaven. Yet, the faithful are nevertheless in a loving relationship that is unitive and fruitful, that is, a spousal-like relationship, where each is one with God and God is one with them, such that they are therefore one with each other, a loving communion of persons, just as with the Trinity.
As for the idea of a spousal relationship supposedly being recent, consecrated women religious have from early on considered themselves to be brides of Christ, e.g. St. Agnes, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Therese of Lisieux.
Christian virginity was considered from the earliest centuries to be a special spousal offering made by the soul to Jesus.
I understand that St. Bernard wrote about the idea as well.
Retired bishops, like retired people anywhere, probably feel free to voice taboos. No doubt it’s a convenient way for the Church to let the unspeakable enter into informal conversation above ground. There was another retired bishop, this one from Latin America, who recently also bruited the idea. Maybe it’s on retired bishops’ invisible agenda. Time for Wikileaks to expose the conspiracy and cause another scandal.
St Paul does speak of his celibacy as exceptional (1 Cor 7:6) and says the other apostles are accompanied by wives (1 Cor 9:5), specifically mentioning Peter.
“St Paul does speak of his celibacy as exceptional (1 Cor 7:6) and says the other apostles are accompanied by wives (1 Cor 9:5), specifically mentioning Peter.”
Isn’t interesting, Joe, that you will not find 1 Cor 7:6 in the official Lectionary of Readings for Mass, either on Sundays or Weekedays?!
When they have that discussion, I sincerely hope that someone will bring up the fact that making a distinction between marriage before and after ordination makes no sense. Why a marriage may never follow orders seems to be an area where cultural taboos have been enshrined as matters of church discipline. Why should it be acceptable for a married man to be ordained, but not for an ordained man to be married? Why should ordination forever preclude the possibility of entering into marriage? Certainly there are practical challenges, but none that ought to be decisive.
This goes for deacons too.
Bender: What I said was new was not that there is a spousal relationship between Christ and the Church which is, of course, found in the NT itself, but rather the idea that the priest functions “in the role of Christ the Bridegroom,” and particularly the use of this idea to support the law of priestly celibacy in the West. Some are making this association so strict that they implicitly call into question the theological legitimacy of the canonical legislation in the East, which permits the priestly ordination of married men.
An Eastern Catholic Bishop has this to say about married men and ordination:
“We need to say “yes” once again to the man who has a genuine vocation to the priesthood and yet is married. If God calls a person to service and we say no – how damned we shall be for rejecting what God wants.”
I humbly submit that there might be some wisdom in this observation. Adn, by the way, this individual is still in office.
I agree with you, Rita: not only ought we to be open to ordaining married men, but also to allowing celibate priests to marry (if/when married men are ordained). As an aside, an Orthodox priest friend of mine told me that the Orthodox, in not allowing a candidate for the priesthood to marry once he is ordained a transitional deacon, are trying to avoid the situation of a priest active dating in the parish in search of a wife.
The current Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius IV, has allowed for the reception of Roman celibate priests into the Patriarchate’s North American Archdiocese with permission to marry and function as priests. He has also modified another Orthodox canon, that widowed priests cannot re-marry, under certain conditions. There is a principle in Eastern Christian Church law, called ‘epikaia’, that allows for a law to be modified ‘for the good of the Church. They seem to have a flexibility that we Roman Catholics do not have.
Ken, I believe you may be referring to economy (oikonomia) and I believe there is something similar in the Latin rite, but only at the discretion of the pope. It seems unnecessarily centralist to require the pope to be the one to make such dispensations available for converts to Catholic to become married priests.
As a Latin rite Catholic with Ukrainian rite family and friends. I am always amazed at the insularity of some ways of thinking, especially amongst fringe Catholic groups like SSPX. Christopher Dawson wrote that it was with Augustine that the monastic and ministerial priesthood ideals were combined in the west. A fruitful partnership for 15 centuries to be sure, but was the Church made for this rule, or this rule for the Church?
But my support for the option of marriage amongst the latin clergy should not in any way be confused with a denigration of the monastic or religious life, a beautiful vocation in it’s own right, though it is not necessary to tie it to the priesthood.
The prohibition of marriage after ordination is, I believe, very ancient, and shared by both East and West, but exceptions have been made in the West, at least for deacons.
Brian Pinter: It sounds as if this eastern bishop shares the highly indivualized notion of a vocation that is so common in the West: the idea that it is a kind of tap on the shoulder, directly to the man, when the older and sounder notion said that it was a call from the Church and this was interpreted as God’s will for the man, even, in extreme but not rare cases, against his will. Fr. Congar wrote a lengthy article on coerced ordinations. Here’s what I wrote in starting a thread on the subject here five years ago: Hervé Legrand, OP, a French ecclesiologist, specialist in questions of ministry, has an article (in French), available on the web at http://vocations.cef.fr/egliseetvocations/spip.php?article444 , in which he reviews two 20th-century debates as to the meaning of a vocation to the priesthood. The debate was between those who thought a vocation was essentially a matter of an inner divine call and those who thought it was essentially a call from the Church. The first view tends to assimilate vocations to the priesthood to vocations to the religious life; the latter carefully distinguishes them. Of course, it may be that one does not have to choose between the two, but depending on one’s view of the matter, one will have a different idea of whether there really is a “vocations-crisis” or vocations-shortage” in the Church today.
What theological reason would there be for saying that one may receive a direct personal call from God to the priesthood but may not receive one to the episcopate? Imagine knockiing on the door of the Apostolic Nuntiature and announcing: “I believe God is calling me to be a bishop”!
Father Komonchak,
I said “some wisdom”, not total, complete, and absolute wisdom. But thank you for the clarification and insight.
For deacons, exceptions to the rule against marrying after ordination are (apparently) no longer granted at all by Rome. The best deacon I know was just laicized last month, after permission for him to remarry (after being widowed) was refused.
“They, deacons, need to come forward and ask for full ordination or watch a 1000 more parishes close or merge.”
*Full* ordination? I’d have to object to this term. Deacons are already fully ordained to serve in the ministries of the Word, and of charity. As a baptized lay man, I’m also fully ordained. I don’t lack anything I need sacramentally to serve the Church and that as a lay person. But I do agree: many of these men are indeed worthy candidates.
As for the comment about marriage after ordination, I’m sure Rita is aware that a certain stability in one’s state of life is part of the tradition there. However, I would think that a wise bishop could discern carefully with unmarried ordained presbyters and deacons in his care. Unfortunately, if optional celibacy were to be implemented today, those who fear innovation (and others, perhaps) might be alarmed at the numbers of those in orders who would be seeking a marriage.
In a better age, I think the Church could handle such an event. But given the polarization, suspicion, and alienation in the Body today, I suspect we would see a lot of carnage.
That said, these issues need to be discerned. That they have not is evidence of a sin of obstruction against the Holy Spirit.
I don’t have chapter and verse handy, but my recollection is that unmarried deacons can marry if, and only if, all three of the following conditions are true:
* He has children of “tender years”, i.e. young children
* His parents require care
* His assignment is indispensable to the community he serves
As I’ve described it here, these were the requirements that were put in place when the permanent diaconate was restored. But more recently, there was a recent period of years where any single one of the three criteria above would be enough for the deacon to secure permission to marry. But that period of (depending on how one views it) generosity or laxity has now ended, and now, once again, all three conditions must concurrently be in place.
“a wise bishop”
There’s always a catch :-)
The 1970 memorandum of the German theologians is a remarkable document in my opinion, and I appreciate learning about it in the context of this discussion. I have only scanned the translation, but what strikes me right off the bat is the sense of urgency the pervades the letter–”the undersigned…feel themselves compelled”; “Our reflections concern the necessity of an urgent examination…”; “Our plea…”; “an examination must be made”; “we ask the German bishops for a speedy intervention in Rome.” etc. etc.
Beyond this tone, there is the ecclesiologically crucial theme regarding the responsibility and duty of the bishops to speak frankly with the Pope, with whom they are “the highest decision-making authority in the Church,” and “even when such counsel would not be gladly received” [!] Further, there are the astonishingly frank comments pertaining to the 1967 encylical (Sacerdotalis Coelibatus), which on some points “remains behind the theology of the Second Vatican Council” and which in any case “has remained supremely ineffective.” At a later point in the letter it seems that these concerns are also linked to apprehensions about the development and reception of the teaching of Humanae Vitae.
“If a sufficiently great increase of priests is not to be gained without a modification of the law of celibacy–and this question still remains also for our country dangerously open–then the Church simply has the duty to make a certain modification.” Remarkable! If this was the case 40 years ago, is it not even more so today, when parish clusterings and other work-arounds are much more prevalent? Yet among current seminarians I have perceived a fierce defensive of mandatory celibacy. A few years ago, when a sizable number of priests in the Milwaukee
Archdiocese addressed a letter calling for discussion of celibacy to then USCCB President Wilton Gregory, there was a rapid gathering of signatures on a counter-petition among the seminarians of that time.
I would be very curious to know what came of this letter of the German theologians…did the German episcopacy respond? How was the matter viewed in Rome? All very interesting in light of contemporary events, such as the protest movement among Austrian priests.
If it were possible for married men to be ordained to the presbyterate (in the normal course of things) in the Roman Catholic Church, I don’t think that would mean the end of unmarried candidates for the priesthood. Again, the permanent diaconate is a pertinent precedent: both married and unmarried men are ordained to the permanent diaconate. Another good point of reference is the Eastern churches where married men can be ordained to the priesthood. My understanding is that, in the East, the religious orders ordain only unmarried men; and that bishops are chosen from the ranks of the unmarried.
As Bender and Fr. Komonchak have noted, there are good theological reasons to have unmarried men in the priesthood. I would not want to lose that life witness. My belief is that we could retain it – and also have married men in the priesthood on a non-exception basis. There would be powerful witness of fatherhood in such an arrangement, I believe.
Fr. Komonchak,
When you say that exceptions have been made for deacons, to what do you refer? I thought that married men who are ordained to the permanant diaconate must promise never to marry again if widowed. Have there been exceptions made?
A very ancient prohibition, yes. But its roots seem to lie in the presupposition that sexual activity even within marriage is an impediment to holiness of life, and therefore ought to be renounced whenever possible. Or is there another basis for the prohibition?
Ken,
Thanks for seconding my concern. You have brought up one of those practical issues. Dating members of one’s own congregation has always posed a problem, one faced by all Protestant and Anglican communities who permit a married clergy. There are ways to cope. I don’t imagine Catholics will be worse at keeping proper boundaries than anyone else. One also hears the claim that Catholics shouldn’t allow married clergy because there will be divorces or because the church will have to support families. These are practical issues but hardly decisive. We would need to make adjustments to our seminary system too, no question. But none of these issues is insurmountable.
Bender 09/15/2011 – 11:50 pm
You stated:
“The Gospels certainly say that Simon bar Jonah had a mother-in-law, who waited on Jesus, which of course indicates that he was at one time married. But the Gospels say nothing of the wife of Simon, later Peter. Was she still alive when he was called by Jesus or when Peter later began preaching after Pentecost, or had she died by then? The Bible does not say.
Did Peter bring her along with him if she was still alive, or did he leave her alone at home? Again, the Bible does not say.
But one thing is clear from scripture and from Tradition — Peter did not continue in the married life that he had previously been in. And there are few, if any, indications that any of the other Apostles had ever been married.
Certainly, Jesus did not marry in the usual sense. His Bride is the Church.
And while His mom did marry, the marriage between Mary and Joseph was a virginal marriage, just as the marriage between Jesus and the Church is virginal.”
—————————————————-
Bender,
Please remember that Paul’s letters to the early Christian Churches PRECEDES the writings of all the Gospel writers.
In his 1st Letter to the Corinthians, Paul explains the ‘Rights of an Apostle’. In it he states,
“Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas” (the name which Paul usually used to identify ‘Peter’) [1 Cor. 9:5-6].
Obviously, the Apostles and Jesus’ relatives WERE married, and DID travel on their ministry and missionary work WITH their wives. Why wouldn’t they? Being married was the NORM not the EXCEPTION of that time and much later in the life of the early Christian Church.
Also, why would Paul take the time to define the qualities of bishops and deacons (which included women deacons) in his letter to Timothy? The Qualifications of Bishops (1 Tim. 3:1-8) and Qualifications of Deacons (1Tim. 3:8-14) are cited here.
Why were Popes, bishops married for so many centuries—if Jesus taught otherwise? Although in a few place the call to celibacy came a bit earlier {the Spanish Synod of Elvira, for example, of 306—encouraged the married clergy NOT to engage in sexual relationships with their wives}. Pope Damasus (366-384) believed that spiritual fatherhood trumped physical fatherhood. He believed in cultic purity.
This attitude was a distortion of the gospel’s teaching that both the body and the soul are good. In actuality, in promoting celibacy, the Church was in many ways enforcing a Gnostic way of looking at the world.
Although Gnosticism was rejected by the Church (largely because of the work of Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons in his treatise called “Against Heresies” 180 CE) , the Church began accepting the Gnostic concept that spiritual realities were of more value than material realities, or that spirit was nobler than flesh.
Gnostic dualism is completely contrary to the gospel, which is based on the idea that God ‘pitched a tent among humans’ and that God had become man. The Incarnation meant that the body was just as good as the soul. Thus, to say that sexual intercourse in marriage interferes with someone’s holiness is NOT a Christian idea.
Nevertheless, at the Fourth Council of Toledo in Spain in 633, bishops and priests were required to take a vow of chastity, and renounce all sexual activity for life.
But theses requirements were never rigidly kept (some places more strictly than in others). It was not until the year 1139 that the Second Lateran Council definitively settled the question of celibacy in the Western Church. The Council declared any marriage of the clergy invalid as a matter of Church law.
Thanks Tom and Jim for your clarifications concerning the exceptions for deacons.
I appreciate Fr. Joe’s comments regarding the novelty of the idea that the priests is “in persona Christi sponsi” and the retrieval of St. Augustine’s observation that the more appropriate identification for the priest (and for all the baptized?) is as “friend of the bridegroom,” in the manner of John the Baptist. It would certainly be interesting to have a comprehensive history of the genesis and development of this theological meme. I know for a fact though that it is a prominent theme in seminary formation, as a further elaboration of the priest as “in persona Christi capitis.” These supposedly self-evident facts are then taken to warrant not only the maintenance of the discipline of celibacy but the exclusion from the priesthood of women and the idea of excluding even chaste homosexuals for consideration for orders (although in the latter case it baffles me how this could possibly be implemented).
This ongoing discussion illustrates to me the point the nine German theologians laid out with remarkable clarity, firmness, and urgency in 1970. There are a large number of angles that must all be laid on the table together and addressed coherently if the confusion hinted at by the stream of comments above is to be resolved.
The Roman Catholic Church ordains married men without question today. Pope Benedict XVI and John Paul III both have shown that celibacy is a preference but not an absolute requirement. A dramatic example occurred In January 2011, when three wives watched in Westminster Cathedral as their husbands, former Anglican bishops, were ordained as Roman Catholic priests. Less dramatic examples involving priests with many children are reported in the US in recent years.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/15/anglican-bishops-ordained-catholic-priests/print
On keeping away from the celibacy issue in the 1970s, mentioned above, might this have been influenced in part by the major international flashback then in progress, triggered in 1968 by Paul VI’s final encyclical, Humanae Vitae? It is plausible to me that the prospect of opening up another contentious issue, also intimately related to human sexuality, was sufficiently frightening to the authorities at the time to warrant clamping down as firmly as possible on discussion of celibacy. Today, Bishop (Ret.) Daly of Derry is not the first nor last clergyman to speak as he has. Not yet evident is the comprehensive grasp of the whole issue for which the nine theologians aimed 40 years ago.
1)Mandarory Western Rite celibacy is a discipline, not a matter of faith.
2)The continuance of the mandatory notion in view of the shortage of priests is the issue IMOP -not theological arguments back and forth.
3)The import here is another bishop speaks up : of course it seem only that, in general, it’s only retired bishops -and that’s the nub of the problem in terms of having real discussions.
Morris: “Friend of the Bridegroom” was John the Baptist’s self-designation in Jn 329: “He who has the bride is the bridegroom, but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices with joy because of the bridegroom’s voice. This my joy is fulfilled.” This is a reference to the paranymphos and his role in arranging and supervising a marriage (today’s “best man” isn’t quite the same); among other things he was to watch over the chosen woman in order to guarantee her virginity. Many scholars find another reference to the paranymphos in 2 Cor 11:2-3, where St. Paul writes: “I am jealous for you with the jealousy of God. For I have espoused you to one husband so that I might present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear lest as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtlety, so your mind should be corrupted and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.” Augustine makes frequent use of both texts in order to insist that the espousal is between Christ and the Church in a marriage that will only be consummated in the Kingdom. Meanwhile, as a paranymphos, his episcopal role is to be of service to that encounter. So “friend of the Bridegroom” has a specific role; it’s not baptismal friendship with the Lord, which is a different metaphor.
Fascinating…thanks.
At least one US bishop has declared himself “married to the Bridegroom.” Hmmm…
Lisa, I don’t think Abp. Chaput (if that’s who you’re referring to) indicated that he considered himself “married to the Bridegroom” (now that would be really weird). Interestingly, though, he puts Benedict in the position of the paranymphos who facilitates the bringing together of the two partners.
Fr. Komonchak –
Regarding our earlier exchange – does it have to be either/or? Couldn’t a man feel called to the priestood in a personal way and also have the community confirm that call? It seems that someone who felt such a call would be serving the community already in such a way that suggested to others that he would make a good priest. It seems very Latin/western to cast it in such stark terms, either community call or interiorly felt call. I think the Eastern bishop in question would prefer the both/and. And yes, I am sure he would agree with you that no theological argument could be made for knocking at the nuncio’s door and saying “I am called to be a bishop.”
But, Brian, if one may experience such a call to the priesthood, why not also to the episcopate? After all, does not I Tim 3:1 say, “Anyone who aspires to the episcopate aspires to a noble task”? If to one, why not to the other? If not to one, why to the other? Why, that is, theologically?
Bender, there is a tradition that Peter’s wife suffered martyrdom, which while it may be as factual as many another such tradition, certainly indicates that there was widespread belief among the early faithful that Peter was married when Jesus called him to be a disciple. No reason there wouldn’t be, since priestly celibacy is such a late tradition in the church, that really only became mandatory because of fears that married priests would insist on having their children inherit church property they were charged with, or try to have their sons inherit their offices. At the time in question, it made sense. It makes sense no longer. Jesus left us with no specific injunctions on this matter, but it is quite clear that in the earliest days of the church there was no celibacy rule for the priesthood (and when you get right down to it, no priesthood).
You also mention the chastity of certain saints–anyone who takes an honest look at her own recollections of her early life will realize that she and many other young Spanish nuns of that era were anything but chaste. Her decision to abstain from sex when her true work began stemmed from an admirable desire to avoid both the distraction of promiscuity and the restrictions of marriage. It was not in any way based on a belief that physical virginity was a gift you make to God. What on earth would God do with such a gift? God is only concerned with the state of our souls, surely. It was the gift of the great Spanish mystics, Theresa included, to see that the state of one’s soul and the state of the body are two different matters, and that only the soul truly matters to God. To be so obsessed with intact hymens is antithetical to genuine spirituality. And clearly Jesus didn’t ask or care whether his disciples were virgins or not, married or not, male or not. As Mary Magdalene proves pretty clearly. Nor did he think that being married was a disability for someone who wanted to follow him. Nor, as we know full well, did he want men to abandon their wives for any reason.
Let’s stop trying to justify a position that has nothing to do with Jesus by referring to Jesus. Either it helps the church or not–and at present, there is no policy more harmful to the church.
@MP. Nope, not Chaput. It was on a video, he said “I thought I was going to grow up and marry a nice Catholic girl, and instead I married the Bridegroom.” I didn’t save the video and can’t find a link, so no name unless I can verify. But as you said–really weird.
Father Komonchak,
After having for a time lived amongst the Old Order Amish I have learned to be cautious about reading the New Testament as if it were a blueprint. But the more I think about it, the more your proposal might have merit. Choosing wise, tested men for the episcopacy, even there are not ordained priest, might actually be helpful. Some might say that it wouldn’t make matters any worse. Has anyone suggested it formally?
I thought that the bishops had been instructed by JP II not to even talk about the possibility of reversing the celibacy rule. Look at what Archbishop Wuerl of Washington says over at America in his article “A New Relationship: Bishops, theologians and the new evangelization” :
“Another instance of fruitful cooperation, sponsored by both the Committee on Doctrine and the Institute for Church Life at the University of Notre Dame in February 2012, will deal with celibacy and the priesthood. Here again bishops and theologians, including scholars from both q and university faculties, will explore an element of Catholic faith and practice in a way that probably would not be experienced in any secular university setting.”
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=13033
Hmm. The walls are tumbling down?
Should be: ” . . . from both seminary and university faculties.”
Ann, I think you can turn off that auto-correction on your phone. On the iPad, it’s in setup, general, keyboard.
Prohibitions on discussing celibacy probably pertain only to public speech. I’m sure it’s discussed in private, and among the curia. The problem with discussing anything in public is that people become easily and quickly excited and polarized and lose perspective, if they ever had it.
I see there is great discontent among Dublin priests, especially about the extravagant Eucharistic Congress and the elimination of Parish Priests, an office traditionally counter-balancing the power of the Bishop. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0917/1224304267449.html
The “elimination of Parish Priests”?
“Prohibitions on discussing celibacy probably pertain only to public speech. I’m sure it’s discussed in private, and among the curia. ”
What the bishop I met told me is that bishops are forbidden to discuss the issue at their meetings.
Do you know of any meeting of bishops where this issue has been discussed?
The Archdiocese of Dublin is cutting back on Parish Priests and reducing the status of priests in change of parishes (often several parishes). This sounds like effective pastoral streamlining on paper, but in practice it progressively diminishes the presence of any counterweight to the bishop’s circle.
On priestly celibacy, there might be one possibility (which I believe is already the way around regarding contraception and regarding communion to divorced and remarried Catholics): to quietly ignore the rules.
That is, if a priest lives with a common law wife, we parishioners could support them by treating their situation as normal and by letting them live a normal life together as a couple instead of viewing it as something shameful or reporting them to their bishop.
That’s hypothetical. My first reaction if my parish priest had a common law wife would be a strong disapproval of his breaking his promise of celibacy. But here we are now, stuck in this impasse of non-discussion. If things do not move (as apparently they have not, for the past 40 years!), then, given that we have no power for legal change, maybe those of us who support non-mandatory celibacy can make things change on the ground by supporting it in practice.
Even better, those bishops who support non-mandatory celibacy can let it be understood by their priests that they will take no action against those of them who have a common law wife.
I understand that it is a risky path into the land of lawlessness, but it would be a way out of this impasse.
Fr. O’Leary: Do you have a source for the comment you ascribe to Paul VI? I I checked Hebblethwaite’s biography of Paul VI, and find that on p. 586, he quotes Cardinal Arns as saying, “Paul VI told me personally that if this measure had been accepted [by the Synod of 1971), then he would have carried it out.” But the Pope’s own remarks at the end of the Synod maximized its decision: “From your discussions it emerges that the bishops of the entire Catholic world [sic!] want to keep integrally this absolute gift by which the priest consecrates himself to God; a not negligible part of this gift—in the Latin Church—is consecrated celibacy.”
An article in Vatican Insider 9/16/11 reports on a variety of views on celibacy made public in recent years. “Discussion” implying disciplined, formal discourse and debate is not obvious, but numerous Church officials have evidently talked about the subject before Bishop (Ret.) Daly’s recent entry. Cardinal quotes range from “Celibacy is a rule set by the Church, which can be changed” (Danneels) to “The ban on marriage is such an old rule that it is impossible to alter it” (Herranz). Translation introduces a few obscurities but no evidence of any suppression of outspoken, diverse views.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/celibato-ecclesiastico-clerical-celibacy-celibato-ecclesiastico-8112/
Clare –
An alternative is being practiced in Belgium and the Netherlands as of a year ago. Some Catholics are forming their own parishes, holding Mass with homily and Consecration without a priest. That avoids some of the complexities the “common law” approach would introduce. The possibility you mention would undoubtedly be favored by the group of Italian mothers of priests’ children who complained in writing to the Pope last year about being abandoned and ignored. At some point, the distinction between celibacy, meaning unmarried, and continence, often said to be implied but seldom discussed, needs to be addressed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/world/europe/17iht-belgium.html
Jack: I am afraid that the Belgian experiment is too much of a stretch for me. I know my post was a bit provocative, but it’s about at the limit of my imagination — “Consecration without a priest” doesn’t mean anything to me…
Are marriage and the priesthood states of life, are they what the person is, or are they merely something that the person does?
Is the priesthood merely a job, an occupation, or does Holy Orders affect the very nature of the one who receives the sacrament, does the Holy Spirit fundamentally alter the soul of the recipient, as in the case of Baptism and Confirmation?
If the priesthood is merely a job, to whom does the married priest owe his primary allegience, to wife or God/Church? Is there an inherent conflict of interest in such a job for a married priest? Or can the married priest “serve two masters” equally?
If, on the other hand, the sacramental priesthood operates on an ontological/existential level, concerning what the priest “is” and not merely what he “does,” is that altered nature, conforming the priest to be an alter Christus, compatible with the nature of the person who receives the Sacrament of Matrimony, given that Christ did not single out one person to take as a spouse, but has taken the entire Church as His Spouse.
Bender –
Your “merely”s beg the question. Asking the same questions, without the “merely”, raise important issues deserving an answer. The three alternatives you start off with are not necessarily exclusive.
Your 3rd question suggests another question. What would be the relation between bishop and priest’s spouse if the priest were married?
” if a priest lives with a common law wife, we parishioners could support them by treating their situation as normal and by letting them live a normal life together as a couple instead of viewing it as something shameful or reporting them to their bishop.”
Setting aside any objections I would have to what you suggest, I just want to point out that all it would take is one scandalized parishioner to blow the priest’s cover. And we can assume that there would be many scandalized parishioners.
There have been analogous situations with homosexual church employees. Theoretically, lay homosexuals in church ministry (parish ministry, parish school teacher – that sort of thing) are supposed to be living as the church wishes – which is to say, in celibacy. In practice, quite a few live with partners (or so I believe – I have no statistics on the matter, I’m simply commenting on what I see by looking around). I know personally of at least two cases in which whistleblower parishioners complained to the bishop. One, the Bill Stein case in the Rockford, IL diocese, led to the summary firing of a very talented and well-regarded parish musician. It received some publicity a few years ago. http://www.catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=6583
If a priest has promised to remain celibate for the rest of his life, then it’s not unreasonable to expect him to keep it. It’s not exactly the same, but not entirely different, either, to expect a married person who has promised to stay with his spouse in sickness and in health, in good times and bad, for as long as they live, to keep that promise.
If we think having married priests would be good for the church (and I would have no objection), I think the thing to do is to work to change it via regular channels – we should pursue ways of changing the applicable laws. It’s too defeatist to say, ‘we have no say in the matter.’ This is not a case where the desired change is a doctrinal impossibility. As I’ve written before, the Pope could unilaterally change the practice today if he wished. There is nothing wrong with any of us writing a letter to our bishop or the Holy Father requesting the change. Indeed, it would be much better coming from a faithful layperson than from a priest, on whom suspicion of self-interest might fall.
Bender: your third question reminds me of a priest who once shocked a parishioner, a woman mother of six young children who took great pains to find time to go to Mass on Sundays, by telling her: “Your place is not at church but at home taking care of your children.”
To whom does the Catholic parent of young children owe their primary allegiance, to children or God/Church? To whom does the Catholic spouse of a non-Catholic owe their primary allegiance, to spouse or to God/Church?
I can’t stand false dichotomies:
being a priest is not merely a regular job, but a speciallly graced postion as rep and servant of God’s people – of course grace builds pn nature -but not an “ontological change.”
I think change won’t come through regular channels becuase the beaurarcracy uses regular channels to reinforce its way of doing busines; change migh tcome through good bishops/ priests and laity conrinuing t ospeak out and up about necessary change.
I’d like to go back to the reasons that legitimate a deacon’s marriage that Jim P. listed above. Even if they are not being applied today (as Tom Baker suggests) they spell out a way of thinking. The more I’ve thought about them, the more they appear strange and inadequate.
Thanks, Jim P, for offering this information, and my reaction is no reflection on you, but I have to say these elements exemplify a workhorse view of wives, a pragmatic view of deacons, and a low view of marriage itself.
Think about those three criteria (listed by Jim above). Young children? Elderly parents? Well, I guess elder care and nannies are too expensive, so we’ll let you get a wife! A deacon’s ministry is indispensible to his community? Well, if we could get someone else, we would, but we can’t so I guess we’ll let you get married — if you insist!
Isn’t there something wrong with all of this?
The common experience among those who wish to marry–the experience of love and intimacy and trust that desires a lifelong commitment–does not dare to put its head above the parapet here. Why not?
The paschal nature of marriage, in which one dies to self for the sake of greater life and love in the world, does not dare be admitted out loud. Why not?
Because even as married deacons are permitted, it’s a concession to weakness, and celibacy is still always being upheld as the higher way. The subtext of these norms is that marriage is a low state of life, normally incompatible with holy orders, and that a wife is household help, rather than the “helpmate” described in the book of Genesis.
Like Jim P, and some other who have commented, I admire and find inspiring the many celibates I have known who live their faith splendidly. I think religious life too can be a fantastic gift and witness to the gospel. I do not think that marriage is always the best choice for everybody. I am also quite aware of the pressures a person is under who must provide for young children or elderly parents.
But I have a rather high view of marriage, and I find it bizarre to think that someone may marry to get help taking care of elderly parents, but not for love. By speaking of love, I am not talking “hearts and flowers” or puerile infatuation, but the love that gives of the self as long as life lasts. That’s marriage.
Thanks Rita for proposing an explanation of the list given by Jim. The first item was clearly related to getting married, and the third one was clearly related to staying a deacon, but I honestly couldn’t figure out what the “His parents require care” item had to do either with staying a deacon or with getting married.
On feeling “called to be a bishop”…
I would suggest that the fact that there are individuals who “feel called” to priesthood is a sign of the health of the ecclesial organism. Usually people “feel called” to something because they perceive the charism involved in living it out. They have a sense that it is a gift from God to be X. Further, they sense that such a gift or something that seems very much like this gift is nascent in themselves. And finally, they desire to put themselves in a position of testing this intuition and offering whatever God-given gift they may have to the community. The community then discerns as well, and if there is agreement, the process of confirming this call and integrating it into the life of the community is undertaken mutually.
Bob Nunz is right about false dichotomies. Being called and feeling called are compatible phenomena. God speaks through the community, and also through the stirrings of the Spirit in the individual. We need both.
The reason why so few people “feel called to be a bishop” is because — sad to say — being a bishop seems to most people NOT to be a charism at all, but to be part of a power structure. To feel called to be a bishop under such circumstances seems to imply that one desires to be picked out by the pope or a committee of bishops, promoted to power. It feels more like vanity or wanting to be in charge rather than a response to God or a sense that one is the bearer of a gift of the Spirit for the upbuilding of the church.
Frankly, I wish that more people felt “called to be a bishop.” If the living out of this office were clearly a vital, gospel-filled witness, I believe they would. The fact that they do not is a reflection of how flaccid and uninspiring the ministry of the bishop is for most Catholics.
“Are marriage and the priesthood states of life, are they what the person is, or are they merely something that the person does?”
Bender –
You seem to separate some important *parts* of our whole, complex reality from the basic, underlying being (substance) that we are, and your view of a person suffers for because of it.
For instance, what do you mean by “merely something that a person does?” Is not the best of what we *do* (namely, love) the most important *part* of what we *are*? We are complex being, Bender, not pure, simple Love, as is God. We’re made up of parts, more or less important parts..
You also ask, “. . .does the Holy Spirit fundamentally alter the soul of the recipient, as in the case of Baptism and Confirmation?”
Here you seem to be assuming that only the Sacraments alter the soul. But if by soul you mean our basic spiritual reality, then all sorts of realities are added to it or removed from it, not just the sacramental “marks” which are the results of the reception of a sacrament. For instance, besides sacramental graces, ordinary good habits are added to our soul/basic spiritualreality, and bad habits deform the whole unit which we call “me”. For instance, the good habit of speaking kindly to people we dislike or the bad habit of snarking on the internet.
I know there is a lot of talk by some theologians these days about “ontological changes” that are the result of the reception of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. But all “ontological” means is “real”, and \ in this wide, wide world of ours there are more and less important ontological, i.e., real things. For instance, if I stub my toe that is also an ontological change in the whole unit I call “me” because something — pain — has been added to me momentarily. Yes, reception of Holy Orders is an ontological change (i.e., not just a thought about a change), and it is a very great ontological (real) change. But it is only one real change among many.
As I see it the theologians who keep throwing that word around are trying to impress people with the importance of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and, a fortiori, emphasizing the supposed superiority of priests. By applying a fancy term (“ontological”) to the reception of Orders they seem to be trying to add some wonderful, ancient Catholic metaphysical description to the priest by using a term which suggests it has been taken from the Greek fathers, perhaps, and honed by the ancient theologians. But all “ontological” means is “real” as opposed to merely mental, and it’s not even an ancient term in the first place — it’s not even a medieval term. It was invented in the 17th century and is really just a synonym for “metaphysical”. So why keep repeating it, when it doesn’t describe any real, specific value to what a priest is?
You also refer to the “altered nature” of the priest. That is some terminology I don’t remember seeing in the readings I’ve done in Scholastic philosophy/theology, but I’m not a theologian so I could have missed such usage. But I’d like to hear more about the theological history of this phrase in Catholic theology. (Sounds more like JP II to me than Anselm or Aquinas, and if Aquinas did use it, it was not a typically clear usage of his usual metaphysical vocabulary.)
You also ask: “If the priesthood is merely a job, to whom does the married priest owe his primary allegiance, to wife or God/Church?”
I say this is a false dilemma. *Everyone* owes his/her primary allegiance to God, and if one believes God never demands more than we’re capable of one. one will not think of lesser allegiances as stumbling blocks but as opportunities. In fact, a wife can be a help to a priest in his actions directed towards God. Granted, there would be times when a married priest must choose between attending to a parishioner’s problem and a family member, but charity rules no matter what, and prudential judgments also have to be made when choosing between two parishioners who need help at the same time. (You might also look at it this way: a priest’s family members are also his parishioners, so there is no real opposition between the claims of his family members and the claims of his other parishioners. )
By the way, I knew some wives of Protestant ministers who viewed their marriages as whole units devoted to the work of God. They didn’t take any added vows, but I was always impressed with their generosity in seeing themselves as parts of a whole committed to God. Your dichotomy really distorts the value of the Sacrament of Marriage, I think. Maybe the deacons on the blog could add something here.
Sorry to go on at such lengths, but you raise some im
Hi, Rita, I pretty much agree with your assessment of those criteria for deacons remarrying. It’s a somewhat strange list. The implications of wife as scrubwoman and laundress haven’t been lost on me, although my experience as an American husband has been that having young children or elderly parents to care for can and should engage both spouses. I guess I would file the criteria under the heading, “practical accommodation”. I don’t think it’s particulary well thought out.
But the fact that practical accommodation, of a sort, is possible in the case of deacons does underline that such accommodation is not theologically/doctrinally impossible for priests, either. Thus, to extend it rather unimaginitively, istm that it could be possible for a married priest in the Roman Catholic church (of which there are a few) who becomes widowed to remarry for some of the same practical reasons given for deacons.
I understand that the Orthodox have made a sort of practical accommodation with regard to divorce and remarriage: one can divorce and remarry until the third marriage, but no more (I hope I’m recalling that correctly). Why a fourth marriage would be theologically or doctrinally or ontologically different, I don’t understand, but I don’t claim to have looked into the matter very deeply. But what I read into the policy is an attempt to balance marital reality with marital tradition and theology. The Roman Catholic practice of annulments is a different, probably less practical but theologically pure, way to strike the same balance.
I just understood something else, thank to Jim. The condition “He has children of “tender years”, i.e. young children” does not refer to children that he has had with the woman he wishes to marry, but to children he has had with the woman from which he is widowed!
Maybe Jim just made up that list as a joke.
I found Jim’s list. It was not an invention of his fertile imagination, but the “elderly parents” condition disappeared in 2005. Now the conditions are: “great pastoral usefulness of the deacon’s ministry, attestation by the bishop, and the care of minor children.”
http://www.bostondiaconate.org/News/CircularLetter0603.pdf
Having raised the theological aspect earlier, and having raised some questions about the practical aspects of a married priesthood –
The potential for conflicts of interest are not limited to the area of married priests. There are many people in many occupations who put career before family or family before career. Sometimes the two may peacefully co-exist, but occasionally there will be conflict.
For example, you might have a CEO who has effectively abandoned his wife and kids by spending all his time at the office. You might have a public policy lawyer whose time with her children is spent mostly in driving them to daycare and who spends few of her waking hours with her husband because she is working on some big case seeking to protect other peoples’ children. Then you might have the employee who never really helps the company grow, or the professor who does not publish a bunch of papers to help the university get the big grant, because their priority is to spend time with their families.
Can a married priest fully and completely juggle both? Having made a complete gift of self to one, can he make a complete gift to the other as well? Or will he be an incomplete priest and an incomplete husband? Will he inevitably end up ill-serving both Church and wife? Must the wife be forced to share?
Jim, Just a little clarification from someone who attended the Eastern Orthodox Church of my spouse from 1969 to 1984. The three marriage limit is a concession given to lay people. Priests and Deacons must be married before they are ordained and may not remarry in the event of death or divorce. The Orthodox maintain that one marriage is the Christian ideal and that this ideal should be lived by the clergy. A fourth marriage starts to look like polygamy to them. The late Fr. John Meyendorff wrote that any man engaged in courtship was not emotionally stable enough to shepherd the souls of parishioners. Hence no clerics should be involved in courtship. I remember that in the late 1980s the Greek Archbishop of New York ignored the rules and married the governor to someone with multiple divorces during Lent. It was shocking.
Claire – I’m not that creative :-). Thanks for the link, the rules are slightly different than what I had recalled. Given that to remarry would require the approval both of the diocesan bishop and the Congregation of Clergy, it’s not surprising that some requests don’t get approved.
I don’t see a shade of difference between a deacon’s obligation to take care of needy parents and a *priest’s* obligation to do so. True, as it usually happens, priests have siblings (more often than not single ones) who take care of needy parents, but deacons and priests also sometimes find themselves with needy parents, and it seems to me that the obligations, whether for single persons, married ones, deacons or priest are the same: when a parent is in need, one must help them, even to supporting them.
“Consecration without a priest” doesn’t mean anything to me…–
Claire and all,
The emergence of the priest can be argued as poor theology. There does not seem to be a “priest” at Corinth and the office appears to have grown out of privilege rather than good theology. Vatican II showed how the leader of the liturgy is the “Presider.” There is really no Eucharist without the congregation. The exaltation of the priestly state led to the shameful proliferation of private masses, to certain men being ordained just to say masses, and of course to the selling of masses which lasts to this day. It is such a distortion to say this mass is being offered for one person when it first and foremost is offered for and by those present.
The sacraliztion of the “priesthood” has led to such poor theology in the church whereby one person is exalted above everyone else and when there is a dearth of such wonder boys the church should be left without a Eucharist. This is absurd. Jesus said when two or three are gathered in my name there I am in the midst of you. Certainly we need organization and order. Unfortunately it too often leads to power and exploitation rather than service to the people. So the scandal of lack of “priests” is the sin of leadership who do not understand the principle of “ecclesia supplet” or the Church supplies. The people make the church and whenever they are gathered they make the Eucharist happen. How can the royal priesthood not have a Eucharist?
Bender (5:29 pm):
That might have worked better in times when intelligent women were apparently content to be auxiliaries to their husbands’ lives. A curate’s wife might have been his social secretary, housekeeper, and the nanny of his children. Intelligent women today don’t buy into that role, of course, so I imagine that a married clergyman would have much more trouble balancing his home and church lives today than in, say, the nineteenth century. It seems extremely problematical. It will be interesting to see how the new priests in the ordinariate manage it.
I do not see how it will be any different from their procedures as Anglicans. My Anglican priest was married for 51 years to a college dean. They raised four children and have numerous grandchildren. He says Mass every day. He always prays for her, especially on the anniversary of her passing to eternal life. There are two people in my parish who are children of Anglican priests, and they are devoted to the life of the Church. Unless those new ordinariate parishes grow so big that other priests need to be hired, I cannot see how any changes would be necessary.
Verity, are you saying there’s essentially no difference between the Anglican priesthood and the Roman Catholic priesthood? Just asking – I know nothing about it.
My point about a vocation to be a bishop was not that some people might not believe they have received one, but that the Church does not recognize one, whereas of late it has made some kind of experience of a personal call to the priesthood a condition of ordination, a view that is quite novel, as Legrand shows in the essay I mentioned. Part of the problem is that the call to the priesthood has often been assimilated to the call to the religious life (not to mention that many of the theologians who have written about the priesthood are members of religious orders). The vocations should be regarded as quite distinct. Diocesan priests, for example, do not take the three vows.
On the alleged ontological change involved in ordination: The “character” of orders, as also of baptism and confirmation, has been described as “an indelible mark imprinted on the soul.” But this is obviously metaphorical language. The soul is immaterial and so can’t be imprinted upon. What, then, does it mean? There is no official and certainly no dogmatic explanation of what the “character” is, and view have ranged from some sort of ontological configuration of the man to Christ to a new juridical relationship within the Church.
I think the problem can’t be settled until greater attention is given to the “ontology” of social relationships, or to a metaphysics of community. Is Barack Obama ontologically the president of the United States? If not, why not? If you think that the result of an ordination is that the man now is ontologically something he was not before, does this differ from what Barack Obama became ontologically when he took the oath of office? What does “ontologically” mean? More than simply “really”? If so, what is this “more”? Some people think of ontology as what you reach when you peer really deeply into the metaphysical equivalent of a really powerful electron microscope that takes you much deeper than appearances to what the thing really is, deep down there. I think that’s a myth.
Verity wrote: “The late Fr. John Meyendorff wrote that any man engaged in courtship was not emotionally stable enough to shepherd the souls of parishioners.”
John Meyendorff may have been a great theologian, but this statement is just silly. What sort of emotional instability are we talking about here? Smiling at divine service? Day dreaming on the way to visit the sick? Lay persons are expected to exercise a certain maturity, including self-knowledge and self-control, and to continue in responsible roles – be it as a therapist or a medical doctor or a spiritual director — while courting. I should hope we could expect clergy to do so as well!
“Some people think of ontology as what you reach when you peer really deeply into the metaphysical equivalent of a really powerful electron microscope that takes you much deeper than appearances to what the thing really is, deep down there. I think that’s a myth.”
Agree. A most dangerous myth which has led to illusions of grandeur and terrible behavior. How can one so ontologically so do any evil?
On Paul VI’s remark coming out of the Synod, I must have read it in The Tablet, probably in a piece by Hebblethwaite.
At the same Synod, as Schillebeeckx recounts in his book on ministry, Cardinal Conway declared that — non nobis, Domine, non nobis — the Irish clergy had no problems with celibacy.
…as Legrand shows in the essay I mentioned.
I’m afraid that that link does not work.
Bill, I don’t know what a priest is, but I have experienced what he does from being on the receiving side. He helps us get closer to Christ. As far as I can tell, on a routine basis he achieves that: by giving inspiring homilies made more compelling by the integrity of his life; by praying for us; by the Eucharist; and sometimes, perhaps, by the sacrament of Reconciliation. I interpret the “royal priesthood” bit as meaning that we also have a mission to help one another on our way towards Christ, but the means are different — for us I guess it would be mostly by the way in which we would live our lives, and by our mutual prayer.
Why do we not have direct access to most sacraments, and why do we need priests for them? You seem to say it’s brainwashing. But you, who likes to cite the bible directly, must recognize the special role given by Jesus to the apostles.
As to bishops, we need someone to be first down here so that they can be last when we get to the Kingdom.
Claire: See if this link brings you to the Legrand article on vocations: http://vocations.cef.fr/egliseetvocations/spip.php?article444
To be clear: I am not denying that the ministerial priesthood and the baptismal priesthood are the same; they are not. I would be willing even to say that there’s an essential or ontological difference, but by “ontology” I may mean something different from what other people mean. Reification is a constant temptation when thinking about social realities and relationships.
Claire,
There are several corruptions of the bible. The story of Paul saying on one hand that women should be quiet in church and on the other saying that they can preach, be prophets and other charisms. Somebody clearly messed with the texts. There certainly is a need for leaders. But we must recognize charisms in other people also. The Woman at the well was an apostle as well as Mary Magdalene. Apostle means one who was sent. The problem is that empire builders made an empire out of the church rather than a servant church. When the people are together there is the Eucharist as Jesus promised. There are certainly many good things that the RCC has done. But we have to challenge the distortions.
As long as the motivation isn’t that celibacy is too hard, or that the demands of chastity are unrealistic.
Today my glass salt shaker seemed completely empty, yet when we used it we could see small salt grains falling on our food. I joked: “It’s a miracle!” and we kept using it. At some point the grains became so small that we could no longer see them. I asked the person shaking the salt shaker vigorously up and down in the air above the plate: “Is that for real, or is it just symbolic?” They answered: “I think it’s for real”.
The good thing is that at least we can taste the salt even if we can’t see it, so we know with certainty that it is there.
David Smith, As a lay person and a convert to a traditional Anglican breakaway group that is NOT in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, I am not competent to say it, but I do not think that the Roman Catholic Church considers Anglican ordinations to be valid. At this point the Anglican Catholic Church does not consider Episcopal Church ordinations to be valid. I personally do not think this is too important. If a person wants to come to Christ in the Eucharist and is committed to keeping the Ten Commandments, then that is the most important aspect of worship and it does not really matter if the Eucharist is transubstantiated or the presence of Christ in it is spiritual. Ithink that Christ is more concerned with how we conduct our lives than with whatever doctrines we believe. My main point is that Anglican/Episcopal Priests do the same type of pastoral duties, i. e. conducting religious rites, visiting the sick, going to synods and meetings as any Roman Catholic priest would do and that they can do these duties very well in the married state. I have met many clerical wives, and IMO they function very well as professionals and as mothers and they are very compassionate to the problems of parishioners such as myself. Of course, I am used to a married clergy. Roman Catholics are seeming to wonder if such a practice can work for them.
Rita, I see your point about being mature Christians who behave in mature ways, but I think that the reality is that many of us are not as mature emotionally as we should be and that a cleric who is not emotionally mature cannot function well if he is not in a stable relationship. I have seen a recently divorced Presbyterian cleric lose his job because he was nowhere to be found when people needed him. So, it is in any church’s best interests to figure out how to ordain only men who are in stable marriages. BTW widower Eastern Orthodox Priests who remarry usually take on other jobs in the church such as choir director. I have been told that most Anglican/Episcopal Priests do not remarry after the death of their wives; however, they may do so because they are govern by the same marriage rules as lay people.
“I have been told that most Anglican/Episcopal Priests do not remarry after the death of their wives; however, they may do so because they are governed by the same marriage rules as lay people.”
Not exactly. Episcopal priests who wish to marry for the first time, or after the death or divorce of a spouse, must receive permission from the bishop. Often this is merely pro forma … except in the case of divorce. In that case, the priest must undergo a period of self-examination to see if he truly has a vocation to marriage.
Episcopal priests are supposed to remain chaste in or out of marrriage; certainly, they may not live out of wedlock with a woman.
In their haste to shut down objections to his elevation with cries of “homophobe,” many of Bishop Gene Robinson’s supporters overlooked the fact that, had he been a heterosexual living with his girlfriend following a divorce, he would not have been elevated, much less allowed to continue as a priest. Moreover, since the Episcopal Church cannot marry homosexuals, he could not have married his lover even if he had wanted to. So the situation posed (and, in my view continues to pose) a theological double-standard for gay and straight clergy.
OTOH, the elevation of Episcopal bishops is, to some extent, made through popular acclamation; Robinson was the bishop his people wanted, and I have heard no complaints of him.
There is usually some examination of lay couples who present themselves for marriage in the Episcopal Church, A priest may decline to marry anyone he or she feels is unfit. Couples in which one party has been divorced once will usually receive special counseling. As far as I know, anyone who has been divorced twice cannot remarry in the Episcopal Church, but he or she is not automatically barred from communion.
Lay couples may marry outside the Episcopal Church without prior dispensation. I believe that dispensation IS required from the bishop for an Episcopal priest to be married outside the denomination.
However, making blanket statements about marriage and ordination in the Episcopal Church is dicey nowadays …
I really don’t care whether a priest is married or not, and it’s clear that Rome has decided that, at least in some cases, priests MAY marry.
I do not think that being married is a sign of maturity or stability, or makes someone less likely to be a sexual predator.
My hat’s off to anyone who marries a clergyperson and puts himself or herself up for the kind of scrutiny and criticism they usually receive. (Raber occasionally talkes about the diaconate, but I’m sure I’m the reason he doesn’t pursue it. Plus, he wouldn’t be able to marry anyone nice after I die!)
There are, however, a number of ecumenical and denominational associations that support the spouses of the clergy and help them with their special roles in Christian life.
If part of the reason for married clergy is to ensure abundant priests and open parishes, then most Catholics are for it. We are spiritual and need the Eucharist. However, how did we get to this situation of less priests and closed parishes? It is the seminary system that is broken and has been broken for over 40 years! Courses in Spirituality were non-existent and those eminent seminary professors who opened our minds in class rarely practically applied it for spiritual consumption and direction. Thus, seminarians entered the priesthood with knowledge but no inspiration toward spirituality. Without genuine spirituality and a focus on the “new life” to be lived, how can we expect the preaching of those men to move other men who are considering a vocation to the priesthood? Please! Please! Let us work with what we have. Let us talk about changing the seminary curricula and professors. Why not have those who have left the priesthood and who love the Church explain their seminary experience, their priesthood, their married life, their present spirituality? Reality: and yet how can this be when the Archdiocese of NY will not even allow former priests to teach in their Catholic grammar and high schools so as to bring a sense of spirituality to our youth.
For me, the critical point in this discussion is not the ordination of married men, or women, or celibates, or any other human subgroup. It is not what has been the tradition or outside the tradition. It is not some obscure or arcane interpretation of local church history.
It is whether the PEOPLE of a particular parish or diocese get to choose their own priest or bishop that would minister to them.
I don’t really care if the man or woman to be ordained is gay, straight, lesbian, transgender, or pink polka dot for that matter.
Does the assembled Body of Christ have the right to exercise its inherent authority to call whomever they deem worthy to be their minister?
I know that this will send a lot of traditional authoritarian types into apoplexy because they think they will lose control of the priesthood. And they will be right.
Democratize the priesthood and hierarchy and much of the present calamitous state of the church will be assuaged.
After fixing the priesthood, we can get on to greater task of making the Christian Gospel relevant to all the young women and men, some yet to be born, who will needed to pass on the Kerygma.
Sorry, I hit the submit icon before I had finished my thought:
After fixing the priesthood, we can get on to greater task of making the Christian Gospel relevant to all the young women and men, some yet to be born, who will BE needed to pass on the Kerygma.
In case anyone hasn’t noticed, millions of men and women are abandoning the Catholic Church, in every culture, on every continent.
The Catholic Church either changes and evolves, or we die.
Thanks for the link to the interesting Legrand article.
Professor Komonchak, your comments about ‘ontology’ suggest a topic at the intersections of sociology, theology, and philosophy.
I came across a “Section on Sociology of the Body and Embodiment” at the website of the American Sociological Association: http://www.asanet.org/sections/body-embodiment.cfm#.
Are you aware of any research in your own or other professions about ‘ontology’?
Your thinking on the subject certainly makes more sense than the prevalent understanding in the church.
Ecclesiology has to be done “at the intersections of sociology, theology, and philosophy,” which is what I’ve been attempting ever since I started teaching courses on the Church in 1967. I have looked mainly to social theory of various stripes (e.g., Berger-Luckman, Anthony Giddens) and to philosophers such as Josiah Royce and John Searle, esp. the latter’s “construction of social reality.” I’m mainly opposing the reification of the Church as if it could do without human beings. What is the subjective and inter-subjective reality that realizes and makes it true that Christ has built a Church? I’m much influenced by Bernard Lonergan and his criticism of what he calls “the already out there now real.”
Thank you. It was after I hit the “Submit” button that I recalled your mentioning Searle’s work from a comment of yours at the thread in CY 2009, subject: Participatio Actuosa. Thank you for the additional references.