www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Celibate Clergy and Latin Catholics

How are we to deal with Latin Catholics that defend the celibate priesthood discipline by using a defence that borders on doctrine/dogma.

That is their defence tries to raise this discipline of the Latin Catholic Church to the level of a doctrine/dogma of the Catholic Church?

For example. On another forum, the Catholic-Pages (I keep, semi-jokeingly, telling them that the name should be Latin-Catholic-Pages) at http://www.catholic-pages.com/forum/ has this post.

To view it use the link above and select the News and Topical Issues thread, you will have to use the Next selection at the bottom a couple of times to see the thread, it is titled Reply to Tom dated 03/28, or use this link http://bne001w.webcentral.com.au/read?271651,60 it will take you right there.

Here is the response I wish to address.

Greg ....are you coming out of the Liberal closet ?

Can we let Scripture answer you Brainyacks.....I think maybe this is where Holy Mother Church....Might have gotten Sacred Tradition from on this topic.....

1 Corinthians 7

32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.


Sorry Guys .....I think the Holy Spirit made it pretty clear here.

Any help would be greatly appericated.

Yours in Christ,
David

[ 04-08-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

Dear David,

The discipline of the Latin Church itself did not introduce the celibate priesthood until hundreds of years later.

Could it be, according to this fellow's logic, that the Latin Church had been misreading Scripture until then?

Where in Scripture did Christ or the Apostles ever IMPOSE celibacy as a rule for all, whether they could "take it" or not? And the quote for St Paul about it being better to be married than to "burn."

The Latin Church's rule on celibacy is man-made and, as such, could be changed by the stroke of a papal pen tomorrow.

And what about the growing number of Anglican and Lutheran (and Polish National Catholic) clerical converts who are becoming Latin Catholic priests in the married state?

It just amazes me to what extent some Latins will keep their heads buried in the sand on this issue!

The other side of the coin is the problem with vocations to an imposed celibate clerical state with many EEM's (you're great, Angela!) in areas reduced to having "Communion Services" in place of the Mass for lack of (celibate) priests.

The reason why bishops have moved priests found guilty of you know what around is that they just don't have the priests to adequately serve their growing flocks.

The Latin Church has a tendency (always did) to see its own Particular disciplines, which have never been defined as universal for the Eastern Churches 'ex cathedra' or otherwise, as something everyone else must adhere to as an expression of Divine law and Will.

And that is truly ridiculous and is something that will not stand up to the rigour of any Latin Church document pertaining to the Eastern Church.

As I see it, we must defend our traditions and the Particular character of our Eastern Churches.

On this score, many of our ancestors would rather "switch" to Orthodoxy after fighting proved futile.

But your dear friend hasn't a leg to stand on. Scripture, he can be reminded, is only one source from which the Church draws its doctrine and discipline. And there "ain't" even of Scripture to make celibacy mandatory for the universal Church.

Alex

How can whoever wrote this ignore verse 35 which he/she himself/herself quoted?

35 I say this for your own benefit, NOT TO LAY ANY RESTRAINT UPON YOU, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

(emphasis mine)

Sure, the unmarried person "can" be anxious about the affairs of the Lord, but not always. If the current scandals aren't enough to convince them, perhaps they might want to visit an area college?

In my Bible (NAB, which I don't personally care for, but the headings are what I'm particularly looking at, granted headings aren't infallible), the section quoted above is under the heading "Advice to Virgins and Widows". Earlier in the same chapter seven of I Cor., verses 1-2, we see this text:


I would hope these two points from the same part of Scripture might shut up those who think mandatory celibacy is not just a Latin "good idea", but dogma. I think the current cases are immoral enough...

Ok, I kind of paraphrased your two replies and here is what they come back with.

Luke 18
29 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God,
30 who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life."

The person who posted this was fair and balanced though, here is some of his comments;

The idea of a celibate priesthood may not be one that is mandatory, but it is, as the Roman Church has discovered it to be, a better way, and as such our priests *willingly* take that vow of celibacy, in order to bring to Christ's Church a priesthood which strives for that most excellent way, and to offer themselves completely "for the Kingdom of God's sake."

He goes on to quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1579

1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."[70] Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord,"[71] they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.[72]

He then finishes with;

For these reasons I do not believe the Roman Church will ever change its position on the celibate priesthood. There is simply too much for our mystical Church to gain by it, and so very much we would lose by abandoning this pursuit of the better way. And as I said, I think the Magisterium knows this, and so do the greater majority of Roman Catholics across the world.

As I said, he seems to be balanced and understands the fact that this is a discipline of the Latin Catholic Church and he makes no real attempt to defend this as a doctrine/dogma.

Thanks for the help guys!

David

[ 04-08-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

David,

I recall Bob J use to say "the devil can quote scripture for his own purpose." Celibacy for the Priesthood is a discipline of the Church not a dogma. Although I don't want the Priesthood of the Latin Church to give up it's discipline on celibacy, and would find myself positioned on the same side of the line that those who support Priestly celibacy are on, I am a little critical of those who start making dogmas and holding to certain positions for what can seem to be personal agendas and political leanings instead of being concerned what is good for Holy Mother Church. On the other hand if a man truely believes that the position they hold - such as support for a celibate Priesthood - is truely the best thing for Morther Church and is what Christ intended. Then I have no problem with them. For their heart is in the right place, and who knows... I and others could be wrong?

I seem to be answering a few points here [ BTW thanks Alex for the undeserved compliment]

David, I think that one of the problems here is this confusion between discipline and dogma. As has been stated there often enough, Celibacy is a discipline and, as Alex says, it can be done away with. On Catholic-Pages there have been hundreds of posts about this problem of alleged abuse and many of those have also asked if the married Priesthood would solve the problem - and as we know it would not [ plenty of evidence in the Protestant Churches here].

I think that if these people are honest they are looking at the shortage of priests and trying to find a way round it - priestless parishes are, I understand, not uncommon - and what a sad thing that is. A married priesthood would bring it's own problems - mostly financial I suspect, and that is where you Eastern folk have the advantage over us Latins - experience in how to manage this.

There is no easy answer and your friends on Catholic-Pages at the present will not really hear whatever it is that you say - they are overwhelmed by their own problems.

We have to remember that at present the Holy Father has said - no talk of this - no married Priesthood - so for the present we in the Latin Church has to listen and obey. Perhaps in the future it can be discussed calmly without all the passion/anger and frustration there is at present.

I was unaware of this, can you tell me where and when this was said?

I know for the women priest disucssion the Holy Father has stopped the clergy from discussing this, but can the Pope really stop the laity from having discussions on issues that are discipline only?

David

Dear David,

The fellow who posted back to you has no inkling of "willing" celibacy since there is no way the RC church will ordain married Latin candidates.

It will ordain Anglican and other converts as married Latin priests. What does he think of that?

And what about the thousands upon thousands of RC priests who leave to get married and who annually petition Rome to receive them back?

Willing? Ah, yeah, right . . .

Better still, why don't you get him to come on the Byzantine Forum so we could get a closer, er, look at him . . .

I look forward to that possibility or eventuality!

Alex

David,

I think it important to point out to your respondent that he needs to remember not to read into Scripture those things that were never intended. The passage from Corinthians has nothing to do with the priesthood. It was written to the Church at Corinth. Paul's perspective on marriage at this time was influenced by what he thought to be the imminent return of the Lord, "I suppose therefore that this is good beacause of the present distress (perhaps the trials and persecutions before the Lord's return)- that it is good for a man to remain as he is (single)" (1 Cor. 7:26) "for the form of this world is passing away" (7:31). (Parenthetical notes are mine)

Yet look at Paul's list of qualifications for the episcopacy and diaconate in he wrote to Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13, "the bishop must be above repoach, the husband of one wife,..., the deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and household well".

We are not Bible literalists, or else the Church would insist that we ordain only married men to the episcopate.

Sorry to disagree with Alex, but I think inviting those kinds of intractable minds to the Forum will only frustrate the Easterns and give an ulcer to the "guest".

"Oh East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet............." [What twain?]

Christ is Risen!!!

Speaking as a Latin-rite Catholic (who, though being quite traditional, and holding to that which is taught by the Church in accordance with the tradition of the Church, can at the same time get quite aggravated with fellow members of his own particular rite for their too often tendency to think there is only one Catholic way to do things, namely the Roman/Western way) I can assure the initial poster that the individual you have come across is simply incorrect.

As others have said, the celibacy of the clergy is not dogmatic or doctrinal in nature; therefore, to make such a silly statement as theological liberalism is ridiculous, unless by liberalism we use it in the non-pejorative sense of meaning freedom where there is freedom to be had. Clearly priestly celibacy has never been universally held as a practise in the Church, nor has it always been held in the West.

No doubt the person in question is lumping priestly celibacy in with such issues as the ordination of women. But clearly this is apples to oranges. I am not personally opposed to priestly celibacy, but I am not opposed to a married clergy either since both find their place in the traditional discipline of the Church.

Unfortunately, one of the ill side effects of Trent(I say this as one who prefers the Tridentine rite of Mass, and always refers to the new Catechism alongside the likes of the Catechism of Trent, etc.), has been the development of the idea that there is only one way to do things. This most often rears its head in terms of the liturgy, but I think some would make the celibacy issue another such case. It explains why there is such tension between adherents of the old Tridentine rite and the new Pauline rite, and I think it explains the charge of liberalism for holding that a non-celibate clergy is acceptable.

One might remind the fellow not only of these points, but also that St. Peter was himself married. Likewise should he be reminded that the Church is universal, not simply Western, and that John Paul II has spoken of unity in diversity (of which this would be a good example) and how the Church breathes with the lungs of East and West.

On a more charitable note, one must keep in mind that the writer may have, in his own mind, lumped this issue with the likes of female ordination since he may see them coming from the same camp (not always the case ironically; I sometimes wonder if the pro-female ordination camp don't want married priests as they feel it may result in a larger influx of male vocations and hence take away their "we must ordain women because of the priestly shortage" argument) and thus might be a bit reactionary for that reason. One must also remember that theological liberalism is rampant in the Western church at this time and so a counter-reactionary tendency can easily development which may fail to make necessary distinctions in a desire to preserve tradition and orthodoxy.

Dr. John, I used to disagree with you on this, but I have changed my mind.

After rading websites like DioceseReport, which see all evil as eminating from Vatican II and finding fault with JPII, even after all he has been through in his life, the hard-core Trad RCs who think the only valid worship is the Tridentine Mass should not come here.

Now, if one prefers the old Mass, that's okay - sometimes I do, too - but not to acknowlege the validity of the Divine Liturgy and Eastern traditions is jsut plain wrong.

Good Evening,

Just wanted to give my 2 cents within this post... Just to give you some background, I have already applied to the seminary in our Diocese (RCC) and I can't wait to enter this coming August. Regarding celibacy, I give Thanks and Praise to God for even having this "GIFT" of being celibate. I can hardly describe the feeling of how proud I am to be giving up something so joyous in other people's lives. For right now, it is a Roman Catholic Discipline (absolutely not a Dogma) and to tell you the truth, I feel thats the way it should be. I do understand their is a lack of priests, but we still are surviving and strong at that, and I feel people are called to live celibately (I know a lot of my other friends wanting to become Deacons and to raise kids and have a damily). I agree with John Paul II on this one, but maybe down the line we will change it (years to come). As of the current situation how everyone thinks the scandals are because of celibacy, they need to do their research! If the Priestly Discipline of celibacy changed to just Diocsean priesthood, I know it would be my calling to join a religous order (I love the fact of people living in Poverty, Celibacy and Obedience for the Lord!) (I am almost for certain the discipline of Religious Order Priests will never change).


Changing the subject, I just visited a tridentine mass last Sunday, and it was a Great Experience! I am eager to visit a Byzantine Liturgy hopefullly this Sunday or the next Sunday!



Happy "Annunciation Of the Lord" Day to all who celebrated!


In Christ,

-Joseph

[ 04-09-2002: Message edited by: Seeker ]

Well I will give you all a little up date, seems that they have gone a step further now, with the creation of two new threads in then Priesthood, Vocations & the Religious Life topic.

One posts SACERDOTALIS CAELIBATUS which starts
SACERDOTALIS CAELIBATUS (The Celibacy of the Priest)
Pope Paul VI
Encyclical promulgated on 24 June 1967
To the Bishops, Priests and Faithful of the Whole Catholic World

link to it is http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6SACERD.HTM

If this encyclical is to the Whole Catholic World how can we have a married priesthood still?

The next post, is an article that makes a claim that celibacy goes back to the Apostles. The title of this thread is Celibacy dates back to the Apostles.

Here is a link to it http://bne001w.webcentral.com.au/read?275159,44

I am beginning to think it is time to cut my loses at that forum and get out before I get any more frustrated at their tunnel vision.


David

Dear David,

The links for that forum don't work, even after I tried to sign up. I'm sorry that I can't read these.

As far as Sacerdotalis Caelibatus goes, a cursory scanning of this encyclical (which I once read in its entirety) reveals:


and


and


As far as celibacy going back to the apostles, sure, maybe some chose to live celibately, like Saint Paul is alleged to have done. But certainly there's an overwhelming amount of support, even in the Latin West, that celibacy wasn't the norm as it is today. I once heard the year 600 as the time around which the Latins started mandating celibacy for all clerics.