Dear Mr. Prusak,
Thank you for a wonderful reflection on your experiences of Vatican II. I would like to comment on a statement you made in this article. And, I wonder if you’re thinking has changed over the years.
You wrote: “The more I read ancient sources, bolstering my understanding of changes in the history of the church, the more I began to regret a celibacy that cut me off from many of life’s meaningful relationships and experiences.”
It is my understanding that priestly formation in seminaries now approach celibacy and chastity in which celibacy must embrace meaningful relationships and experiences in Christian charity.
In my view, this becomes a model for others not in holy orders to live chaste lives. There has to be, I believe, a model and a witness for this. Not everyone is “called” to celibacy; many find, however, that they must accept it. In a culture in which nothing must be denied, that all relationships and experiences are legitimate, celibacy is redefined as an oppressive burden imposed as a means of control.
In the many current arguments that advocate the end of the requirement of celibacy for priests – some too eagerly put forward – what is ignored are those who will still be denied, as you put it “...from many of life’s meaningful relationships and experiences.”
Celibacy does not deny anyone meaningful relationships or experiences. Blame cannot be laid on celibacy for that. Removing the requirement will not guarantee anything, except perhaps engendering a deep animosity and resentment in those left outside the camp.
Dear Mr. Prusak,
Thank you for a wonderful reflection on your experiences of Vatican II. I would like to comment on a statement you made in this article. And, I wonder if you’re thinking has changed over the years.
You wrote: “The more I read ancient sources, bolstering my understanding of changes in the history of the church, the more I began to regret a celibacy that cut me off from many of life’s meaningful relationships and experiences.”
It is my understanding that priestly formation in seminaries now approach celibacy and chastity in which celibacy must embrace meaningful relationships and experiences in Christian charity.
In my view, this becomes a model for others not in holy orders to live chaste lives. There has to be, I believe, a model and a witness for this. Not everyone is “called” to celibacy; many find, however, that they must accept it. In a culture in which nothing must be denied, that all relationships and experiences are legitimate, celibacy is redefined as an oppressive burden imposed as a means of control.
In the many current arguments that advocate the end of the requirement of celibacy for priests – some too eagerly put forward – what is ignored are those who will still be denied, as you put it “...from many of life’s meaningful relationships and experiences.”
Celibacy does not deny anyone meaningful relationships or experiences. Blame cannot be laid on celibacy for that. Removing the requirement will not guarantee anything, except perhaps engendering a deep animosity and resentment in those left outside the camp.
Dear Paul,
The idea of meaningful relationships are those that can be shared with the whole world!! Mr. Prusak is now sharing his that lasted for 41 years. Celibacy for some is the right thing, but for many it is not. It blocks out the ability to express love and understanding in full capacity and creates many false and disordered relationships. Purity and virtue do not come from celibacy.
As I have said before on other blogs, why this polarization of the Sacraments of Holy Orders and Marriage? They are both about the profound love of God, both vocational, both a discerned calling of spirits to those who are lucky and graced to know and act on this calling. Why does one have to make a choice for one or the other? Bringing the two together would only enrich the church enormously! The polarization only presupposes the denigration of women and that is what must end in our church and what Vatican II tried to do, but was unsuccessful. That is why it is most important now to revisit and reiterate the messages of Vat II loud and clear so that our church can live in the hope of a brighter and more egalitarian future.
Mr. Prusak, thank you for this thoughtful piece of history and I invite you to visit our parish's homage to Vat II created by our deacon-- http://conciliaria.com/ My part was translating a document by the Dutch Bishops from the French.
I am reading all I can on Vat II now as I was too young and had left the church when it all took place. Since my return to the church and my faith, what I have found and read in all the writings that came out of those special three years; is nothing short of miraculous.
Fifty years ago, this fall I met an insightful and young religion teacher, Fr. Bernard Prusack, an insightful and effective teacher even in the midst of the cacophany of freshmen boys and in spite of some outlandish inquiries discovered in the "question box." That was the beginning of my fascination with theology. Thank you, Dr. Prusak for that class and your reflection in this column. If you might want to travel "across the river" back to Paterson, we would love to invite you to join our parish series on Remembering and Celebrating Vatican II.