www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News The Celibacy Question Again

Marduk,

I think what was objectionable in non_nomen's statement was that he stated that celibates "give their all" better than married priests. Free time is one thing, giving one's all is another. I know plenty of married priests for whom their priesthood is indeed their all, even if they theoretically have less time for their ministry--something I have not seen borne out in fact.

Hal - I'm not attacking the Eastern tradition of married clergy. What I meant was that being unmarried frees a priest to give all of himself, including the time, energy, and devotion that would otherwise (and rightly) go to his wife and children, to the direct service of the Church. The issue was Roman celibacy; I gave the Roman perspective on it without intended reference, and certainly not intended insult, to Eastern traditions. Again - no offense meant.

I do think it is more prevalent today, yes; just as homosexuality, teen sex, cohabitation, and every sexual sin under the sun seem to be far more prevalent. That's not to say that it never happened before. And that's not to say that it's the media's fault - the media did not cause the Sexual Revolution, it just happily joined in on it.

The commitment isn't made at 20 or 21; it's made far later, at the time of ordination itself. Seminarians are under the same obligations as any other unmarried person; there're no vows as yet. Speaking from the ripe old age of 23 , I do think that many 21 year olds are capable of lifelong commitment to celibacy or to marriage - neither is expected of them, though (and possibly that's why so many are not ready...?).

And our seminaries have failed. Miserably. That's been made very clear over the course of the scandal. If we clean up the seminaries, and the problems continue on the same scale, I would be very surprised.

As I have said before, I cannot speak for the quality of screening and training by the seminaries. I simply do not have enough facts in front of me to argee to diagree and will take your word for it.

Let's assume, however, that a better weeding out process is in place in the seminaries. Then what? You eliminate even more candidates and leave your parishes with an even greater shortage?

Now, is the elimination of mandatory celibacy the "magic bullet" that will solve all of the Latin Church's problems? Of course not. But, frankly, niether is more stringent screening at the seminary level. Hear me now and believe me later, many people still have a lot of growing up to do at their mid-20's.

However, as an outsider looking in (with my admitted biases), it seems to me that the Latin Church would do well to combine better screening with elimination of mandatory celibacy and other steps.

As I asked before: how do you know if you haven't tried?

Yours,

hal

Hal wrote: "many young men that were ordained before marriage wound up having relationships (and sometimes even children) on the side. This was before TV and before anyone ever dreamed of putting Halle Berry in a catwoman costume"...

It's mustta been those keptar's & koralky that did it! VA-VA-VA-VOOOMMMMM!!!!!!



mark

"I do think it is more prevalent today, yes; just as homosexuality, teen sex, cohabitation, and every sexual sin under the sun seem to be far more prevalent. That's not to say that it never happened before. And that's not to say that it's the media's fault - the media did not cause the Sexual Revolution, it just happily joined in on it."

What patent nonsense! One has only to read the Decameron or Canterbury Tales or mediavel penitentials or the Fathers to know this has been a problem for the Church for all ages. And some of the mediavel Popes would be considered degenerate even by today's standards. St. Augustine once wrote that every age considers its sins to be the worst, but all you have to do is look back to the age of Noah, when things were so bad that God destroyed the earth. I can provide the exact quote with references if you wish. There is nothing new under the sun.

That, I'm just mature enough (or so I pretend)to be aware of. (It's a rather strange feeling to be looking forward to getting older, but hey. ) It's not more stringent screening that's needed, but better screening. At some seminaries, men haven't a prayer of getting in if they are faithful Catholics and support Church teaching: priests like Fr. McBrien are the ones deciding who gets in or not. (Sorry for coming back to this again and again. I don't know how to discuss celibacy as an issue without bringing up the seminaries - the two are very closely intertwined.)

I'll admit that part of my support of celibacy is based on how the revocation of across-the-board celibacy is going to be perceived outside of the Church. Even in the East, married monks and bishops aren't permitted, but I can guarantee that there will be howls of outrage if we Romans are so unfair as to not allow married bishops or religious. We're going to be seen as giving in and admitting the evils of celibacy, and there's going to be intense pressure, far beyond what we see now, for us to cave the rest of the way. And if we once try, we won't ever go back - we will not be able to without causing greater damage.

A married Latin priest (yes, you read that correctly) I know always said, "We don't have a lack of celibate vocations in the Church, we have a lack of responses to God's call".

I think that God will call enough men to the celebate priesthood - He has for 1,000 years. However, I think it is harder and harder for those of us in the "1st world" to hear this call. In many 3rd world countries there are plenty of vocations to the celibate priesthood - they are not completely inundated with sexual images and attacks on any form of denial of our sexual urges.

Yes, there have always been "celibate" priests that have not fulfilled their obligations fully. However, I would guess that most of those sincerely intended to live a celibate life when becoming a priest, and were unable to respond to the grace that God gave them to do so. However, today, most young men cannot even conceive of a life without sexual pleasure - it is unthinkable to them. So they don't even bother considering the priesthood.

If the problem is the oversexualization of our society, is the solution really to abandon celibacy? By abandoning celibacy now, wouldn't this, in a way, just say that marriage is a "release" for our sexual "needs"? Instead, wouldn't the solution more likely be the continuance of the very ideal (celibacy) that rejects the modern notion that we are unable to control our sexual life?

So I agree that we must clean up the seminaries, but along with that work, we must encourage our young men to see the beauty of a celibate life devoted to God, and help them understand that it is possible, by God's grace. This will also be the sign of contradiction that our sex-saturated culture needs to see.

(BTW, I am completely supportive of the Eastern married priesthood, including in America. There is a difference between maintaining a respected tradition (as in the East), and abandoning another respected tradition in response to an evil culture (as it would be in the West) ).

Folks,

Priesthood, whether one is married or celibate, is an extremely difficult vocation. It's the same vocation which Jesus took upon, which means it requires the carrying of the cross, putting up with persecutions, etc. Being a priest doesn't make anything easier.

So we can't point fingers at what solution is best, celibacy or marriage.

Married priests maybe have just as distorted lifestyle as the celibate ones. Nobody is without problems, as long we are human beings. But the Good News is, there is Hope. Here we have Jesus Christ, Son of G-d, who TRAMPLED DOWN DEATH BY DEATH and GRANTING LIFE TO THOSE IN THE GRAVES. He came down not only to destroy Death, but also to RESTORE humanity to where it's originally intended. (Read Theology of the Body about that...no one could fully understand the Book of Genesis on human creation without the Light of Christ shed upon it.).

Yes, it's true that sexual sins aren't new. But you have to admit that we are far more exposed in sex through mass media (television, radio, magazines, porn movies, stripper clubs, etc.).

I know a lot of Latin Catholic men who enter seminaries. And upon my observations, I've noticed that most of seminarians don't live as a monastic lifestyle. Like lack of spiritual discipline such as more prayer, fasting, charity work, etc. Most of these men for all I know and ever heard of, party Friday nights Sat nights, getting drunk, dating some gals, etc. Kinda like a four year long "Mardi Gras", a time before they cut it off on their ordination day. But the problem is, because of poor spiritual preparation for ordination leads to bad habits, habitual sins, that's hard to break. That's what these priests are facing today, not being able to handle their sexuality. It's both the fault of the men and the seminary.

I think a very very GOOD remedy for a sexually satuated society as a whole is to take upon readings about Theology of the Body. TRUST ME! It will change people's lives, their perspective. Human sexuality is all deeply interwoven into EVERYTHING that we are, who we are, what we believe in, our relationships with G-d and mankind, etc.

Well, at least, it certainly changed my life. Theology of the Body is like glasses that I put on and everything seems INSTANTLY clear! Before, I could see fuzzy images of G-d, myself, the Church, EVERYTHING, and now I can see the whole clear picture. It's truly an amazing.

It's no wonder why John Paul's work would lead him to be the next "Greats" of the Church. John Paul the Great. We are truly priviledged to have him as our current Pope.

G-d bless,

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine Still Single and Sane.

*squints up at Moe in a rather 2-dimensional fashion* It's hard to talk after being hammered into the ground. Fingers inoperable. Just...notice that I said more of a problem. I never said that it was never a problem, and I am well aware of Pope Alexander. And please try to show some charity - I did go far overboard in the 9/11 thread; I recognized that and apologized. Can we get back on better footing?

Something also worth remebering is that while the sex part is certainly out there, the issue of "marriage" is far deeper than that.

Let me put it this way, if an unmarried priest (or anyone for that matter) needs a sexual outlet and nothing more, that's easy enough to find for the right price (forgive me for being blunt).

Therefore, it makes no sense for a priest to have a long-term relationship with a steady woman "on the side" and the inevitable heartache that will go with it unless there was a need for some type of deeper emotional support.

Yes, there are monks in the East as well and our bishops are (at least supposed to be) drawn from the monastic ranks. Somehow the floodgates of a married episcopate have not swept over our Churches, so why worry about this with the West?

Anyway, the main point is that we should look beyond sexuality when discussing this issue.

Yours,

hal

Somewhere on this forum this topic was taken up and there was an excellent link to a theological article that explained the Eastern approach to the idea of marriage and to the idea of the priesthood.

From that, it would seem that the question is more than simply opening the doors to married men in the priesthood. It would take a sea change in the mindset of the Latin Church and to those who would permit married priests.

Part of the discussion also touched the practical application at the parish level. I have served for more years than I care to think on parish councils and finance committees and can tell you from my own experience that most Latin parishes could not support a married man and the school system at the same time. The contributions from the people in the pew just do not stretch that far. I haven't heard of many parishes that have more than 50% of the parishioners contributing anything at all. And I was in a congregation recently where the priest flat out told us that the age of putting $1.00 or $5.00 in the plate was over because things cost a lot more than they did when that kind of money bought something. He went on to say that $10.00 was the new minimum for contributors. But I wander off topic.

I believe that the thing that would really change the scene in the Latin Church would be the encouragement of second vocations among married men with stable marriages--perhaps the children are raised and self-supporting--and who would welcome the opportunity to bring a lot of life experience to the priesthood. This idea is rather cooly received, however.

On the other hand, married men who are raising a family would also bring a different charism to the priesthood, but it might make necessary holding them off for a few years until they were settled. I say that in view of the many young marriages I have seen in the past quarter century that do not last the first year let alone the first five.

Our area is rapidly coming to the age of the priestless Sunday, so we'll see what happens.

In Christ,

BOB

but that one respected tradition had been already abandoned in the West toward the end of the first millenium...

True there are no new sins, but there certainly are more people on the earth today committing them. We have a larger population, with mass media spreading evil ideas on a scale that was never possible before in human history. So the problems are the same, but they are more widespread in their application.

I play for a RC church that was built in 1926. Today, that church would cost $25 million to replace and contains approximately $3 million in Austrian stained glass. This was built at a time when a $10 per week salary was not unusual. The question that needs asking is, why do Catholics not find their churches to be something worth supporting? I have known people who withheld contributions as the only real way they could protest how their churches operate. Is this part of the problem? Why are Catholics not excited enough about their churches to see them as worthy of support?

There is a long and great tradition of celibacy in Africa and in the Far East. There are no lack of vocations to the Catholic priesthood from those areas, and my Catholic friends have told me that there are many foreign priests in local parishes. Society has a definite effect in this issue. As long as there is static in the air that states in effect that celibacy is unacceptable, there will be more pressure psychologically for priests not to be celibate. This is the case in the West. In the Far East and Africa, however, society looks upon celibacy with great honors, and so the Catholic priesthood flourishes in those areas.

Theophan's observation about the lack of financial support is also very relevant.

Blessings,
Marduk