Ugandan priests leave over celibacy
The San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday that a group of 20 “renegade” Catholic priests have left the RC Church because of celibacy requirements. The article states that the group consists of both of men who have married and those who want to be free to marry. What strikes me is the men’s openness and willingness to leave because of this issue. In areas where celibacy is seen as a harmful counter-cultural value, the rate at which men take de facto wives and raise families is quite high. These guys could almost certainly have lived any way they wanted and gotten away with it. Perhaps instead of calling them “renegade,” the report should call them “honest.”
Given the widely-reported adverse effects of imposed celibacy (see Cozzens, e.g.,) the rate at which celibacy is observed in the west (Sipe reports what, 50% the US?) the counter-witness of men keeping mistresses and fathering children but ducking legal responsibility for them, and of course the worsening shortage of priests (a problem which ending celibacy wouldn’t solve, but would certainly alleviate,) can’t we finally have a real conversation in the Church about making celibacy optional? Or will we continue to push people out of ministry, or, in the case of these men, out of the Church entirely, to uphold a discipline whose time, arguably, is past?
I don’t know anything else about this group of priests–perhaps there are other good reasons for them to leave. But if it’s only celibacy–can’t we talk?
Three salient and important issues immediately come to mind. First is there is such braggadacio about the rise of the church in Africa as if numbers mean everything. Second, it is clear that a good number of active priests do not observe celibacy. Third, celibacy with its ‘set apart’ dichotomy really is a wedge between clergy and people so much so that the clergy become strange and people become disaffected.
It would be nice to see some honesty about this. Rather than platitudes to cover an untenable situation. The fact remains that few can handle that life as well as Paul of Tarsus did.
Do you really think Bennie and his Red hats are ready to give up on priestly celibacy, even if it is just a sham?
Please. It’s been talked to death.
But some people won’t listen. Nevertheless, after yet another real discussion on the matter, and after being told for the millionth time the reason for celibacy, they invariably come back with, “can’t we finally have a real conversation in the Church about making celibacy optional?”
How about, instead, we finally have people who are intellectually honest and open-minded enough to consider why priestly celibacy is not optional?
Lisa asks
“But if it’s only celibacy–can’t we talk?”
Lisa of course “we” can talk all we want. But “we” are talking to ourselves because those with decision making authority won’t talk nor will they listen.
But then celibacy isn’t the only topic in this category…is it, and guess what else they might just have to discuss.
Oh the horrors of it all.:)
Many have pointed out that today we may be facing a choice between making the Eucharist available to all Catholics or maintaining priestly celibacy. If this is true, it appears the Vatican has already made their choice, despite what the faithful may have to say.
The Ugandans are smart to start their own church. In the long run, contact with those in Rome will only hurt them and Rome has no wisdom to offer in building the Church in non colonial, third World, situations. A celibate priesthood isn’t viable in sub Saharan Africa, if it is indeed an option anywhere.
Why not call them renegade? They are rejecting an authority they promised to abide – that’s the definition of a renegade. Saying they are “honest” is just like the adulterer saying what he did was OK because he was “being true to his fellings.”
This “we need a dialogue” nonsense reminds me of when my teenage daughter used used to give me the “you don’t listen” routine after ten minutes of pleading her case everytime I said no. You don’t want dialogue, you want the ones in authority to agree with you. That’s not dialogue, that’s whining. There have been articles, speeeches, and entire books dedicated to your point of view, and for now it has been rejected.
The New York Times version of the Associated Press contains the following paragraphs:
“Archbishop Cyprian Kizito Lwanga, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Kampala, called on the government not to allow such renegade religious groups to operate, saying they might cause confusion among Ugandans.
” ‘I call upon government to avoid registering such new churches,’ he said. ”They can bring about religious conflicts.’ ”
Is Archbishop Lwanga in a pre-Vatican II time warp where “error has no rights?”
Sean, if analogies limp, yours hardly crawls. Mandatory celibacy has its roots in real estate rather than sanctity or service to others. If you are advocating an uncritical approach to Rome then you have problems with that marvelous, exemplary celibate, Paul of Tarsus who opposed Peter when he saw that he was wrong. Celibacy has become a sham as the definitive revelations of the last ten years shows. It is a question of whether to continue the sham or seek healthier alternatives. Authority works within reason.
I guess the question is, what, precisely, has been rejected? It’s a matter of discipline, not doctrine. There are Eastern rite Catholic priests who marry. Suppose one raised the question: should there be an African rite–given the context–in which priests are also allowed to marry?
Sean. –
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep”. Is there anything more important for a priest to do than provide Communion for his flock? If so, what and why?
Note: there is also a Church law that the bishops shall provide priests for the faithful. What has happened to that obligation?
“In areas where celibacy is seen as a harmful counter-cultural value, the rate at which men take de facto wives and raise families is quite high.”
I think there’s a whole package of notions that underpin discussions about celibacy–and not just in Uganda. It’s my sense that we’re wired (by popular psychology, by Madison Avenue, by our preoccupation with youth) to see sexual experience as part of a “complete” and “healthy” person. Those who embrace celibacy must be incomplete, unhealthy, removed from “normal” human experience, more prone to aggression or hidden perversions.
These notions seem to drive discussions about celibacy, though they’re kept largely hidden. Until prejudices against celibacy are fully unpacked and examined, I don’t think discussions about priestly celibacy will contribute much to strengthening the Church or the priesthood.
“and guess what else they might have to discuss”
Would that include the fact that there is an inherent ordered Nature in Sexual Love consistent with the Will of God? Where is the horror in that?
Sectarian religious groups are suspect with good reason in Uganda. The Lord’s Army is known for kidnapping children and forcing them to fight as soldiers against the government.
In that context, Abp Lwanga’s comments are not the same as the “error has no rights” argument, but arguably are worse. Priests who leave over celibacy should not be lumped in with the armed rebels.
But I would be very surprised if celibacy was the only issue, given that background.
there is an inherent ordered Nature in Sexual Love consistent with the Will of God? Where is the horror in that?
Indeed, where is the horror? Why is sexual love forbidden for priests. given the inherent nature of Sexual Love as given by God?
At a few of the Bishop’s Synods held since V2, the subject could have been addressed, but the bishops chose not to raise it in any significant way. At at least one of these, the Vatican may have been open to allowing some optional celibacy, but the bishops, not the Vatican, squelched it.
Sexual Love exists in a Holy Marriage. The question is, should Marriage be optional.
I think we’ve touched this problem before and it is the problem of mandatory ceibacy in the Western Rite.
It’s not the charism or value, it’s the mandating thereof.
I’m glad to see young Raber is back with us.
It is true that ou ryoung see the message on sexuality as lacking credibity.
See the transcripts at the Fordham center for Religion and Culture on “Sex and the Soul.
They see the Church’s proclamation as two three word sentences :
“Don’t have sex;” and “Don’t be gay.”
But it is clear , i think that our undertstandin gof human sexuality and and also our practices regarding marriage and children have evolved.
Serious discussions of how to approach that are not helped by easy one liners.
It is clear and not open to dispute that celibacy is not necessary for those who perform priestly functions. The reasons for making celibacy a legal requirement in the Latin rite–and even there some exceptions are allowed–must therefore be either pragmatic or theological. Reasons of the theological sort, e.g., Jesus was celibate or the priest should be married to his church, are obviously not conclusive. The pragmatic reasons, whatever they may be, must be weighed against the pragmatic counter arguments that favor of making celibacy optional. Of the latter the chief is that there s a serious shortage of well qualified candidates who are willing to promise to be celibate for life. This evident fact offers a challenge to bishops who are supposed to provide presbyteral services to the faithful. What is to be done? I fear that clerical celibacy like Latinate liturgy is an idee fixe of the Latin ritists.
In conclusion I would like to cite Paul I Cor 9:5 “Do we not have the right to bring along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the Apostles, and the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas?” This text is rarely cited in arguments for clerical celibacy.
I think there’s a whole package of notions that underpin discussions about celibacy–and not just in Uganda. It’s my sense that we’re wired (by popular psychology, by Madison Avenue, by our preoccupation with youth) to see sexual experience as part of a “complete” and “healthy” person.
Jean,
I don’t think Madison Avenue has anything to do with it. It’s in the Bible:
How celibacy came to be valued so highly in the Catholic Church is no doubt a very complex question, but it certainly had (and has) never been part of Judaism. If one takes the New Testament to look favorably on celibacy, it’s in sharp contrast to the Old Testament.
There are estimates that 50% of priests in the United States are sexually active. When only half of priests are celibate in practice, whatever arguments can be made for a celibate priesthood would seem to be only 50% convincing at best.
I think a great deal of the support for celibacy is ultimately based on the belief (or feeling) that sex is dirty, which has a long and august history in Catholic thought.
Bill
I may be incorrect, but I think Eusebius, quoting Clement of Alexandria, states that Paul was married as were both Philip and Peter. If this is correct, how does this square with the notion of mandatory celibacy?
Sean: it may be that your daughter says that you “don’t listen” because you only listen as far as necessary to give her your arguments, not to change your mind, and that your mind is already made up before she starts talking: you’re not listen with an open mind willing to suspend decision until you have heard things from her perspective. It’s hard to listen! On the few topics on which I also have a firm stand, I tell my kids in advance that, although I’m happy to hear them out, they might as well know I wont be swayed. I might as well be honest with them if, on some topics, I can’t be open to true dialogue!
I agree with you, Joseph: Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 9:5 are conspicuously absent from the Lectionary used at the Eucharist. Nowhere in the three-year cycle do these words appear.
As one who has made the transition from mandatory celibacy to married love, I want to say that speaking of mandatory celibacy vs. marriage only in terms of “sexuality” is deceptive. The human experience that led me from celibate love to married love had more to do with sharing my life with someone than it did with simply sexual experience. Mandatory celibacy, for one who does not have the “gift” that Our Lord speaks of in the Gospel, can mean a life of lonelines that is at times excruciating and paralyzing. I can only speak for myself.
I also want to add that in the years I have been married, I have come to know the reality of marriage as a “school of love”. I have learned more about unselfish love
(agape) in married love than I ever learned living mandatory celibacy. The comfortable life that most celibate priests live, as well as the distance they live from the lives of the lay faithful, can easily lead to being a selfish member of the “men’s club”. Most Catholics do not see their priests as deeply sharing their lives. Isn’t that what Incarnation is all about?
David, thanks for expanding the discussion re my comments.
Yes, “dirty sex” has a long and venerable history in Christianity generally, not just Catholicism, and perhaps that notion plays a part in the continuation of a celibate Catholic clergy.
IMO, however, a call to celibacy, of giving one’s life to the love that is not particular, is a holy thing, the appreciation of which Catholicism offers the rest of the Christian world. Allowing priests to marry need not undermine the call to a celibate life. Unless getting rid of celibacy is driven by modern notions that a celibate is an unhealthy and repressed weirdo. And I think those modern notions do affect the debate.
That’s all I’m sayin’.
Bob Nunz, “young Raber” indeed! Good thing we don’t have to upload pictures with our posts or you’d have to revise that.
Ken Lovasik: I quite agree with you. Because of this blog post, I am reading a 2004 letter about men and women, by then Cardinal Ratzinger, (http://www.scborromeo.org/docs/on_the_collaboration_of_men_and_women_in_the_church_and_in_the_world.pdf), and it is rather uninspiring. It seems that the writer only has an abstract knowledge of the topic, but has no intimate knowledge of the relationship between a man and a woman. In particular I am struck by the absence of a detailed discussion of love, and in particular of love as a process that is learned by a couple over time, probably with the help of dopamine as a lubricant for love, change and openness. Methinks that Ken’s few words are more potent than pages of rationalization from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
When a priest like Mr Lovasik leaves it is clear his bishop and the others involved in his formation made a mistake in judgment. While the institution has to be held accountable for its failures in discerning whom to call, discerners themselves also have to accept responsibility for their understanding of what specific gifts God has given them. No one holds a gun to one’s head and forces one to make the promises. The path to ordination does not take a week or a year and often in these cases there are some serious maturity issues and long-term self-deception going on.
The claim that celibacy has never been a part of Judaism suggests the need for a remedial course in Jewish history. Pick up Josephus or Philo for goodness sake.
It’s surprising to me that no one has yet noted that these Ugandans are already ordained men who have 1) married or 2) want to marry. The Church has NEVER done this. It is possible to ordain married men, but it has NEVER been the practice to let ordained priests get married. Ask your local Orthodox pastor about what his options are after his wife dies.
I always wondered why being a priest had to be a lifelong commitment. If, in addition to becoming a priest for life, men had the option of signing on for 5 or 10 years, I bet that would go a long way to fixing the priest shortage, even if all of the other restrictions stayed in place.
When a priest like Mr Lovasik leaves it is clear his bishop and the others involved in his formation made a mistake in judgment. While the institution has to be held accountable for its failures in discerning whom to call, discerners themselves also have to accept responsibility for their understanding of what specific gifts God has given them. No one holds a gun to one’s head and forces one to make the promises. The path to ordination does not take a week or a year and often in these cases there are some serious maturity issues and long-term self-deception going on.
While I voted in an informal poll to allow anonymity on dotCommonweal, I don’t see that it is proper to allow what amounts to personal attacks on people who give their real names by anonymous posters.
Hi Nancy,
Actually, I wasn’t thinking of an “inherent ordered Nature in Sexual Love consistent with the Will of God”, and no doubt we may be miles apart on just what that phrase may mean since when I look at all of “Nature” I see some pretty weird forms of “sexual love” occurring.
What I really had in mind in particular was the issue of woman as priests. The existence of a female priesthood could exist with or without celibacy.
I also tend to agree with Jim McK your concept supports married priests rather than the continuation of celibacy. Isn’t it interesting how our words have a way of eating themselves up, a little like a Shaggy Mane mushroom.
The claim that celibacy has never been a part of Judaism suggests the need for a remedial course in Jewish history. Pick up Josephus or Philo for goodness sake.
Maggie,
Perhaps I spoke a little to broadly, but not much. I don’t think we would want to accept everything that has ever been practiced by Christians (such a self-castration) or every Christian sect that has ever existed as part of Christianity. The Essenes (if they existed) were once a Jewish sect, but then again, so were the followers of Jesus, and Judaism does not today claim Christianity as a part of Judaism.
Maggie
I have editions of Josephus and Philo. I would be interested in knowing what passages you refer to. Certainly the priests who served in the temple were not celibate.
I might add the following from the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion s.v. Celibacy: “The idea that a person ought not to marry is entirely foreign to Judaism.” The article cited is worth reading but too long to reproduce here.
It is possible to ordain married men, but it has NEVER been the practice to let ordained priests get married.
Maggie,
I don’t think there is evidence to show that in the early Church, prior to the Council of Nicea, those who were ordained were prohibited from marrying. I think the consensus is that priestly celibacy was not Apostolic in origin.
Charles Ladner
I am sure that there is no documentary evidence that Paul was married. It is pretty clear from his letters that he was not married when he was spreading the Gospel. Some scholars conjecture that he was a widower. It would be unusual for a rabbi, if he was that, not to marry, but exceptions can be cited.
There’s an entry on celibacy in this source (which I’ve found to be quite useful): A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations. It mentions a (very) few instances of celibacy in Judaism.
Use the “search inside another edition of this book” procedure for “celibacy” and choose the Page 81 entry.
http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Jewish-Christian-Relations-Edward-Kessler/dp/0521730783/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262561056&sr=1-2
“Isn’t it interesting how our words have a way of eating themselves up, a little like a shaggy mane mushroom.”
John, if it is true that our words are consistent with The Word, your analogy is untrue and invalid.
Perhaps we can reach a middle ground. What are the theological and practical possibilities of the following: permitting diocesan priests to marry, while still allowing the Orders to require celibacy? It seems, at least initially, that this is feasible (but I am not schooled sufficiently on either the history or theology of celibacy to say one way or the other). I know a lot of ordered priests (Francisans, Jesuits, Dominicans) whose celibacy allows an availability and an openness that can be of great help to numerous apostolates (and which, at least in the case of Jesuits, fulfills the intention of their founding saint). At the same time, most diocesan priests remain in one diocese during their ministry and have minimal travel. Their immediate availability and openness isn’t required in the same way as it is for members of Orders. Could it work?
Nancy, the teachings of the Magisterium regarding sexual love, marriage, celibacy, and related questions, are horribly complicated. If you try to put them all side by side, you can only avoid contradictions by introducing many complex nuances. The text I referred to earlier is enough to make anyone’s head spin.
See you example paragraph 12 where we see apparent direct contradictions within a mere 5 lines of text: “… there is neither male nor female (Paul, Galatians 3: 27-28) [...] In this sense, the distinction between man and woman is reaffirmed more than ever”.
It seems that one is free to say everything and its contrary. It seems that I could take that text and rearrange the sentences to get to opposite conclusions. On those topics more than anything, I am suspicious of one-sentence formulas.
Claire, Galatians 3:27-28 refers to The Body of Christ. The teachings of the Magisterium regarding Sexual Love is not horribly complicated.
F.Y.I.:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html
Matt Emerson
One can without any inconsistency favor and support the consecrated life for people who choose not to marry and accept certain other limitations, usually summarized as poverty and obedience, and at the same time oppose the current legal requirement that says: you cannot exercise the priestly function in the Latin rite unless you agree to lifelong celibacy.
Nancy, can you be a bit more specific? The text is long. In it, “sex” only occurs twice in unrelated instances, and “love” occurs 74 times, too many for me…
I know I said I didn’t want one-line formulas, so I shouldn’t complain about the length, but…
I am sorry if people think I made a personal attack, that was not my intention. Maybe I should have been more general. I apologize if so, but I don’t think anybody would deny the reality of what I wrote. Lack of self-knowledge and emotional and sexual immaturity at the time of ordination figure significantly when you look at priests who are not able to continue in the clerical state. There are priests of both liberal and conservative flavors who have struggled (and left) as a result.
I personally know a very sincere, devout, “orthodox” young man who is applying to seminary after seminary and who does not have a satisfactory emotional profile. No doubt at some point he will fully mature. If it happened post-ordination and he came to finally understand that his personal needs include physical fulfillment, he would be in a bit of a pickle. So far in his case the system has worked.
Joseph I was referring to where both ancient writers address the Essenes as David noted above. The speculation is that John the Baptist was an Essene as his lifestyle seems to fit the bill. It’s either Josephus or Philo, I can’t remember which one, mentions that some of the Essenes WERE married for the express purpose of procreation, however they were only a minority of the sect. I didn’t know there was any controversy about the Essenes actually existing! Is it thought that Josephus made them up or was just mistaken? Hmmmm.
“I think a great deal of the support for celibacy is ultimately based on the belief (or feeling) that sex is dirty, which has a long and august history in Catholic thought.”
“August” indeed. Let’s hear it for Augustine and his guilt!
A celibate priesthood and a married priesthood both cause practical problems.
We in the Latin rite are familiar with the problems that celibacy causes or seems to cause, but the married clergy in the Anglican and Protestant churches in the West are not free of problems.
Marriage is only a partial solution to the destructive tendencies of male sexuality: married men, including married ministers, commit adultery and pedophilia.
It would be harder to discipline a married priest than an unmarried one, because his family would also be affected. What would one do with a divorced priest?
Pastoral work places many pressures on family life: the minister’s wife has a whole congregation scrutinizing her, and the problems of preachers’ kids are legendary.
Celibacy may help account for the relative vitality of the Latin Church compared to the Eastern Churches – or it may be an accident of history. But if it turns out that celibacy, with all its problems, has maintained a spiritual vitality in the Latin Church, it would be almost impossible to go back to the discipline, once it was changed.
I was just reading about Vatican II and the discussion there, or lack of discussion, about celibacy. Maximos IV Sayegh, Patriarch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, had planned to give a speech about celibacy and married clergy at the council but the pope took the subject off the table. So Maximos sent him the speech with a cover letter. You can read both here – pretty interesting :) Here’s just a bit of it ….
The East clearly distinguishes between priesthood and monasticism. A man can be called to the one without being called to the other. This distinction opens up new perspectives. Celibacy is the specific vocation of the monk-religious, but it is not necessarily the specific vocation of the priest, in his capacity as a minister of the Church. The priesthood is a function before being a state of life. It is linked not to a personal striving toward perfection such as celibacy for the sake of God, but to the usefulness to the Church. Therefore celibacy can disappear if the usefulness for the ministry of the Church requires it. The mystery of the redemption, perpetuated in the priesthood, is not subject by obligation to any accidental form. In case of need, it is not the priesthood that must be sacrificed to celibacy, but celibacy to the priesthood …..
Crystal: thanks for the helpful excerpt. Very interesting distinction between “function” and “state of life.” It seems to have plausibility. Joseph G, thank you as well for your observation.
Claire section IV The Eucharist and The Sacrament of Holy Orders, as well as section V, The Eucharist and Matrimony, in this document :
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html
is reflective of the complementary, inherent Nature of Perfect Love that is The Blessed Trinity.
Bill
I am not objecting to the idea of a dialogue, or hearing arguments about the pros and cons of celibacy. What I object to is the tendency I see so often in these discussions to say the problem is a “lack of dialogue” when what is really meant is the following:
- My idea is the better idea
- You reject it because you are ignorant, stubborn, and/or stupid
- Ergo your position is not worthy of consideration
- So by dialogue I mean constantly advocating my position until your ignorance, stubborness, and/or stupiduty is overcome
Your own post shows exactly what I mean. You immediately say my position is “uncritical” denies the evidence and implies it is unreasonable. You say look at the evidence of the last ten years, I say look at the last 600.
As for the point about celibacy and property, there are practical roots for many things that have deeper and more profound consequences. Take for example, oh say, lifelong monogamy or even the Ten Commandments. They are rooted in some very practical things and have very practical consequences, so are the optional? Moreover, the “celibacy is a creature of medieval property law” is speculative at best, and many historians dispute it.
Ann
For your point to be relevant one must accept that the inevitable result of celibacy is a lack of priests or that celibacy is the cause of the current lack. If celibacy is the casue of the shortage, why wasn’t their a shortage in 1920, or 1930? I didn’t realize people didn’t have sex or get married back then. Is it celibacy that’s the cause or our own warped modern view of sex and the family? And even if abandoning celibacy would increase the numbers of priests, would it be worth it? Look at our Episcopal brothers and sisters. They have plenty of priests, and fewer and fewer and fewer faithful.
Thanks Nancy. It is clear: No one can say “this is my body” and “this is the cup of my blood” except in the name and in the person of Christ … the ministerial priesthood, through ordination, calls for complete configuration to Christ … This choice [of celibacy] on the part of the priest expresses in a special way the dedication which conforms him to Christ … Celibacy is really a special way of conforming oneself to Christ’s own way of life.
Isn’t it funny how little that is stressed in the New Testament – that, in order to be like Christ, one needs to be celibate. Isn’t it funny how little the gospels stress that aspect of the life of Jesus. If we somehow found historical evidence that Jesus was not celibate, would that get rid of the celibacy requirement?
Lee,
Yes, you raise important questions, but I’m not sure we wouldn’t be better off as a Church if we addressed them with optional celibacy in place. Viz.:
1. What would we do with divorced priests? Great–we’d start the same way we start now–not penalizing people for divorce. It is re-marriage that causes a problem. Here, I think the presence of a married clergy MIGHT accelerate a re-evaluation of our theology of marriage. Many many Catholics leave the Church if they remarry, or stay and invoke a “conscience clause” rather than endure the anullment process. Maybe we could address that if it affected priests and bishops directly.
2. Problems for priests’ wives. Indeed, to be the pastor’s spouse is a tricky role, more so now that most pastors’ spouses are professional people themselves. Perhaps priests who have to compromise and negotiate such things with their wives might have greater empathy for all the two-career families doing exactly that in our culture.
3. “Relative vitality of the Western Church”? I don’t know about the eastern churches’ situation, but there’s so much cultural and historical difference, it’s hard to compare. But our own situation of thousands of priestless parishes, priests forced to work into theirr 70′s, lackluster liturgy, etc. etc. is a vitality problem we need to address. The US Catholic church is growing only due to immigration, and the kids of immigrants are leaving in droves. Removing celibacy won’t solve this–but will enable a larger cadre of younger priests to face the challenge.
4. One you didn’t mention–we don’t currently pay priests a living wage by the Church’s own definition. This means that at least some who would leave are trapped in order to have some hope of old age without penury. We don’t need to pay them lavishly, but decently enough to contribute to the raising of their families. This is a social justice issue for priests now.
5. Speaking of families–if the RC Church wants to present a strong pro-family stance, shouldn’t its leaders be encouraged to raise families? If we say that priesthood is better than family, (as the magisterium does at present,) why shouldn’t career-driven individualists see in the Church itself a model of “work first, family second, if at all”?
The question of religious orders retaining an obligation of celibacy while the diocesan clergy would be free to marry is an interesting one. On a good day, religious communities provide the structures of reciprocal care and responsibility that calls forth almost familial intimacy. (I agree strongly with Mr. Lovasik who says that the basic question of celibacy isn’t about sex, but about intimacy, love and care for others.) But it’s far from universal–some men’s communities are spoken of as “men who live alone, together.” The “alone” is primary. Also, many male religious are engaged in ministries for which celibacy is neither necessary nor helpful. Perhaps even here decisions might be made on the basis of the actual call of the individual and the needs of a particular ministry instead of across the board. Indeed, we seem to be drifting in that direction de facto, as orders unable to maintain their apostolates with their own members alone are beginning to pay attention to the formation and inclusion of their collaborators to carry on the charism. Differently, yes, butthey do carry it on.
My question starts with the fact that these men took a vow of celibacy, as a married man I took a vow of chasitiy to my wife, if this story had read “men leaves Catholic Church because they do not agree with marital chasitiy” would we even be having this conversation. I an not saying that the topic of celibacy does not need to be addressed but I am sure that these men knew what they were getting into prior to doing it, not sure how long seminary is in Uganda but they must have known that celibacy was part of the priesthood and was a sacred vow they would take as part of their vocation.
If celibacy was an issue then why take the vow in the first place, this just leads to other interpretations of Church law, think about the African Bishop (cannot remember his name) that spoke out against priestly celibacy (in itself not wrong) the next thing we know he is in New York getting married by Reverand Moon. Can anyone tell me that they agree with the Mooneys? I am just saying that while I may think that priestly celibacy does need to be revisited. I think it must be through the church not outside it. I seem to remember a priest doing this in the 1500′s because he thought he was going to make the Catholic Church better, I think his name was Luther?
Crystal Watson
Thanks for transcribing the words of Maximos IV Sayegh. He is exactly on target. The popes have strongly discouraged dialogue about the requirement for presbyteral celibacy in the Latin rite. The very fact that the rule only applies to one rite already should give pause. There may be more that one reason why people do not want to have an open discussion. One possibility is that they do not have much of a case to make and they know it. I suspect that this is the reason why popes from Paul VI on have tried to keep the question from being openly discussed.
People lament the number of priests who have left the priesthood to marry, but in a way these men have done a service by standing up and being counted. They wished to serve, they wished to marry and serve, but they respected the promises they had made too much to break them. In a better world, the Church might have understood the prophetic message they were sending.
It’s interesting that in the US, celibate clergy who wish to marry leave the priesthood (and many remain Catholic), whereas in Uganda, apparently they leave the church (and with to remain priests). Why the different reactions? Is Ugandan culture more status-conscious?
NY Times had an AP report on this last week:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/31/world/AP-AF-Uganda-Renegade-Priests.html
(Lisa’s link to SF Chronicle did not work for me)
Apparently, the group started in Zambia. “inspired” by former bishop Milingo, whose history is recounted by Joseph above. Milingo, who hails from Zambia, has gone back and forth with the Vatican and his wife, finally being defrocked a couple of weeks ago. (I am not sure what that says about the episcopacy: can the Vatican defrock a bishop?) But I am not sure he is involved with the new group in any way, other than as inspiration.
If celibacy rules for priests in the West were to be revised, I’d think the discipline would be that men may marry prior to ordination, but once they are ordained as unmarried men, they may not marry. I believe that is the rule that holds for diocesan priests in the East, and it is also obtains for “permanent” deacons in the West.
That would mean that for our priests today, including these Ugandan priests, there isn’t a possibility of marrying and remaining a priest. Perhaps it would be kinder in some way if it were possible, but I’m not sure that it is realistic to hope for it.
I’m extremely sympathetic to men who made a promise at age 26 only to discover, at age 43, that they have changed significantly and are called to marry. I don’t know if American dioceses and religious orders are as sensitive as they can be in handling these situations, but all dioceses have had a lot of practice so we may hope that they do it in a way that isn’t unnecessarily vindictive. In Chicago there are support groups to help former priests.
“IMO, however, a call to celibacy, of giving one’s life to the love that is not particular, is a holy thing, the appreciation of which Catholicism offers the rest of the Christian world. Allowing priests to marry need not undermine the call to a celibate life. Unless getting rid of celibacy is driven by modern notions that a celibate is an unhealthy and repressed weirdo. And I think those modern notions do affect the debate.”
I agree with all of this.
A reason frequently given to support the notion that priestly celibacy is a virtue, is that freely embraced celibacy in our earthly life prefigures in some way the Kingdom of Heaven. In that context, I’m interested in the notion that celibacy would have been considered strange in Judaism. It provides an interesting cultural context for Jesus’ teaching that those in the Kingdom of Heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage. Does the Law in Judaism say anything about celibacy?
“Suppose one raised the question: should there be an African rite–given the context–in which priests are also allowed to marry?”
It’s worth mentioning that there is a Zairian liturgical rite – in other words, the Roman Catholic church has adapted its worship to African culture (or at least certain specific sub-Saharan African cultures). If worship is thus adaptable, why not the way that priestly life is ordered?
A critique of celibacy cannot be separated from a crtique of the priesthood. For the most part the clergy have been put on a pedestal which is so easy to fall from. St Paul stressed service but the clergy stress privilege and exemption. For the most part the clergy are severely mediocre, reduced to dispensor of sacraments and left to wallow in loneliness and misdirection. Vatican II attempted serious reform within clergy and laity. We need to follow that path and avoid the sacralization of the clergy which stresses privilege over service. Celibate or not the clergy is clearly mediocre which is the more pressing problem.
It’s worth pointing out, Jim, that a characteristic of Eastern Church law is the principle of epikaia, which means that the Church can “bend” rules for the good of the Church.
In light of that principle, for example, the Patriarchate of Antioch has allowed one of its American priests to remarry after the death of his wife.
Also, did not Jesus give to Peter the keys of the Kingdom: “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, whatever you LOOSE on earth is loosed in heaven”? The Church HAS authority to change disciplines, like celibacy…for the good of the Church.
Hi, Ken, that principle of “bending” even applies to permanent deacons in the West, as there are circumstances in which widowed deacons can remarry (although the bar was raised considerably a few years ago).
I agree that the church has a lot of leeway to order its discplines. I think, though, that there would be pragmatic implications to such a reordering that the church would be very reluctant to face. To be blunt: conservative (and perhaps not-so-conservativce) Catholics would have a conniption if their parish priest were allowed to marry. I’d think that the repercussions would be serious – perhaps it would even cause a schism of some sort.
I really think that even if the powers that be in Rome were conceptually in favor of relaxing the mandate for celibacy, these sorts of considerations would make it very difficult.
“Celibate or not the clergy is clearly mediocre which is the more pressing problem.”
In any well-ordered group, the majority are within one standard deviation either side of the mean, i.e. most people are average. Presumably, allowing married men or women into the priesthood would give us an influx of new candidates, the majority of whom would be average.
Thanks to Mr. Lovasik for sharing his journey. The best explanations of the current tension between married priests and the issue of celibacy are articles and research done by CORPUS and esp. Padavano:
[link to CORPUS letter]
To add to this enigma and your initial question, the legality of “married priests” is also in question. Many canon lawyers would quote signed rescripts that basically deny the married priest who has been laicized any right to celebrate the Eucharist. So, this leads to even more questions:
[link to article: Priests in search of a role (in England, a group called ADVENT)]
[A reminder: to keep comment threads manageable (and to respect copyright restrictions), please try to limit quotations from outside sources to about 250 words -- and provide a link to the rest. Thanks - MWO]
It provides an interesting cultural context for Jesus’ teaching that those in the Kingdom of Heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage. Does the Law in Judaism say anything about celibacy?
Jim,
Has anyone actually definitively pinned down what Jesus meant by the Kingdom of Heaven? In any case, if we are talking about Matthew 22, Jesus says, “You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.” So this refers to the resurrection of the dead, not Heaven or the Kingdom of Heaven.
It seems to me to contradict the idea of a physical resurrection. After Jesus was risen, he was a physical presence (although of a different kind than we know). He made a point of eating and having people touch him to prove he was not a ghost. At least today, we think of angels as pure spirits. We do not seem to expect to be like angels after the resurrection of the dead.
Here’s a little tidbit from the Britannica Online Encyclopedia:
What is baffling to me is not Judaism’s shunning of celibacy, but Christianity’s embracing it. Is there a hint in the creation stories in Genesis that it’s better to be celibate?
Here are links to Padavano’s 5 articles:
http://www.catholica.com.au/gc2/ap/002_ap_210408.php
My comments:
- section two addresses the tension about making a change to the man-made rule of celibacy
- section three is Padavano speaking directly to married priests in terms of experience, service and the concept some of you spoke about earlier that function comes before “ontology” or you wind up with a priesthood that is merely cultic
- section four speaks to some of the earlier anger, disruption, reactions, etc.
- section five actually is Padavano outlining a role for married priests that is different from many of the points made above.
Interesting ideas.
Jim Pauwels point ‘To be blunt: conservative (and perhaps not-so-conservativce) Catholics would have a conniption if their parish priest were allowed to marry. I’d think that the repercussions would be serious – perhaps it would even cause a schism of some sort.’
That laity’s conniption fits has that kind of power to keep things as they are.. gives one hope that progressive conniptions will eventually force change. :)
That Judaism did not have much, if any, room for celibacy seems clear enough. But this seems to have been another point at which Jesus was different. Some scholars take Mt 19:12c, about those who “make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” as self-referential, which John Meier interprets in this way: “somehow he saw his celibacy as part of his total, radical dedication to the proclmation of the coming kingdom and the task of regathering all Israel as this present age drew to a close…. Jesus, the eschatological prophet, may have seen his celibacy as a sign that the present order of things was soon to cease. For those totally dedicated to the kingdom, there could be no ‘business as usual’. Proclaiming the kingdom and calling Israel to repentance and renewal were to be his all-consuming mission. There was no time for an ordinary life, no space for a private existence.”
Meier goes on to link this saying of Jesus to the one about not marrying in the age to come. “Those raised to eternal life would be ‘like the angels.’ That is to say, while they would have human bodies, those bodies would be endowed with a new and different type of existence. With no danger of death, there would be no need to beget offspring. Hence there would be no marriage or sexual activity. In this, the bodies of the risen would be like the rarefied bodies–sexual but celibate–of the angels. Thus, it is possible that the eschatological prophet, proclaiming and realizing to some degree the coming kingdom in his own life, took upon himself as a prophetic sign the celibate state that he thought all the risen membes of Israel would share on the last day. Admittedly, this last point is sheer conjecture. More solid is the supposition that Jesus, like Jeremiah, saw celibacy as part of his all-consuming service to the God who was coming to Israel in judgment and mercy” (Marginal Jew, III, 507-08).
N.T. Wright has something similar: “the question about the Levirate law is irrelevant to the question of the resurrection, because in the new world that the creator god will make there will be no death, and hence no need for procreation” (Resurrection, 423).
Fr. Komonchak,
If celibacy seemed appropriate to Jesus in the light of a belief that the end times were immanent, it would hardly seem reasonable to cite the passage in Matthew as a call for celibacy today.
It’s interesting that the NAB says of Matthew 19:12: “Some scholars take the last class to be those who have been divorced by their spouses and have refused to enter another marriage. But it is more likely that it is rather those who have chosen never to marry, since that suits better the optional nature of the decision: whoever can . . . ought to accept it.”
They translate the verse as follows: “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” A note says “Incapable of marriage: literally, ‘eunuchs.’” I could have gone for eunuchs in the translation.
It is good that these twenty Ugandan priests were honest about their view of celibacy, and that they have the courage of their convictions. As such, if they cannot abide the call to celibacy, they should be honest, and consequently they cannot be priests in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. I truly wish them well.
Now, if some day the Roman Pope decides to change the rule on celibacy – after all, it is not a doctrine – the laity would no doubt accept the Pontiff’s rule on the matter. I do not agree that so-called conservatives would be upset and stomp out the door in a pout.
However, since the Catholic Church is not a democracy, any decision regarding this matter lies with Rome, not with the laity in hometown USA.
Frankly I never understand why some in the laity take such a keen interest in such private matter regarding our priests. As for the same folks claiming they “just want to help” regarding the shortage of priests, rather than chattering about private matters such as this, they can help more by praying, by entering the priesthood themselves, or by encuraging their sons to become priests.
Priests are real people, with feelings and I am sure they do not like being discussed as subjects of an experiment in sexuality. That undermines their position and authority and nobody appreciates others discussing publicly matters that are so private, especially when those doing the discussing obviously do not understand the value of celibacy that all our priests have taken.
Candidates for the priesthood know the rules when they enter seminary, and the matter is discussed in depth during their priestly formation. If a seminarian decides he cannot abide by the vow of celibacy, he is free and has ample opportunities to opt out of becoming a priest. That is no sin; that is simple honesty.
Celibacy is an important matter for the clergy; they are the ones who must abide by it. As such, if anyone has the right to discuss the matter with the Pope, it is the Roman clergy; not the laity.
Fair enough, Ken – except that I would only conceivably encourage my son to consider the priesthood if celibacy was optional.
Another historical note. Before Paul VI decided that celibacy should not be on the Council’s agenda, John XXIII had made the same determination. In the early months of the preparation of the Council, some people, including a Curial figure, began to wonder if the Council might not take up the issue, and, he suggested, the Church could permit a married clergy alongside the celibate one. Pope John XXIII reacted by calling the article by the official “ingenuo, imprudente e strabiliante” (naive, imprudent, and dumb-founding). A short while later, speaking to the priests of his diocese at the Roman Synod, he went out of his way to make this remark: “It most of all distresses us that … anyone could indulge the fantasy that the Catholic Church wishes or thinks it appropriate to depart from the law of ecclesiastical celibacy which throughout the centuries has been and remains a noble and shining ornament of the priesthood. The law of ecclesiastical celibacy and the effort to see it preserved always calls to mind the memorable and glorious struggles of times when the Church of Christ was called to bitter battles and gained her threefold triumph; for this is the emblem of the victory of Christ’s Church: that she be free, chaste, and universal” (John XXIII, to Roman Synod, January 26, 1960). [The reference is to the struggles that defined the Gregorian Reform of the eleventh century.]
Later in the preparations, a decree was prepared to deal with the problem of priests who had abandoned the ministry, mostly in order to marry. The majority of the Central Preparatory Commission, which reviewed and evaluated material prepared for the Council, were of the view that the matter should not be discussed at the Council, and when Pope John was informed of this, he ordered that the schema not form part of the conciliar agenda.
Celibacy is an important matter for the clergy; they are the ones who must abide by it. As such, if anyone has the right to discuss the matter with the Pope, it is the Roman clergy; not the laity.
Ken,
This limits the discussion of celibacy to those who have already chosen it! What about all those men (and woman, of course) who would opt for ordination if it weren’t for mandatory celibacy? What about priests who found they could not live a celibate life and left the priesthood (but not the Church) to marry? Certainly they have a unique perspective.
The Catholic Church may not be a democracy, but neither should it be a top-down organization that does not take into account the experience of all its members. If a celibate pope, bishops, and priests may make pronouncements on marriage, certainly married people ought to be able at minimum to discuss celibacy.
“Now, if some day the Roman Pope decides to change the rule on celibacy – after all, it is not a doctrine – the laity would no doubt accept the Pontiff’s rule on the matter. I do not agree that so-called conservatives would be upset and stomp out the door in a pout.”
Hi, Ken, (not Ken Lovasik, but just plain Ken :-))
I would say, never underestimate, especially given today’s widespread and instantaneous communication, the capacity of conservatives to stomp out in a huff :-).
Maybe I’m just projecting my own intuitions in saying that it would have serious repercussions. But fwiw, I do think that the great mass of faithful people in the pews, while they may or may not have a well-formed view of holy orders and the disciplines thereof, instinctively see celibacy as something that is very important to their notion of the identity of priesthood. I think quite a few people would be pretty shaken up if the priest in their rectory could marry.
People have a deep emotional investment in their priests, even when there is not an actual personal relationship. We get inklings of this when a priest suddenly leaves the parish and the priesthood. It upsets people, because that’s not the way (in their view) the world should be ordered.
Not about Catholics or celibacy, but another story about religious issues in Uganda from today’s New York Times:
“People have a deep emotional investment in their priests, even when there is not an actual personal relationship. We get inklings of this when a priest suddenly leaves the parish and the priesthood. It upsets people, because that’s not the way (in their view) the world should be ordered.”
Perhaps I am a little unusual but I think of priests as functionaries and I tend to judge them by the way they function. Maybe we come from different planets.
David – Your points are valid enough, and I will answer each briefly, and then in more detail. I do not mean to be brusque, but I think given your points, this format works best.
D – This limits the discussion of celibacy to those who have already chosen it
K – Yes that is true, and that is how it should be. You do not have to be celibate and neither do I. Obviously a man considering the priesthood is not a priest and does not fully understand what it means to be one. As such then, any man considering the priesthood should first learn what the priesthood is rather than waste his and everyone else’s time pontificating about what he (as a prospective priest) thinks it should be.
D – What about all those men (and woman, of course) who would opt for ordination if it weren’t for mandatory celibacy?
K – If they cannot be celibate, then they cannot be a priest.
D – What about priests who found they could not live a celibate life and left the priesthood (but not the Church) to marry? Certainly they have a unique perspective.
K – Yes they do have a unique perspective, and they were correct to leave the priesthood and stay in the Church.
There is nothing wrong David, with a man who after having seriously considered the priesthood, finds that he cannot abide the vow of celibacy and therefore decides not to become a priest.
In fact since the vow of celibacy is an important part of becoming a priest, if a man decides he cannot live celibate, it simply means he is not called to be a priest; nothing more and nothing less. It certainly does not mean he is a bad guy. On the contrary, the very fact that he took the time and made the effort to look into the seminary means he is probably a very good man indeed; but it is equally true that his destiny lies elsewhere.
It is very important that a man discern this before ordination but also, if he comes to this realization after he has been ordained, it is very important as well. He should honestly acknowledge to himself and to his bishop that he cannot continue celibate, he should officially resign from the priesthood, follow his heart and marry the woman he loves.
But again, if the Pope one day decides to allow married priests, that is his decision. We laity, even us conservatives, mainly because it would be the Pope’s decision, would simply accept it.
Sean —
No, one does not need to assume that celibacy is “the” cause of the current lack of priests. Some events have more than one cause, and some are a result of a series of causes.
Pre-VII and John Paul’s defense of married love, many seminarians were taught that the priesthood was a better state of life and that sex was at best a distraction from living a holy life. When the teachings changed many priests re-thought their vocations. I’m quite sure that for many their initial commitment was evidence of idealism, not immaturity.
True, it isn’t right to break a vow without clear and compelling reason, but I suspect that in some rare cases there are such reasons.
Perhaps I am a little unusual but I think of priests as functionaries and I tend to judge them by the way they function. Maybe we come from different planets.
Joseph,
This was some time ago, but after I came to New York, there was a married, Lutheran priest who converted to Catholicism and became a Catholic priest in the parish where I had lived with my family. My mother, who was quite conservative, thought very highly of him. But she told me that there were others who wouldn’t attend mass when he was saying it. It was not because he was a convert, but because he was married.
I wonder what difference it might have made in Richard John Neuhaus’s career if he had brought a wife along with him when he converted.
Ken,
I certainly hope I did not imply there was anything wrong with a man leaving the seminary (or, for that matter, the priesthood) because he decided celibacy was not for him.
It occurred to me that we are both forgetting that there are married priests, and soon to be many more coming in from the Anglican Communion. I hope they are permitted to discuss celibacy.
But again, if the Pope one day decides to allow married priests, that is his decision. We laity, even us conservatives, mainly because it would be the Pope’s decision, would simply accept it.
Would you not want the Pope to make such a decision based on “real life” rather than totally abstract principles? Shouldn’t he take into account the experiences of celibate clergy, married clergy (Eastern Rite and married Protestant clergy who convert to Catholicism)? And shouldn’t he take into account how the laity relate to priests?
I don’t understand why celibate clergy set themselves up as such great experts on marriage when they have never been married and are also the great experts on celibacy, too? It seems to me that how priests live is the business of everybody in the Church. The Church may not be a democracy, but the laity are just as much the Church as the clergy.
Perhaps I am a little unusual but I think of priests as functionaries and I tend to judge them by the way they function. Maybe we come from different planets.
I’ve known a couple of ptiests as friends (not my priest at church) and they seem to be just normal people with an unusual job/calling.
I was struck too by the coincidence of the anti-gay legislation coming up in Uganda and this story also from Uganda. I think there may be some differences in attitudes between the church (and society) here and there.
Plain Ken –
Look at the facts. There is a dearth of active priests. The faithful desperately need priests to celebrate the Eucharist. Many “ex-priests” are available forcthat service. Rome refuses to let them serve us.
None of those facts have anything whatsoever to do with anyone’s private lives. It is your point about privacy that is irrelevant.
Also note that polls clearly indicate that American Catholics don’t care about their priests’ private lves (unless they are abusing children). Most of us would easily accept married priests.
Your post is a smoke screen maskng a problem and a partial solution — we desperately needore priests’ NOW, some are available, but Rome refuses their services.
What’s more important, Plain Ken– that celibate priests remain the only kind or that he faithful have the Eucharist available as widely as possible NOW?
Well David and Ann,
I am sure the Pope understands there is a shortage of priests, and I am sure he takes many things into account when considering this or any issue involving rules for the clergy.
In short, I am confident the Pope knows what he is doing and moreover, I would not venture to tell him how he should make decisions.
I think it is important to note that there are ordained and lay ministers in the Church who are not Priests. One can always chose to serve in one of these important ministries.
oops, choose
I am confident the Pope knows what he is doing and moreover, I would not venture to tell him how he should make decisions.
Ken, does this mean that you disagree with the Pope and Council’s decision that laity with expertise should be consulted? (I cannot figure out if you think people who have been laicised should be consulted on celibacy; I cannot see that you addressed it in your several paragraphs on laicised priests.)
If the Pope were to decide that no masses should be held within 500 miles of your home, would you accept that? Would you consider ways to address whatever problem created that situation? Do you think it reasonable to offer the fruits of your brainstorming to the Pope? If yes, how does the situation differ from clerical celibacy?
Ken, your last comment is tantamount to: “I’m out of arguments, but I trust the Pope”. On this website, that’s not going to fly.
One of the most interesting popes is Benedict IX (1012 – 1092). He was in and out of the papacy three times.
Among much else at Wikipedia there is this: “In May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage, selling his office to his godfather, the pious priest John Gratian, who named himself Gregory VI.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_IX
Eamon Duffy, in his history of the popes, Saints and Sinners, also states that Benedict IX “accepted a bribe to abdicate in favour of his godfather, the archpriest John Gratian. It was rumoured that Pope Benedict needed the money in order to marry.”
My guess is that at least half of what is alleged about him is false, but still he seems like an interesting character. Whenever I browse in a book about the popes I check the index to locate him so I can form a quick first impression of the author’s overall stance.
In one sense the attitude of this Benedict was refreshing. He didn’t try to change the rules about celibacy or try to justify his choice in universal or quasi-Kantian terms as a modern would. He simply took a bribe and left. I’ve often wondered how his marriage turned out but have never found out — there’s probably material for a novel about a man who gave up the papacy for his true love (although it may be that his true love had a lot of money).
Timothy Radcliffe in the Tablet today notes that the adoption of rules in the middle ages to uplift the Church’s priests is now problematic as the emphasis on power and control and its impact on clericalism is hurting the Church and its priests.
Much of the discussion here (can we talk?) is talkin geither from the perspective of defendin ga status quo or how to deal with a problem – a problem that is bigger than celibacy , a problem revolving around the culture of clergy.
After catching up on this thread I’ve got to agree with Claire:
Ken with no last name:
“‘Ken, your last comment is tantamount to: ‘I’m out of arguments, but I trust the Pope’. On this website, that’s not going to fly.”
And in spades….
I disagree with Ken, but he’s one of the nicest people here, so I would give him the benefit of the doubt and say that it’s not that he has run out of arguments, it’s that he trusts the pope enough not to feel arguments are necessary.
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.
I guess what I can’t fathom after reading David Brooks column in the NYT this morning
(see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/opinion/05brooks.html?th&emc=th ) about the so call “Tea Party” types is why the institutional Church’s leadership deserves any more trust than say an elected member of Congress.
I must say however, as a neighbor I find the ideas of the tea party folk quite disturbing since in their worse form they can lead to fascism.
Before we leave this topic, I just want to urge a thread on the Radcliffe piece in the 1/5 Tablet.
It strikes me that issues of power/clericalism are at the heart not only of how the ceobacy issue is handled, but also issues of theology, women’s roles and others as well.
Beyond that lies the credibility of our own USCCCB with Cardinal Geoegre trying to bring the Catholic media and higher ed under control in the name of “love.”
To waht extent the Curail structure is seen as more Machiavelian than Christlike touches where we go on a number of issues.
Loyalists here like Maggie and Ken see no problem, but I think many of us do.
When I think about this issue, I think of all those farmers in the early 20th century rejecting out of hand “new” ideas about soil management, who unwittingly turned their land into the dust bowl of the 1930s. I have no idea what the “traditionalist” plan is for creating, training or ordaining more priests. All I know is that the Church as currently structured will lose its vitality if it doesn’t soon figure this out.
To quote a former Commonweal mag contributor:
“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 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.
And, my personal favorite:
“Papal insistence on a monosexual and celibate priestly ministry is grounded in and generates a weird scale of values in which access to the Eucharist is presented as less urgent than a badly explained sexual rectitude.”
Michael Garvey, Finding Fault, 1990.
As to Jesus’ remarks on celibacy–why do we read this passage as a recommendation of celibacy? It strikes me that we could also read it as a lament, especially given the strongly pro-family tilt of Judaism. “Some are born eunuchs…” might be heard in that context as “some are born mutilated…” “Some are made eunuchs by others…” who would choose that? It is,after all, mutilation that leaves one less than fully adult/participatory in Jewish life? Some are eunichs for the Kingdom…” for some, (I emphasize the “some,”) in fact their service might leave them unable to marry, perhaps because of the personal risk that would devolve to their spouses should they be, for instance, itinerant preachers who might wind up crucified. This kind of personal risk is rare in today’s Church. Again–instead of reading this passage as a triumphalist celebration of the nobility of celibacy, whynot hear it as a young man’s lament?
Plus, the quotation from Meiers above is just weird: “sex would not be necessary…” Sex isn’t generally engaged in because it is necessary, but, one hopes, because it is a means of deep communion between lovers, and perhaps leads to new life in the process. “Necessary” sounds like “flossing will not be necessary in the Kingdom.” OK, but it’s kind of a stultified vision of sex. Jesus seems like far too passionate and loving a man to eschew marriage because it wouldn’t be “necessary” in the kingdom. If eating isn’t necessary then either, would Jesus have starved to death like a Jain?
Jimmy Mac – you may not be following this thread but thought you would be interested in this bulletin piece last Sunday and in the Dallas Catholic paper from our Monsignor pastor – link: http://www.texascatholic.com/default.asp?nodeid=835
Highlights – 6 months ago he had a associate (12 yrs as priest) leave and he is now married.
Per pastor: “Recently I heard of a young priest from another diocese who decided to leave the priesthood. The primary reason he gave to his congregation is that in the priesthood there were not sufficient opportunities to develop intimate personal relationships…..This unfortunate, confused young priest has probably bought in to the prevalent notion that the only intimate personal relationship possible is a sexual one. ” (seems to me that his view is 1960′s and is fairly black and white & that he has also skipped over intimacy as friendship, sharing, support, comfort, challenges, etc. which goes well beyond sexual??)
Another comment: “This is not my view, nor my experience of ministerial priesthood. The way I see it, I am called to be a lover. I am called to love and care for every person whom I encounter, especially those of my parish family, in a non-exclusive way just as Jesus did.” (again, fairly standard esp. given that he was a formation director for years)
Read through his whole article – he basically reduces intimacy to an immature, adolescent concept and viewpoint.
Compare this to any information from books by Cozzens or retired bishop, Robinson.
For the Roman view on the Ugandan priests, John Allen has stuff today at NCr.
As you might expect, they pooh pooh what happened.
So it goes…
Bill de Haas:
for once I disagree with you. I read the article that you linked to (thanks). By and large, I like the perspective of the pastor. How is it “immature, adolescent” to spend seven years in close friendship with a sick woman until she dies? How is it “immature, adolescent” to walk with people for a short while by being close to them in the most important moments of their lives?
Claire – sorry; not trying to avoid your comments. The priest’s statement is fine as it stands but my reaction is that it is too neat; standard; etc.
Here is a link that I find interesting: http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=39565
Some other directions:
- growing up in a small west Texas town we had one MD and one sheriff. Both were married with families. Would suggest that they also were intimately involved with any number of families over the course of their lives and careers…..how is this any different that what this priest says and why does that make his celibacy different?
- he cites some examples of intimate relationships – they seem functional (after he stated that celibate priesthood is not functional). You can not have it both ways. Intimacy goes well beyond the description he gives
Realize that this is a vast and complex charism but his article merely seems to echo old and tired expressions.
Maybe you’re right. In the meantime I’m afraid I’ve lost interest in the thread, like a conversation that was interrupted and is difficult to pick up again. I can’t imagine how people used to do it back in the days when they had epistolary discussions!