Gingrich on homosexuality, celibacy.
In a stance that seems designed to tick off almost everybody, GOP presidential front-runner Newt Gingrich compared the “choice” for homosexuality to the “choice” for celibacy. Sigh…who catechized this man?
He gets the science right, gotta give him that. Recent studies point to a combination of genetics and environment as the source of sexual orientation, (gay or straight.) This, of course, doesn’t make sexual orientation a choice. Then he said people have a range of choices around sexual activity–also right.
So when pushed by a reporter at the DesMoines Register, “So a person can then choose to be straight?” the candidate said,
Look, people choose to be celibate. People choose many things in life. You know, there is a bias in favor of non-celibacy. It’s part of how the species procreates. And yet there is a substantial amount of people who choose celibacy as a religious vocation or for other reasons.
OK, let’s sort this out. Had Newt said “Gay sex is unnatural, so all gay people should endeavor to live lives of celibate chastity,” he’d be on solid RC ground. But the unnuanced comparison to celibacy doesn’t work. First, in RC teaching we think the ability to live celibate life peacefully is a gift, not a mere choice. Stories abound of people trying to live the life who just can’t. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is experienced as a given, a deeply rooted aspect of our incarnate humanity. I’d say that sexual orientation is a gift, but it is universal–everybody’s sexuality is a gift, which THEN each person discerns how to respond to, in questions like that of whether that gift of sexuality came bundled with the gift of celibacy also. Newt’s confusion was to parallel two questions–orientation and celibacy–that simply are not parallel, but sequential.
This is not unlike the earlier kerfuffle when Newt said life begins at implantation. Many Christians of good will hold this position, but it is incompatible with Catholic doctrine at present. In the fray, he quickly revised his opinion for a purist life-at-conception stance. Again–who catechized this man?
Of course, the church’s stance on sexuality requires a presumption of natural heterosexuality, an assumption that homosexual orientation is a disordered state, since sexuality is naturally ordered to procreation. The magisterium then tosses in the moral evaluation: homosexual orientation is a more or less strong inclination to serious moral evil–it’s ok to be gay, but never to express one’s orientation in an actual sexual relationship. Newt could also have said that, but didn’t.
I kind of wish he had, actually. Few really get the Catholic two-step that orientation is blameless, but act is always evil. That’s where I think the best discussion can come–is it really the case that all gay couples are acting out a grave evil? The gay couples I know seem to be people striving their best to live lives of faithful love–just like most straight couples I know. Doesn’t sound like evil to me.
But as to Newt: the gentlest interpretation I can come up with is that Newt’s stance on matters of sexual orientation has some internal tensions that he might work on.
Given his predilection for assorted sexual partners, even if one presumes these are limited to those ladies he has eventually married, taking anything he has to say on sexuality and giving it any credence is stupidity.
I am a professed atheist, but historically have better morals than he does, without the RCC filling me with guilt.
“Sigh…who catechized this man?”
According to the NYT, “Msgr. Walter Rossi, the rector of the basilica, said that he met weekly for seven months with Mr. Gingrich to prepare him for his conversion. The process, called the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, involves individual instruction in the faith, prayer and confession, but Monsignor Rossi said he could not speak about his confidential preparation of Mr. Gingrich.”
Gingrich can be criticized on any number of issues, so I don’t think we have to add one more. He is not comparing celibacy to homosexuality, but clarifying his remarks on sexual choice. When the reporter tries to hijack the discussion, he tries to bring it back to choices people can make, ie celibacy. It may even be that he is implying homosexuality is not a choice!
As a Very Bad Catholic, I’m the last one to criticize Gingrich, and especially his two-left-feet version of “the Catholic two-step” on homosexuality, not even with private “lessons” from a monsignor for seven months.
What Gingrich’s answers on various topics, taken together, DO suggest to me is a pattern of tossing off info with professorial authority when he really hasn’t thought them through. I think looking at the men behind Gingrich is also useful. Frank Luntz, inventor of terms such as “climate change” and “death tax,” is one such eminence grise.
“First, in RC teaching we think the ability to live celibate life peacefully is a gift, not a mere choice. Stories abound of people trying to live the life who just can’t.”
Lisa,
My generation was taught that having or not having sex *was* a choice, whether it meant a life=time of going without or a situation-by-situation choice. It was never a matter of “just not having” sex unless one was mentally unbalanced. When the choice to have sex was not mutual that was rape.
Newt talking about celibacy is about a believable as Newt talking about marital fidelity.
To spring off Jean’s comment: As a Very Bad Catholic and a non-celibate gay man in a 40-year relationship with the SAME man (same, Newt – do you know what SAME means?) I will gladly tell this serial monogamist that he has his head waaaaaaay up his you-know-what.
And if I were Msgr. Rossi, I’d check myself into a long-term retreat to reassess what in the hell I did by actually recommending this idiot for baptism ? reception ? as a Catholic.
Lisa: At 67, I am a bit younger than Ann Olivier. But like her, I was taught that having sex or not having sex was a choice and that homosexuals could live celibate lives by choosing not to have sex — in short, celibacy for homosexuals is a choice.
Next, I notice how you have carefully qualified your statements: “not a mere choice,” you say. However, I must admit that I do not understand the qualification “mere” in connection with “choice.”
But you seem to be working with the contrast of “mere choice” versus “gift.”
But does the “gift” comes first and thereby eliminate any need for “choice”?
Even if the gift comes first in some people, don’t they still have the power of “choice”?
If people have no power of choice, doesn’t the lack of choice render a vow of chastity and celibacy meaningless?
Or could it possibly happen that somebody perhaps tentatively makes the “choice” of the celibate life and perhaps subsequently stumbles and violates in one way or another the “choice” of the celibate life but nevertheless repents and once again makes the “choice” of the celibate life and persists in the “choice” of the celibate life until he or she can live the celibate life peacefully, as you put it?
I should add that the way the word “celibacy” was actually used at least in religious contexts it meant making a *vow* to forego all sex for the sake of devoting one’s life wholly to God. These days I don’t think the word has that connotation. Priests and nuns “took the vow of celibacy” as married people “took the marriage vow”.
Regarding celibacy, it is good to remember that according to Richard Sipe, whose data I believe to be accurate, of Catholic priests who have chosen celibacy, or been given the gift of celibacy, only about half of them are actually practicing it at any given time. And this, of course, does not count the many who request and receive permission to leave and marry.
According to the laws of man I cannot get married. Therefore I cannot CHOOSE something that does not pertain to my life – celibacy.
If Newt et al want to talk about chastity, let them do it. St. Newt and Sr. Callista would be SUCH pros on the subject, wouldn’t they – good Catholics both.
Fie, fie, fie.
If someone drinks, drives, but injures no one, I do not see that as compelling evidence that it is therefore safe to drink and drive.
The idea that celibacy is a gift is nothing more than a twisted interpretation of becoming eunuchs for the Kingdom of God, which is an eschatological pronouncemement, having little to do with sexuality in this world. Priests and religious are celibate because they have no choice not to be. The gift language is propagandistic rationalization to maintain an institution that has long since run its course. Given the statistics on how many priests are actually celibate it can hardly be a gift or a choice. It is an imposition, which many find a work around for.
If there is a diocesan priest looking in, I think he could clear up the difference between “celibacy” and “continence.” if my understanding is correct, diocesan priests make a promise of “celibacy”, which means they can’t marry. Like any other Catholic, straight or gay, any sexual act outside of marriage is a sin, but it isn’t a violation of a priest’s promise of celibacy.
The situation is different for religious order priests – they make a vow of “chastity”, which encompasses sexual acts, not just marriage.
I may be totally wrong, but that is my recollection.
Ah, Newt! Just the presidential candidate to warm the cockles of any hierarchs’ heart.
John – don’t know where you came up with the distinction. Not true. In terms of the words – chastity and celibacy – there are used in the ordination ceremonies which are the same for all priests (dio or religious). Now, you have the added Holy Thursday annual renewal of promises to the local bishop, etc. ad nauseum.
John Hayes,
Religious women and men profess the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Diocesan priests do not take a vow of poverty, but they promise obedience to their ordinary and they promise to be celibate. For them the promise of celibacy is not simply a promise not to marry, but is a promise not to engage in sexual activity with another, since under Catholic canon law that would be illicit. There can be no sexual activity outside of marriage. The promise of celibacy by a diocesan priest is tantamount to a vow of chastity without taking one. Now, the interesting question is which diocesan priest told you his promise of celibacy was just a promise not to marry, allowing for sexual congress (I love that expression) while still being celibate?
Celibacy vs Continence vs Chastity vs Not Allowed to Marry vs Newt & Callista Gingrich:
As that long-time but oft overlooked saint has said more than once:
“When I use a word…it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.”
(Humpty Dumpty in “Through the Looking Glass.”)
Consider all the above in which every occurrence of “celibacy” is replaced by one of the following, as intended:
- unmarried with no sexual activity ever
- unmarried with sexual activity only occasionally
- unmarried with sexual activity routinely a) with concubine b) randomly
- As above with “sexual congress” in place of “sexual activity”
Translating “celibacy” into a word with meaning English-speakers could understand and agree on would be a major step forward. It could do away with the burden of euphemisms like “stumbles and violates in one way or another the “choice” of the celibate life” for “chooses sex”.
Here’s a 10-year -old America article by John W. O’Malley S. J. who, in those days was teaching at Weston Jesuit SChool of Theology. It’s long, so I’ll give a link and just a couple of excerpts:
We need to begin by being clear about the meaning of the word. Celibate means unmarried. It signifies that state of life. In Romance languages the equivalent term, when applied to men (e.g., celebe in Italian), means bachelor. Sometimes in North America people use celibacy, however, as if it were a synonym for chastity or to indicate abstention from sexual activity—“I’ve been celibate for two months.” That is incorrect and confusing usage.
Chastity is a virtue required of all men and women according to their state of life; it is opposed to the vice of lust. When we speak of priestly celibacy, the virtue of chastity is of course implied, but in this instance the virtue is assumed to give shape and spiritual meaning to that state in an especially enhancing way. Nonetheless, the virtue of chastity is distinct from the state of being unmarried. As will become clear below, celibacy must also be carefully distinguished from continence….
Finally, we must clearly distinguish between the discipline of celibacy that is required of (almost) all priests of the Latin rite and the vow of chastity freely undertaken by priests (and others) who are members of religious orders….
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2564
Pot meet kettle. It’s sort of horse shoes close answers. I thought the interesting part is that he didn’t imply as Catholic morality does that homosexual orientation represents a moral failing. Maybe I missed the lesson where the apocryphal, well in the interest of avoiding excessive diatribes I won’t mention the Sister’s name my scholastic Jesuit would ascribe, about how St. Paul’s ‘It is better to marry than to burn’ applied to homosexuality.
Newt’s mouthings are made to appeal to whatever base he thinks he is appealing to. Just because he says something doesn’t mean he believes it. I would believe his ubercapitalist sayings before I believed anything else he said. After all, we have a Republican majority in the Supreme Court. If they were as anti-abortion as they are pro-big business, they would be executing women who’ve had abortions. After his reign was over, Dick Cheney came out of the closet as a supporter of gay marriage since his daughter is a lesbian. I would say the anti-abortion stance of the Republican Party has as much weight.
Professor Mitchell, if I may say so, I’m a bit surprised at your seemingly-cynical attitude about gifts from God which can help someone be at peace with his promise to live a celibate life (which is my understanding of what Lisa was referring to in the original post). I hope the grace of the sacraments does give strength to be staunch enough to keep one’s promises, and help a person to be at peace in her chosen state of life. That grace is the gift to which I assume Lisa was referring (or perhaps grace is one form that the gift can take).
In considering celibacy/continence/abstention from sexual activity, do we perhaps leap to quickly to the clerical or religious ways of life? My observation is that there are quite a few people who are neither clerical or religious but who are not sexually active. The term “bachelor” seems rather quaint now, but it used to be considered an honorable way of life, and quite a few people are living it, even if the term for it has fallen into disuse. Personally, I don’t find it incredible that people can choose to live for long stretches of their lives, or even their entire life, without sexual activity.
The level of debate about gay issues is troublingly low. Those of us on the pro-gay side spend too much time arguing against idiots and too little developing a positive ideology and ethic.
As to celibacy, in the sense Gingrich uses the expression it means sexual continence, which according to Catholic teaching is morally mandatory on all except those lawfully married. Clerical celibacy refers to a promise signed by clerics before receiving first major orders; as far as I recollect, the short text that we signed as pre-subdeacons contained no reference to sexual continence but only to marriage. So I think it is incorrect to say: “For them (diocesan clergy) the promise of celibacy is not simply a promise not to marry, but is a promise not to engage in sexual activity with another, since under Catholic canon law that would be illicit.” As far as I know canon law says nothing about engaging in sexual activity with another, but only about marriage (a cleric who attempts marriage is subject to excommunication, I think). “There can be no sexual activity outside of marriage” — according to the sixth commandment as interpreted by the Church, but not according to Canon Law. “The promise of celibacy by a diocesan priest is tantamount to a vow of chastity without taking one.” Some theologians have argued this in the past, but I think it is a minority opinion. Of course popular and media perceptions are shaped by careless use of the term “vows.”
This is such small politics. If you don’t like Gingrich – and you obviously very much do not – it would more admirable if you could find a policy point or two on which to state your difference. There’s something sophomoric about sniggering to like-minded friends about a member of the out-group having forgotten to button his collar.
Jim Pauwels.
Sorry to have left the wrong impression. By that time I had read too many blue books. My point was not to impugn those show feel they have a gift from God to live a celibate life, but was rather about the rhetoric that frames explanations and discussions of the celibacy requirement for priests. I believe the requirement of celibacy should be optional for diocesan priests. I expect, were that the case, the practice of it would be preserved in religious orders and the charism will still be available to the Church.
That should be “those who feel” in the second line.
Here you go, David:
“Presidential candidate and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich suggested today that he would have the Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals arrest activist judges, citing an incident in which a sitting federal judge ordered students not use the word “benediction” in their high school graduation.”
http://news.yahoo.com/gingrich-activist-judges-arrested-011128354.html
Man’s a danger.
Perhaps we can look forward to the Catholic hierarchy stepping in for on-the-job catechization of Gingrich if it should be required. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago and 9 bishops met Saturday with Governor Quinn of Illinois “to discuss the principles of faith” and “to remind the Governor that conscience, while always free, is properly formed in harmony with the tradition of the Church, as defined by Scripture and authentic teaching authority.”
http://www.suntimes.com/mobile/9500090-463/cardinal-george-catholic-bishops-again-clash-with-gov-quinn.html
http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/9524518-452/is-it-still-ok-to-elect-catholics.html
Two clarifications?
1. The priest’s promise of celibacy is about marriage, of course, but like the married person according to church understanding he is committed as a Christian to the virtue of chastity. Evidently, chastity within marriage implies sexual fidelity to one’s spouse, and chastity outside of marriage means no sex.
2. No one thus far has noted that the church understands celibacy as a gift but employs it as a sanction. For those who freely choose celibacy as a way of ordering their lives (Religious) it is clearly the embrace of a gift, though never without its difficulties. For diocesan clergy, things vary, but for most it is a cross bravely born for the sake of a calling to ministry than it is the positive embrace of a gift. For the vast majority of gays and lesbians it is a sanction, not a gift. The consequence of accepting this set of distinctions seems to be that religious should be religious, diocesan clergy should promise celibacy or not as their personal capabilities and inclinations lead them (celibacy or marriage) and gays and lesbians should not have the sanction of celibacy proposed to them as if it were the gift of celibacy.
“I believe the requirement of celibacy should be optional for diocesan priests. I expect, were that the case, the practice of it would be preserved in religious orders and the charism will still be available to the Church.”
Yes – if married men were permitted to be ordained to the diocesan priesthood, and religious orders continued to observe celibacy, I also would be fine with that arrangement.
“No one thus far has noted that the church understands celibacy as a gift but employs it as a sanction.” Indeed, Prof. Lakeland raises an important distinction. I’d add that it is my impression that members of religious orders can also experience celibacy as a cross to bear for a greater good–living out the charisms of the particular orders to which they belong. For many such ministries, celibacy is not necessary, but required anyway. Even, it would seem, for living in religious community, depending on how such is constructed. Consider the new monasticism.
And isn’t it interesting that we never speak of the ability to live poverty or obedience as a “gift”? We treat those as aspects of a vocation to religious life, but never add that “isn’t it wonderful?” to these–yet we assess people’s vocations in part according to their ability to live them with peace. And of course both poverty and obedience are subject to wide variations between religious groups and individuals in them. Aside from the “third way” advocates (those who believe that celibacy, diocesan or religious, is merely a promise not to marry, not a promise not to have sex, a stance I find dishonest and irresponsible,) most find the specific requisites of celibate chastity clear–complete sexual abstinence for life. The possible costs in character and psychological harm have been noted by Cozzens, et al. Like obedience, celibate chastity is a dangerous “gift.”
I just read somewhere that Newt is supposed to be the new Catholic poltician.
God help us. He’s a loose cannon and, as Frank Bruni noted in yesterdays’s NYT, Newt is more than self aggrandizing.
The question of celibacy and priest shortage will go on and on.
(Perhaps magnified by the issue of priests from the Southern going to the Northern hemisphere,)
I think Sipe is probably right and there’s lots of questions about the reality, viz. mandatory Western Rite ceibacy, except for some converst, as an exemplary charism -at least in general.)
But, as in all of this, no discussion seems to be allowed at the policy level and so business as usual, unenlightened by the likes of the new Catholic politican.
@Thomas,
Sure, normal people always have a choice as to whether, how, when, and with whom, they might be sexually active. And any committed monogamous relationship involves sexual continence as well as sexual activity–how to reconcile one partner’s “please?” with the other’s “not now” is a fundamental part of living out monogamy.
But “not now” is not the same as “not ever.” The magisterium’s demand that Catholic gays and lesbians exercise life-long sexual abstinence in celibacy seems to demand of them a renunciation that we celebrate when it is freely given. But if imposed? Notice, too, how same-sex relationships are evaluated nearly entirely in terms of sex. But anyone in a committed sexual relationship knows that the actual contours, positive and negative, of such partnerships aren’t only, or even primarily, about sex. They’re about life together, a much bigger deal. And so imposed celibacy is also a much bigger deal than sexual abstinence, though it includes that.
those who believe that celibacy, diocesan or religious, is merely a promise not to marry, not a promise not to have sex, a stance I find dishonest and irresponsible
As Catholics, we all (straight, gay, priests, laity) have an obligation not to have sex outside of sacramental marriage. As sinners, we may all also fall short of meeting that obligation, so we need to confess our sin and intend not to repeat it, even though we know we may fail again. A diocesan priest promises the Church not to marry. It seems to me that his obligation to be continent (not have sex) doesn’t arise from that promise but simply from the fact that he isn’t married.
His situation is different from a religious order priest who has made a vow to God, not the Church, of chastity. He can neither marry nor have sex without violating his vow to God.
Re-read M. Peppard’s the rise of Ron Paul.. and Forget about Gingrich.. he is this weeks Cain.. as my grandchildren say.. ‘he is so yesterday’.
As a Republican, I do not see Gingrich getting the nomination. I predict it will be Romney, and that he will either choose Paul, Gingrich, or maybe Jindal (governor LA) as his running mate. Once Republicans settle on their man, because so many are so disappointed with President Obama and worry about the economy under him and his minions, rank and file Republicans will, without much fuss, quickly get in-step and will vote accordingly; they will vote “R”.
Congress critters are not as good at being presidents as governors are. Congress men and women are not held accountable; hence President Obama’s amazement that people actually think the buck should stop in his office.
I think that in general, former governors and former military men like Eisenhower make better presidents than congressmen.
To show my point, in my opinion, notwithstanding Carter’s miserable term;
- Reagan, a former governor was an excellent president
- Bush Sr., a former congressman, was Ok as president, but not outstanding
- Clinton, a former governor, was a good president
- Bush Jr., a former governor, was an effective president. Regardless of whether you thought him right or wrong on Iraq, he obviously knew how to use executive powers to achieve his policy goals.
- Obama, a former senator, has not done so well.
Congress people tend to be more weasely and scheming than former governors; that goes with the territory I guess. They certainly give the impression of being more shallow and corrupt than governors. The approval rate of Congress is always below that of the president and most governors.
John – think you are parsing this way too much. Diocesan priests make a promise to the church and thus God. Religious make a vow to church and to God. Liturgical/sacramental formulas may focus on two different words (but doubt it) but the meaning is clear as is the promise.
The promises and the vows are both made to God – and his representative the religious superior or the bishop.
The bigger issue is that the church’s current policies articulate a philosophy/theology predicated on an outdated system or a natural law that has not developed. So, you wind up with institutional laws that reflect a narrow sense of nature and reality (thus, bad law). Arguing from the Thomistic natural law understanding, leaves some catholics with internal and conscience challenges; for example;
- justice requires that a person be treated with human dignity – that dignity includes their orientation and expression (which is where the church’s current parsing goes too far);
- but justice is limited and compromised because the “natural” law is translated as “intrinsically disoridered” and requires that a person can not fulfill her/his sexual orientation (is the hierarchy really competent or have the certainty to reach that legal statement?)
- beyond the current legal statements, you have moral theology which stresses a person’s conscience and puts stress on discernment and process that may or may not result in serious sin or even sin, period (again, a statement such as “intrinsically disordered” shortchanged the process of moral theology)
- finally, it sets up some with a contradiction between the church’s natural law of human dignity and natural justice vs. disordered state which denies an individual their full dignity and expression of their humanness
There is much work to be done but the current environment and anathemas around natural law and sexuality does not allow for development. This is a sad statement to make.
From the archives:
” An argument that has been advanced in favor of priestly celibacy suggests that the person who is not committed to one woman or set of children is free to love all. This should be seen as nonsense. It should not be necessary to point out that if you cannot love one woman or child in the flesh, you can’t love anyone , much less everyone. I do not mean at all that celibates cannot love deeply, but this argument won’t do. ** Celibacy is a form of fasting from something good, not a freedom from the limitations of loving a particular person. ** And the associated argument from practicality – an unmarried priest can spend more time on ministry – has two sides. On the one hand, I have not in fact found celibate priests to be harder working or more dedicated than the married Orthodox priests I know. Frankly, some celibates seem adolescent in their approach to their schedules, regarding their time as their own, and resent interruptions in a way that most parents learn to drop after the first child or two. The other side of the question is the possibility that if a married priesthood increased the number of available priests, the celibate priests who are now stretched thin on the ground might not be burning out so frequently – though burnout is also a problem for Orthodox priests, for Protestant ministers, and for rabbis. … One practical question is often brought up: could the average Catholic parish afford a married priest, with his family’s needs? It isn’t easy, but it should be noted that most of the parishes in the Orthodox Church in America are relatively small – from one hundred to 300 families – and that while most are not wealthy, they manage. ”
John Garvey, “Priests Should Be Married”, Commonweal, August 12, 2005.
(John should be a regular contributor @ Commonweal once again.)
David N: your words never die —
” If it doesn’t bother you that Pope Paul VI rejected a 65-7 vote of experts who wanted to permit use of the pill and instead wrote Humanae Vitae, then it probably wouldn’t bother you to leave it up to the pope to decide whether priests should be celibate.”
David Nickol, 1/4/2010 http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=6150#comments
” I don’t find it incredible that people can choose to live for long stretches of their lives, or even their entire life, without sexual activity. ”
Maybe it is a way of life for many that is dictated by circumstances, i.e., lack of success, rather than choice.
This discussion reminds me what set me on my journey away from the RCC. Many moons ago, way back in the days of the Mount Cashel inquiry, One priest said in evidence that forced sodomy with minors was OK because it didn’t break his promise of celibacy.
Michael Cowan, robbing banks doesn’t violate a priest’s promise of celibacy, either. I hope he didn’t get anywhere with that story.
Ah, U, every politician’s a danger. The political class has become a necessary evil. Maybe we should work to eliminate it, replace it with a system of legislators chosen from among the most able, who will serve for a limited time and then return to their usual work. Hmm, that sounds familiar.
By the way, that yahoo.com news article, like so much “news” these days, is not informative, so unless one takes the time to watch the program, there’s no way to tell exactly what was said by whom. But I understand the temptation to refer to something that seems to say or at least imply that someone we don’t like is an idiot.
“Diocesan priests make a promise to the church and thus God.” That is a dangerous conflation.
“Religious make a vow to church and to God. Liturgical/sacramental formulas may focus on two different words (but I doubt it) but the meaning is clear as is the promise.”
There is no liturgical/sacramental formula about the celibacy of the secular clergy. (I supplied the pronoun “I” in this sentence; there is a reason why pronouns are mandatory in grammatical English.)
“The promises and the vows are both made to God – and his representative the religious superior or the bishop.”
Again, the promise of celibacy is not made to a bishop. (The promise of obedience and respect, in contrast, is, and in a liturgical/sacramental context.)
Letter in today’s Irish Times:
“In its concern about the declining position of the Catholic Church in Ireland, The Irish Times suggests consideration of “an end to celibacy and acceptance of married priests, and, eventually, the ordination of women to the priesthood” (Editorial, December 17th).
“A male priesthood is a doctrinal position and to compromise on it would more likely intensify the decline of the church, as is evidenced in other mainline Christian churches that have opted for the ordination of women.
“However, the policy of celibacy is prudential, not doctrinal.
“Some think the decline of vocations could be rectified by dropping the requirement of celibacy. However, even if it were removed, it seems unlikely that many young men, aspiring to be married and have families, would give much thought to the very poorly compensated profession of the priesthood.
“Furthermore, congregations, reportedly sparing as it is in their contributions to the church, would be even less generous if they were expected to support a wife and the family of their priest.
“On the other hand, thought should be given to the ordination of already married men either near the end of, or ready and able to resign from, their secular careers.
“I would think that a maximum age of eligibility for ordination should be set at 70, if for no other reason than to put at ease any suspicion that I am seeking such myself.” – Yours, etc,
JOHN P McCARTHY,
Professor Emeritus of History,
Fordham University, New York,
US.
Oh well, for all the blather about this, since the Pope has the final say-so, I doubt that Latin Rite Catholic priests will be getting married anytime soon. In any case Pope Benedict is not about to change it.
“the promise of celibacy is not made to a Bishop”
In the “Rite of ordination of a Deacon”, the Bishop asks seven questions to which the required answer is “I do”. One of the questions is:
“Bishop:
Do you resolve to keep forever this commitment to remain celibate as a sign of your dedication to Christ the Lord for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, in the service of God and man?
Unmarried elect:
I do.”
http://stunink.xanga.com/622989332/the-ordination-promises-of-a-deacon/
That was posted on the website of a person who was being ordained as a transitional deacon in anticipation of later being ordained as a priest.
As I recall, the promise of celibacy is not repeated in priestly ordination – because it has already been taken as a deacon.
From Professor McCarthy’s letter, quoted above by Fr. O’Leary: “On the other hand, thought should be given to the ordination of already married men either near the end of, or ready and able to resign from, their secular careers.”
As I’ve mentioned here in the past, this is quite realistic – if we consider of the pool of permanent deacons, many of whom fit the demographics of “already-married men either near the end of, or ready and able to resign from, their secular careers.” If I’m not mistaken, Eugene Kennedy once suggested that bishops should call permanent deacons to the priesthood. It lowers the risk to the church tremendously: these men, their backgrounds, families and careers have already been vetted by the church, they already have a track record of clerical and pastoral service to the church, they have already received formation from the church.
Like Professor McCarthy, I would excuse myself from consideration. But I believe that some permanent deacons would respond to such a call.
I don’t se how Ken can think issues affecting clergy shortage and reorganization etc, is ‘blather”‘
I think he’s right that BXVI won’t change things and therein lies the problem.
Pope Benedict will not change this and nobody else can. That simplifies the matter quite a bit now, doesn’t it? The Pope has and will have the last word regarding this. For now then, this matter is settled.
If you think changing this rule is that important (I do not), you can wait for the next pope and ask him.
If one needs any proof that Protestants are much more mature about their church membership than are Catholics, this is it:
“Furthermore, congregations, reportedly sparing as it is in their contributions to the church, would be even less generous if they were expected to support a wife and the family of their priest.”
Let me get this straight:
It’s OK to take young, often immature men and ordain them priests so long as they vow to remain unmarried and “chaste” for the rest of their lives.
It’s not OK to ordain older, married, almost always mature men who have exprience of life and can be seen as peers by lay people?
Excepting, of course, those almost-Catholics in the Eastern Rite Churches.
And those married men who were ordained as Protestants but now want to be Catholic priests.
And how can we not glow with pride about the influx into the Orneryariate?
Yes, that makes pre-eminent sense. It most certainly does. And it is such a successful position to continue in this day and age, too!
Oops – forgive me for I know not what I say.
“And how can YOU (not we) not glow with pride ….”
Jimmy Mac ==
Yes, indeedy! I particularly like the policy because it would appeal so strongly to the young. Just think! Of course they’ll love having to go to Sunday Mass across town or in the next county because their own parishes have been eliminated. (Kids love getting up on Sunday mornings. Didn’t you?) And they’ll love the sermons of the ole geezers who preside at their new churches. Mass might have to be late sometimes, of course, because the old geezers will need adrenaline shots because they’re exhausted from caring for two to four parishes. But that’ll be OK. Hey, who *really* needs priests?
We are just beginning a program to restructure the diocesan clergy into 125 “Pastoral Service Teams”, which will serve the 290 parishes here. Each PST will serve 2 or 3 parishes and will have a single pastor who cannot be one of the pastors who headed a parish served by the team.
Although not officially expressed, I can see that this provides a structure that would continue to work if the total number of priests availableevnually drops to 125, since those 125 could then provide for the sacramental needs of the parishes, with deacons, pastoral assistants and other laypersons added to handle other parts of the work.
I didn’t remember those diaconate questions (since some 40 of us were made deacons at the same time the questions, if asked at all, must have elicited a choral response; or perhaps the text has changed since 1972). Do the questions replace the signed document?
It does not matter whether or not Jimmy Mac or anyone else understand this. The Pope has the final say-so and since Pope Benedict has pronounced that he will not change this, for now anyway, the matter is settled.
The next Pope may change this, but Benedict has indicated he will not.
One reason for disgust, drift or departure is the approach that Rome has spoken the matter is ended -even if it doesn’t make sense to a lot of people.
How important the changing demographics of catholicism is viewed may influence where this goes with policy makers, but I keep hearing the Master say. “Feed my lambs…..”
In this case Bob, the Pope is the one and only “policy maker” and he has indicated he will not change it.
It seems you feel strongly about this, and so it is definitely something to raised when with the next Pope.
” It does not matter whether or not Jimmy Mac or anyone else understand this. ”
Thank you for reminding me (not that I need reminding, mind you) why I have gone a great way toward totally dusting the dirt of this church from my shoes once and for all.
This says it best: 1 Cor 13:11 http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/13
(Note that I have cited the NAB so as to not offend any uber-Catholic sensibilities that might view other translations as not being acceptable)
Another Irish Times letter:
Sir, – I am a practising Catholic and I agree with your Editorial (December 17th) in asserting that abolition of mandatory celibacy and ordination of women are crucial steps on the road to reform within the Catholic Church. Unlike John P McCarthy (December 20th) I would be hopeful that such reforms among a raft of other changes, plus the updating of Christian theology allied with genuine ecumenism is the way forward out of the current crisis.
The outdated negative thinking on human sexuality and women which underpins the medieval law of mandatory celibacy and the refusal by an elite male club to ordain women has had a malign influence on Catholic parishes, people and relationships. It has been an ingredient within the ongoing abuse of power and sex as perpetrated by some Catholic males.
It is wrong for the Roman control group in our Catholic Church to demand that God gift men with the package deal of priesthood and celibacy talents.
It is wrong to deny priesthood and Eucharist to Catholic people worldwide.
While voluntary celibacy may be admirable, it is totally wrong to force celibacy on men who are only called to priesthood.
I do not wish to collude in this ongoing abuse of good men. It is unjust and dangerous in our modern world.
I do not wish to collude in the ongoing abuse of women because of the Roman refusal to grant equality and ordination for women.
I do not wish to collude in the ongoing abuse of power by Rome and its refusal to share power with national hierarchies, priests and people.
I disagree with Mr McCarthy when he suggests that Catholic people would not support remuneration for priests as for any other married professional.
He alludes to the spare contributions by Catholics at this time. This reflects the dissatisfaction among practising Catholics at an autocratic institution which refuses to listen to the people on issues such as contraception, power sharing, abolition of mandatory celibacy and ordination of women.
We urgently need a “Catholic Spring” in 2012 together with the Eucharistic Congress! – Yours, etc,
JOE MULVANEY,
Sycamore Drive,
Dundrum, Dublin 16.
Ken — the Pope is not the one and only policy-maker in the Church. Ever heard of bishops? Of General Councils? Of consulting the faithful? Of the sensus fidelium?
I find it interesting these days that people in Ireland feel it necessary to clarify that they are “practicing Catholics.”
Are there so very few left? Evidently so.
Ditto for the Netherlands, I guess: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,805075,00.html#ref=nlint
Speaking of celibacy – or the lack thereof:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/dec/17/father-hellyer-catholic-priest-nine-children?newsfeed=true
9 children! He must have been Catholic at heart all along.