www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Books Not Clerical Celibacy Again!

Do we need this debate again? Several new studies seem to suggest we must. Details here: http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot.com/2011/11/not-clerical-celibacy-again.html

Interesting, Adam. Be sure to let us know when the reviews of the Petra and Parish texts are on-line (although I find myself visiting your site regularly enough these days, that I don't miss much).

Many years,

Neil

Every notice, though, how all of these books are essentially incestuous, relying on each other as authorities for the case that they try to make? There's no new and original research, because, well, there is nothing new to report. All make the same argument from silence--"there's nothing that says celibacy wasn't universal in the primitive Church", all cherry pick the evidence, and all use tendentious reasoning (as, e.g., stating that the Council in Trullo released the Eastern Churches from celibacy, rather than reading the canons for what they are, i.e., a slap-down of a Western attempt to force married clergy to live in continence with their wives (something not followed even in the West).

One does wonder about the motivation of such works, and could speculate endlessly on the psychology of men who seem to need a divine mandate for their own celibacy, and who live in deathly fear of those who aren't celibate.

I'm not looking to comment on celibacy itself one way or the other, but may I suggest, Adam and Stuart, that you are missing something very important when you question the psychology of the celibates raising these matters?

In fact, the celibate who argues is quite healthy. You should worry more for the man who doesn't.

In the Roman Church, the new rite of Mass and the oddball theology that has risen alongside it, has done massive damage to the priestly identity. When one gives something up, it is typically to get something else. This was the answer, ready in every Latin priest's mind to why he would give up the comforts and joys of a wife and family. But now, with pantsuited and buzzcutted nuns leading Communion Services and preaching from the pulpits, and every layman and his cat pawing the Sacred Species, to say nothing of the revolution embodied by the so-called permanent diaconate, what remains reserved to the celibate priest is very little but the consecration, dressed up in a most laughable liturgy in language suited mainly to morons and children who plan to become morons.

So now, amid the wreckage, the bewildered Roman Priest looks up and wonders, "I gave up THAT, for THIS??".

So, you East-y guys might try not to take it too personally.

The problem is in thinking celibacy is "giving something up", as opposed to "choosing something else". I would submit those who try the hardest to prove that celibacy is divinely mandated are precisely those who never had the calling in the first place (Roman Cholij, who left the priesthood and got married, would be a prime example). In their minds, if celibacy is not divinely mandated, then they were forced into a false dichotomy that made them choose between two equally valid and not mutually exclusive vocations: ordained ministry and marriage, which would be both unfair and unjust. Making celibacy something of apostolic origin allows them to rationalize their situation by eliminating the possibility of any other alternative.

It would be nice for us not to take it too personally, but in fact it is a prolonged and damaging attack on the very nature of our Tradition, so we take it very personally, indeed.

Archbishop John Ireland didn't have buzz-cut nuns leading communion services, nor did he have funny liturgical practices (though his own were probably just as fraught with errors as today). The truth is, he was merely following a millennium-old Latin mania for uniformity in the Church, for as Gregory VII Hildebrand said, "Diversity is the mother of heresy". Praestantia ritus Latini--the Latin rite is the most perfect and true expression of the Catholic faith, and is normative on all, unless expressly dispensed from it.

1. This triunphalistic mentality needs to stop now.
2. Seems that in many places, they still equate having married clergy with letting clergy marry.
3. It seems also that the Latins are simply jealous because they have to choose either marriage or ordination. But if the Latins allow married clergy now, they will clamor for letting clergy marry, women's ordination. This is very much the mentality if I can't have it, no one can have it. Such mentality is egoistic and I'd say, rather un-Godly.
4. IIRC, the Roman Church obliges its priests to say mass everday, thus it is only logical that celibacy is required for them.
5. I guess the Romans also don't want people to transfer to the East just to be a married priest.

3. It is basically why the Latins circle up the wagons and shoot it out over the priestly celibacy issue-- one day married men being ordained, next day Sister Spandex celebrating Mass. At least that is the attitude in America I was familiar with.
4. Most of the married Greek Catholic priests here celebrate at least one liturgy each day, if not more. One priest here has responsibility for 4 villages and five children and a wife. Apparently they manage without being celibate.

Gentlemen,

Let's not use the discussion as an excuse for Latin-bashing - particularly the less than charitable and broad-brushed descriptions of the Latin clergy, denigration of the Latin Mass - which I remind you is a celebration of the Eucharist, and the colorful and less than edifying descriptions being applied to Latin women religious. Otherwise, the thread will be closed.

Many years,

Neil

If the loafers fit, then they should wear them. No matter how light they are.

Are there any numbers about the number of celibate priests who don't practice celibacy?

You mean celibate (unmarried) priests who are not continent (sexually abstinent)? How would one collect the data?

I hesitate to add to this thread for several reasons. Since this is a book review thread, my comments are to a large degree off-topic. I am uncomfortable with the tone that this conversation is taking. The topic is divisive because of the history of my own Ruthenian jurisdiction. And this is a very personal issue for me as I spent my freshman and sophomore college years as a seminarian at SS Cyril & Methodius dealing with this very choice back in the 80's.

But there are a few points and sub-texts in this conversation that I want to address from this admittedly very personal and limited experience.

As eastern Christians I believe we must be very careful that when we say that celibacy is not a requirement for priestly ministry we in NO way disparage those called to and living the celibate life. In other words, let's not push the argument to the extreme that makes it seem that marriage is a requirement or superior for ordination.

The celibate life in christianity can be seen already in the letters of Paul. Celibate clergy are an integral part of eastern practice as well as the west. And those called to this life should be appreciated for who they are and not labeled as "giving up" anything.

I was a seminarian when priestly celibacy was required in our church. In my experience, the process of formation in the seminary is one of discernment of vocation. And the staff and spiritual director are well aware that the seminarian has two vocations to discern, priestly ministry and celibacy. We explored the full meaning of both of these vocations during my time there. These are deeply personal explorations and the seminary environment is well suited to the discernment process. In addition, the seminary spiritual director, staff, psychologist, my bishop, pastor and personal spiritual director, all were dedicated to making sure vocation discernment was a healthy process. There was certainly no effort to push celibacy to qualify for priestly ordination but a real discernment to make sure I would be ready to commit to both.

I am reasonably sure that what I experienced would be the norm for seminary formation. All of our seminaries are committed to forming well rounded priests ready and able to serve.

As far as individuals not keeping vows once made, I would guess that the failure rate in the vocation of marriage far exceeds the failure to keep the promise of celibacy. But in any case, these cases of failure are irrelevant to the point of whether the celibate or married life should exist as a vocation. Fallen humanity tries our best to keep the promises we make. Some succeed and some fail. We are all judged by our efforts at the end but should be careful about judging others in their efforts.

Some comments on etiquette

I hope these remarks are not offensive to anyone. I am sure that everyone on this forum has the best of intentions for dialog. But I do make the following observations for consideration.

Our bishops, clergy and monastics are due the respect of their vocation in the church. When we refer to specific people they should be prefaced by their appropriate title or honorific for their office i.e. Bishop/His Excellency or Priest/Father or Brother/Sister/Provincial/Hegumen.

And if we describe those in consecrated service, we should be doing so with words respecting the dignity of the vocation. When disagreeing with positions taken by those in consecrated service we should take care to phrase them in a way that is clear what action or position is objectionable and why. And not in a way that can be construed as an ad hominem argument.

Stating that a book lacks integrity in the use of history, documents or other practices is very serious. If one wants to raise this possibility one should consider that:

• Be sure to have read the book against which the charge is being made
  
• Be prepared to provide at least one concrete example of the problem
  
• Or be prepared to provide a reference to someone who has read the book and provided the examples for review.

Fallen human nature is fraught with complex motivations, desires and conflicting behavior. As Paul in Romans 7 says:


We do not always know, realize or understand our own motivations for what we do. We should be extremely careful in ascribing motivations to others. I would even say, we should never do so.

Steve Puluka
MA, Theology Duquesne University
Cantor Holy Ghost Church
Carpatho-Rusyn tradition
Mckees Rocks, PA
http://puluka.com

I would assume in similar ways that other studies are done of human behavior.

Just searching around I did find one story here [chicagonewscoop.org].

Stuart, I'm sure you are aware what a mistake it is to lump together Bp. Ireland and Cdl. Stickler. Their objectives were nearly opposite. Sometimes Latins discuss Bishop Ireland too, and negatively to boot, but completely without mention of Eastern Christians.

Likewise, the current debate and discussion in Roman circles really has nothing to do with the Eastern Churches. Every time this comes up I have that song in my head "you're so vain. You probably think this song is about you". Well, it's not. It's about celibacy for Latins. Nobody promoting celibacy within the Latin Church anymore has any wish or desire to impose it on the Eastern Churches. The Eastern praxis is an afterthought in the discussion.

Some bishops' conferences get nervous at the prospect of an influx of married Eastern priests in Latin countries, but this is because they're afraid of YOU overwhelming THEM, not the other way 'round.

Neil, I try not to display my bitterness here about the liturgical debacle in the West, but in this case, it relates too strongly to the topic to avoid.

Paul, your contribution above is valuable. St. Paul's recommendation of celibacy doesn't seem to include any of the cynical motives about nepotism that we see here regularly assigned to the medieval Latin Church.

The objective is irrelevant if the outcome is identical. In either case, both Cardinal Stickler and Archbishop Ireland operated from the assumption that the Latin rite is normative. Ireland wanted to impose uniformity in the United States in order to further the "Americanization" of the Catholic Church, which could only happen (according to their lights) if the hierarchy and clergy had very close oversight of the spiritual and moral life of the faithful. That in turn required there to be just one form of Catholicism, which (because most of the bishops of that time were Irish) just happened to reflect the drab, clericalist version of Irish Catholicism.

Cardinal Stickler, on the other hand, is interested in preserving clerical celibacy within the Latin Church. He obviously feels that doing so requires the custom to have more force than mere discipline, hence his attempt to prove its "apostolic" origins--which, aside from using derivative and disproven scholarship on his part, involves proving a negative: there's nothing in Scripture that says the Apostles weren't celibacy (or at least, continent), therefore you can't prove that clerical celibacy isn't divinely ordained. Of course, if he was capable of saying so, it would also prove that the Holy See is indeed capable of error in regard to faith and morals, since one cannot dispense from that which is divinely ordained.

I really don't care if Latin bishops have a phobia of bearded, married priests. I don't care if they are worried about their own institution. Your explanation of their reasoning only proves how utterly paranoid and irrational they are: there are more than a billion Roman Catholics, and there are fewer than 50 million Eastern Catholics (a very generous estimate), so we have here the case of the elephant who is afraid of a mouse. Except, of course, that we are not mice, but more akin to the flea on the elephant's rump--the elephant may not notice us, but when he rolls over, we get crushed.

As I said before, if the preservation of clerical celibacy in the Latin Church requires the suppression of married priesthood in the Eastern Churches, then it really doesn't deserve to survive at all.

As regards liturgical debacles, try to remember that things weren't all that great before Vatican II, either.