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

Bob,

You bring up an interesting point.

This is part of the mindset that has to be changed. The concept of stewardship/tithing must be taught as part of the Gospel message. Even the well-meaning priest in your illustration does not grasp the concept of tithing, unless each household earns $100/week. Most research reflects that only about 25% of Catholic households contribute 75% of a parish's income. Of those Catholics who do give, they contribute on average 1.5% of total household income, the lowest of major denominations. At the top are the LDS, with 35-40% who follow the guideline of 10% as mentioned in the Bible. In the Assemblies of God, per household giving averages 5% of the household income.

Brothers and Sisters:

I think that my pastor recently hit on the answer to both the vocations crisis--wherever it is and within whatever Church it is--and the financial crisis.

He said that unless we come to understand the Church in the New Testament sense of community we will not solve either of these two crises. He said that we have to come to the understanding of communion and community--that we have a common unity, or something in common. We have to come to see that we are siblings in Baptism, that we are responsible for each other, that we are family with all that that means and implies and demands. He touched on all the points that Nicholas Cabasilas makes in his book The Life in Christ. My pastor went on to say that the problem with both crises is that we have come to the point where we see ourselves as "rugged individualists" who come to the Church to take what we need and "to heck with everyone else." We come on Sunday and don't think about anyone else from our parish until next week, if at all. We may not even know the names of those we worship with. I might add that this is a process--something in the present progressive tense, an ongoing work that is never finished. Community is built or torn down every day by every member. It is that simple.

So our parish has committed to several thngs over the years to make us into community. We have people who are assigned to greet each person who comes through the door at each Liturgy. Over time we have come to know who is not a regular and make a special effort to welcome that one to our particular parish and to make sure that they are invited to come back, even to consider making our home their home. We've got activities for couples and try to provide sitters for people who have no relatives in the area so that they can have a night out together. We have a very aggressive youth program to show our young people that the Church is all of us, that they are important (too), and that we care about them and their growing both physically and spiritually. We built a new building with a large foyer to encourage people to linger both before and after Liturgy to get to know each other. We've built a choir that is second to none in the diocese and tht regularly attracts visitors from other parishes. To that we have developed a concert series that is meant to provide quality music programs and also an outreach to the greater community of which we are a part. This is just a sample but it serves to illustrate the point.

There are places where one can go to scurry in and scurry out--as a spiritual filling station. For many people these are becoming irrelevant. For all that this is worth, people who have no family in an area, people who are rootless, respond to kindness, compassion, and a place to call home. We've got to be comfortable together and that has to spring from ongoing study and growth in the faith. We've got to want to grow in our relationship with Christ and to want others to grow themselves and along with us.

If we can't get this into our orthopraxy, no amount of orthodoxy will survive in the anti-Christian atmosphere that we all live in. People need a place to laugh together, to cry together, and to feel like they can be goofy if the Spirit moves them to be goofy without feeling uncomfortable: a place where one can have permission to be himself or herself.

Liturgical problems will start to wither when we have a community that takes ownership of their participation in the Mysteries of their salvation. People want reverence and beauty in Liturgy; and they want to feel that they are responsible for it. When it is "ours," something we all have responsibility for in common, then the maverick does not last long.

In Christ,

BOB

P.S.: If I've been on my soapbox, you now have the privilege to throw soggy produce and pejoratives.

Dear all,
There is a lot to say about this topic. I will try to be brief.

1) There is one problem that I haven't seen addressed in this thread. Vocations. Anybody who is aware of the Eastern Churches traditions concerning this issue, can no longer be duped by the Latin Myth that when it comes to vocations it is an either/or situation. Either you are called to priesthood, or else you are called to marriage, and that it is not possible to be called to both. It is obviouse that ordination and marriage are not mutually exclusive vocations, and it would be silly to assume that God calls people according to geographic boundaries. It is safe to assume that in the West there are also men who who feel a vocation to the priesthood but NOT to celibacy.
Some go ahead and become priests, many commend this but I would be careful, is it not wiser to set your vocation to the priesthood aside and live a happily married life rather than become a priest and spend the rest of your life fighting a battle that is tremendously difficult to win?
I'm not saying it's impossible for every one, but it has proven to be impossible for too many!

2) Another myth, in my opinion it the idea that "we need more priests" and that this should be priority number 1. I disagree. Priority number 1 is that we need GOOD priests, rather than lots of so-so or downright bad priests.
Because there is a vocational crises, you would be surprised at the amount of pressure that comes to bear on practising roman catholic boys to become priests. We hear about it all the time, "More priests! More priests!" and I believe that many seminarians may be confusing their calling to live their faith with a calling to become a celibate priest for life.

3) The way things are in the Latin church, we no longer require priests, we require a new breed of Super-priests. It may have been easy to be a priest in times when they were abundant, but the amount of work priests are subject to nowdays is unbelievable. I know that one of the main complaints that priests have themselves is that they are left with no time to pray! They have no time for their own spritual needs. If you are not a super-priest you can't take the pressure!

4)So if we take into account that nobody is proposing to force priests to marry, that allowing for married priests would not in any way harm those with vocations for celibacy then why does the Church not allow MATURE MARRIED MEN to become priests? Nobody is saying that these men would have the same work load as non-married priests, they probably couldn't, but wouldn't it be enough to share even a bit of that load?

5) Having said all this however, and living in a 99.9% Latin catholic country, I am aware that many practising catholics shudder at the idea of married priests. I have talked about this with my girlfriend and she says that she cannot even conceive of the idea of being married to a Priest. There is a big cultural barrier to overcome, and these things take time. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned earlier, the prevailing culture nowdays would make it seem as if the Church were giving in to the presure. All these things must be thought of.
I am afraid that the final solution might just end up by bwing forced upon the church by extreme circumstances at some point.
I would just finish off by restating what I believe to be the main question in all this:
Is it fair to deny a man who is called to marriage and to priesthood the opportunity to answer God's call?
Dominus Tecum

Another question: if the Catholic Church is the Church of God, and this Church has decided to make it a discipline to only allow unmarried men to the priesthood (in the Latin rite), would God call a Latin rite man to both the priesthood and the married life? If so, why? It would be calling him to a life that God full well knows he cannot live.

I would claim that God would not call a Latin rite man to both the priesthood and the married life as long as the discipline against it is in place. I don't think God calls anyone to desire disobedience to His Church.

And yet, somehow, this Roman is still duped (regarding her own Rite) despite having known a married Byzantine priest and his wife personally, and having cooed over their daughter. Strange how that works.

Francis: Ditto. I was trying to think how to say that well, and it wasn't coming.

"I would claim that God would not call a Latin rite man to both the priesthood and the married life as long as the discipline against it is in place. I don't think God calls anyone to desire disobedience to His Church."

The only answer I can give to this statement is that I personally know of cases inwhich this happens. I know of several priests who would have liked to marry but placed their calling to priesthood first, and several men who married but would happily have become priests if they had the chance to do both.
I'm sorry if by using the word "Duped" I caused offense, that wasn't the idea and the word may have been to harsh.
I was referring to the idea that is often prevailent amongst Latin Catholics, mainly those who don't even know about the existence of non-latin catholic churches, that of the seven sacraments there are two which are mutually exclusive. That is simply not true, even if it is a latin tradition.
The argument that God would not give a Latin man a "double vocation" is interesting but no more than a supposition. Who knows why God does the things he does?
That sort of thinking could lead us to the age old arguments of "Why does God allow some children to be born in countries where they die before they learn to walk?" and that sort of thing.
Instead of trying to guess why or what God thinks, we should stick to facts and human arguments about this case.
Dominus Tecum

Filipe,

My young friend - I am impressed. What a well-thought out line of discussion.

Many years,

Neil, who is soooooo glad that he and Anhelyna lured this interesting and interested young man here

Theophan made some excellent points!!! I guess it's really something that I haven't thought about in the crisis of vocations.

I guess, it really does make a difference if people would CARE more about their Church, then they would spend more quality time with each other, inspiring each other, praying for each other, strengthen each other to become BETTER Catholics/Orthodox.

So then, when it happens, there would be more likely be increases of vocations from that support and nourishment.

Thanks for putting some two cents, something for me to realize.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

I have to agree with you. I don't think God feels like he owes us explanations for everything He does. As another poster said - not a direct quote - something to the effect that we might need better priests instead of more priests. I have heard the story that the Devil said about the Cure of Ars, that if there were two like him, the Devil's kingdom would be in jeopardy. I think that at one time, the seminaries seemed to ordain pretty much anyone who stuck with the program. My own experience with some of that age group, is that some never really had vocations to start with, but entered the priesthood for other reasons. On the other hand, I have met some holy priests who came from the seminaries during the crazy period. But I do think the sex scandals have caused the bishops to look a little more carefully at those they ordain. Overall, that's a good thing even if it means we have fewer priests for the time being.

I just want to say as a PK, preachers kid, it ain't easy!

There are so many preachers kids who grow up not knowing their fathers. It is so hard for the father to take care of the church and the family. There are so many messed up adult children in this world from it. Thank God I was spared the disparages and those I had I have recovered from, but many never do. I know there are just as many that do fine, but you always know that your dad was never your own.

With my husband being a deacon, I am glad our children are grown. Sure they still need his attentnion, but all of their formation is done(the youngest is 19). My hat off to Deacon Lance and some of the other deacons with young families. Once you take the step of ordination, your life is never your own.

I am not complaining here when I say this, and I actually rejoice in this being such a busy parrish! We have Our priest Archimandrite Frank, Deacon Sepaphim, a deacon of 16 years, along with my husband, Deacon Stan. This weekend we have two funerals, a crowning, along with Divine Liturgy, thank heavens this isn't every weekend. But there have been Baptisms 3 of the 4 weeks this month, 2 Crownings, 2 Memorial Services, 1 Toncturing and two funerals. Fr. Frank had to come back for the Melkite conference for those. Sure this isn't every weekend, but it sure keeps a fellow busy. How does one do all these things including the regular services and whatever else is going on and still keep after young children?

I have no problem with married clergy. I do have a problem with the families that are ignored for the sake of a church. Catholic priests here in the US for the most part don't have that problem. Christ is their head, the church their spouce, and we their children. It is a busy life, and you know what if priests stay in prayer, they can and do make the committment they make to the Lord, because they are given the grace to do so, through God's mercy.

Scripture says you can't serve man and God, well it is very hard for man(priest) to litteraly serve both a family(man) and church(God).

Pani Rose

Filipe - The question is, though, are those actual callings or just desires? I've heard it said that no man who has never wished to be married should become a priest: marriage is our natural vocation, and to have never wished for a wife would indicate there's something wrong with the candidate. Both marriage and the priesthood are very good things - but a lot of choices in life aren't between a good thing and a bad thing; they're between a good thing and a better thing*, and only one of the two is what God wants for us.

In that case...ouch. I don't think it's possible to arrive at a solid argument for priestly (or episcopal) celibacy without referring to what we do know of 'what God thinks'. Celibacy just ain't natural. :p

(*I am guessing that in the East celibacy is also regarded as the higher calling, since bishops are required to be celibate...? If not, what is the reasoning behind it?)

In his First Letter to (Bishop) Timothy, St Paul writes:

and in his Letter to (Bishop) Titus, the Apostle writes:

The case for mandatory priestly celibacy as an apostolic norm is made by reference to Saint Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians:

Interestingly, the context of St Paul's Letter to the Corinthians has nothing to do with celibate clergy (bishops, presbyters/priests, deacons), yet he is making the case for celibacy for unmarried men and women. Contrast this to the qualifications for clergy that is found in his Letters to (Bishops)Timothy and Titus- married men are the accepted (not the exception) norm for the ranks of the clergy. It seems we have a conundrum.

We must remember, however, what Corinth was like during this time. We have a glimpse from St Paul's Letter's to the Corinthians. ISTM, that the Corinthians did not have a clear understanding of what marriage was. Remember the son who married his father's wife. Paul was not writing a general letter that dealt with problems in the Church at large, but with the Church in Corinth in particular. Perhaps he charged them with celibacy because of this misunderstanding regarding the vocation of marriage. He also says the same thing about meat sacrificed to idols. The weaker Christian has problems with seeing Christians' eating meat sacrificed to idols, and St. Paul will not eat the food if it will cause his brother to sin. (1 Cor. 8:1-13) The Church of the Apostles saw marriage and fatherhood as the "training ground" for her clergy. Perhaps that is something we need to recover in our quest for vocations.

Deacon John:

Going back to the tithing idea:

I truly believe that the reason that so many people do not contribute--more than money--time, talent, and treasure to the Church's efforts at the level of their parish, not to mention their diocese and other collections for missionaries, etc. is that they do not feel a sense of ownership for the parish and the place they make their spiritual home. I run into so many people who begin to feel alienated by one thing or another and the first step they take in their reaction is to stop making financial contributions; then move on to stop doing volunteering for the various projects that go on in any active parish.

But they do feel that they have a "right" to be in the parish church and to continue to receive the sacraments.

I also believe that this undercurrent can affect young men and women who might otherwise be considering a vocation. Why would a person want to put himself into the middle of tense situations for the rest of his/her life? At least in the secular world, one can change jobs or change careers. In the Church, one is bound by vow for life and needs permission to change parishes or to leave when the situation becomes unbearable.

There is also a great need for support for our priests, whether married or celibate. It can be lonely when the common (mis)perception is that this person is somehow far removed from the rest of us and doesn't react to things, people, and events like the rest of us. We have to provide within the community the same support and encouragement for the clergy and religious that we come to receive ourselves.

In Christ,

BOB

I just read somewhere that there was a married priesthood until about AD 1000 or so, when the Church made celibacy mandatory. Many priests were forced to choose between their families and the Church, leaving some families abandoned. The issue at hand was that property was being passed on to children of priests rather than the Church.
Is this part of the reason for the Schism of 1054, and why the Eastern church kept their married priests while the West did not?
Marya
(not an expert)

Dear Pani Rose:

While one can certainly feel your pain, could not the same be said for ANY parent in ANY profession that requires a large output of time?

Yours,

hal