|
Each month, when I face an auditorium full of engaged couples preparing for a Catholic marriage, there is a Q-and-A session. It is the interesting, unrehearsed part of the evening. The couples write their queries on a piece of paper, and the anonymity guarantees at least a few hardball questions about the Church and its practices. "What about Galileo?" is among my favorites, along with inquisitive notes about Torquemada. But the majority of these "zingers" turn out to be protests about the Church's rule of clerical celibacy. "You've told us how wonderful marriage is, that it's a great good for the human person, that the body has a nuptial meaning, and so forth. Well, then: Why can't priests marry?"
It is a question that comes up among even devout Catholics at coffee hour after Mass and at cocktail parties. A married clergy is seen as the obvious solution to a number of problems that confront the Church, ranging from the shortage of priests to the recent sex scandals. Moreover, both the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholic churches allow married clergy. So do Protestants; and, in fact, the rejection of clerical celibacy was a much larger issue for the leaders of the Reformation than the fuss over indulgences. Luther, Zwingli, Carlstadt, Bucer, and many other rebellious priests soon took wives (often former nuns), while Thomas Cranmer already had one hidden in Germany. During the Council of Trent, powerful rulers like the Emperor Ferdinand put enormous pressure on the Church to abolish the law of celibacy, but the popes resolutely declined, and have done so ever since.
The agitation for a married priesthood has sharpened in recent decades. There is a drumbeat in the media, often from ex-priests who write copiously for the op-ed pages. Probably a majority of American Catholics also favor the change. So, it's not surprising that my engaged couples think that Rome should "get with the times" and allow priests to marry. Isn't the rule of celibacy simply another example of a retrograde Church sitting on somebody's rights?
Wedded To The Church?
I surprise my audience by first telling them that clerical celibacy is not a Church doctrine. It is a discipline, and so can be changed. The pope could wake up tomorrow and allow priests to marry. Moreover, in the early centuries there were married priests, starting with some of the apostles. We know that Peter was married, because we're told that Jesus cured his mother-in-law. The immediate successors to the apostles were also allowed to marry. Paul writes to Timothy that a bishop should be "married but once." Clearly, by not permitting married clergy, the Church since the early Middle Ages has departed from the more commodious practice of the early hierarchy.
But—a further surprise for my audience—there are, in fact, married priests in the Latin Church today. There aren't many, because a priest may have a wife only in one circumstance: A Lutheran or Episcopalian minister who is already married and wishes to convert to Catholicism is allowed the option of becoming a Catholic priest, on condition that his wife gives full consent. You don't usually see these married priests, because they're generally not given parish assignments; they teach in seminaries or work in the chancery.
But this one exception to the general rule is the occasion of a story that I tell my audience. It is about a friend of mine who is now a prominent Catholic moral theologian. Years ago, he was an Episcopalian priest who decided to convert to Catholicism. He was married with children and was given the option of becoming a Catholic priest. He agonized over the decision. He was already an ordained minister (although the Church does not recognize the validity of Episcopalian orders) and was deeply attracted to the Catholic priesthood. But at the same time, he recognized that there must be serious reasons why the Church insists on a discipline that is such a sign of contradiction to the modern world.
The debate went on, until finally there came the moment of clarification. He was up all night with one of his children who was seriously ill. Feeling drained and haggard, he went to Mass the next morning, and the priest celebrating Mass came out looking equally drawn. During the brief homily, the priest mentioned in passing that he had been up all night with a parishioner's child who was dying of meningitis. A light bulb went off over my friend's head: You can't do both. If you fully understand the vocations to marriage and to the priesthood—the total availability and self-emptying that each demands—you would not choose to do both. And so he became a lay theologian and, apart from raising a large family, has served the Church in ways that he probably could not have as a member of the clergy.
As my bleary-eyed friend discovered at that early morning Mass, the sacraments of Holy Orders and matrimony are too consuming to allow for both. A married priest can't help giving his first thoughts to his wife and children. To the extent he does so, he may be forgoing his priestly role as "father," and people who call a married priest "father" would rightly get the idea that they are second in line as spiritual children. Paul understood this perfectly well when he wrote to the Corinthians, "For he who is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of this world, how he may please his wife; and he is divided" (1 Cor 7:32-34).
Tracing the History
There are many reasons, both practical and theological, why the Church insists on clerical celibacy. It is a wise practice that was gradually codified in light of centuries of accumulated knowledge and experience. Early on, it became obvious to many bishops that a married priesthood doesn't work and that the Church needs men who are willing to embrace a higher spiritual state. Starting with the Spanish Council of Elvira in 305, regional churches began to ask of the clergy what many priests had already spontaneously chosen. The early Church Fathers—Tertullian, Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, and Hilary—wrote in favor of clerical celibacy, and at the end of the Dark Ages, great reforming popes like Leo IX and Gregory VII insisted that henceforth the priesthood would be celibate. This decision greatly strengthened the Church and still does so today.
Admittedly, there's no hint in the New Testament of celibacy being mandatory either among the apostles or those they ordained. But we have ample warrant in the words of Christ and the writings of Paul that celibacy is a higher calling than marriage. Christ Himself was celibate, and the Incarnation took place, so to speak, in the context of Mary and Joseph's abstention from sexual relations. Pope Benedict XVI has written eloquently about how Mary's virginity is really a condition of spiritual fruitfulness. At one point, the disciples ask Christ if it is "expedient not to marry?" He replies that "not all can accept this teaching; but those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born so...and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him accept it who can" (Mt 19:10-12).
As Christopher West points out, Christ's use of the word "eunuch" must have profoundly shocked his Jewish listeners. Under the Old Covenant, priests were enjoined to marry and have children who would become priests. Childlessness was seen as a curse, and the idea of a descendant of Abraham opting to be a "eunuch" was unthinkable. But the celibate lives of Mary and Joseph, who brought the Old Covenant to perfection, speak of a new dimension of self-giving. West writes that their celibacy, in effect, brings about "the most fruitful union in the cosmos—the union of the human and divine natures in the person of Christ. All those who live an authentic celibate vocation participate in some way in this new super-abounding spiritual fruitfulness."
There has always been a deep human intuition that celibacy brings great spiritual gifts, a heightened sensitivity to divine things. Even under the Old Covenant, a married priest had to observe continence while he served in the Temple—in other words, when he was acting as priest. Moses asked that the Jews abstain from conjugal sex while he ascended Mount Sinai, and the prophet Jeremiah was forbidden by God to take a wife in order that he might fulfill his ministry. And although the apostles and their successors had freedom of choice in this matter—at least until the fourth century—a large number of the clergy during this period did choose celibacy. There is a tradition that after their calling by Christ, those apostles who were married lived as though they were not. St. Jerome speaks of a general custom in the late fourth century when he declares that clerics, "even though they may have wives, cease to be husbands." This is not so exotic as it sounds; in the 20th century the great French theologian Jacques Maritain and his wife Raissa, a Jewish convert, had a marriage blanc for the sake of their spiritual apostleship.
The exaltation of celibacy does not in any way denigrate marriage. Nobody can outdo Pope John Paul II in praising conjugal love. And yet, as he points out in his famous talks on the theology of the body, marriage "is only a tentative solution to the problem of a union of persons through love." The final solution lies only in heaven, where, as Christ explained to the Sadducees, there is no marriage. Those who live celibately are, in effect, "skipping" the sacrament in anticipation of the ultimate reality, the "Marriage of the Lamb." They are an "eschatological sign" for the rest of us; their total gift of self, which includes their sexuality, to God anticipates the eternal union for which we were all created. The celibate vocation, West writes, "is 'superior' only in its more direct orientation toward man's superior heavenly destiny."
The Practical Problems
A married clergy would certainly dilute the Catholic priesthood as an eschatological sign. But it would also involve practical problems. One of the great strengths of an unmarried clergy is their availability. During World War I, there were many converts to Catholicism among British soldiers fighting in the trenches. This was because the Catholic priests were right up there in the danger zone, hearing confessions and giving spiritual counsel, while many Anglican ministers held back, understandably thinking about their wives and children at home. Recently, a priest I know expressed delight at being assigned to an impoverished area of New York. "I want to work among the poor," he told me. Would this be his attitude if he were married with small children? His wife's probable reaction would be, "I'm not going to raise the kids in that neighborhood."
Clerical marriages, moreover, are not easy. I am told that the wives of the handful of Catholic clergy who have the dispensation from celibacy are the first to support the Church's general position. Preachers' wives and preachers' kids do not have an easy time. Just read the novels of Trollope or Samuel Butler's much underrated The Way of All Flesh, whose narrator complains about being the son of a clergyman:
I have often thought that the Church of Rome does wisely in not allowing her priests to marry. Certainly it is a matter of common observation in England that the sons of clergymen are frequently unsatisfactory. The explanation is very simple.... The clergyman is expected to be a kind of human Sunday. He is paid for this business of leading a stricter life than other people. It is his raison d'etre. If his parishioners feel that he does this, they approve of him, for they look upon him as their own contribution towards what they deem a holy life.... But his home is his castle as much as that of any other Englishman, and with him, as with others, unnatural tension in public is followed by exhaustion when tension is no longer necessary. His children are the most defenseless things he can reach, and it is on them that nine cases out of ten that he will relieve his mind.
Obviously, not all married clergymen are like this, but clerical marriages have their special difficulties, and, unlike 130 years ago, when Butler wrote his novel, there is now the possibility of divorce. This is already a serious problem in the Anglican Church. It is inevitable that after a decade or so of a married Catholic priesthood, there would be a fair number of divorced priests, some clamoring for remarriage. And as for those priests who still chose not to marry: Might there not be a corresponding diminishment of their public image, so that they would tend to be regarded more as pious bachelors than a special sign among us? Their freedom to get romantically involved with female parishioners gives such questions even more point.
Another practical consideration is the financial cost of allowing priests to marry. The average salary of a diocesan priest is $20,000, and living arrangements in a parish rectory allow for many economies. Married priests would most likely want to live outside the rectory, would need much higher salaries to support a family, and there would be an exponential increase in insurance costs. Where would the money come from? As it is, many parishes can barely pay their bills. Will Catholics in the pews be willing to significantly increase their weekly contributions? The answer is that some will, but many will not, and too many parishes would find themselves in an even deeper financial hole.
The most insistent argument for a married clergy is that it would cure the shortage of priests. The reasons for the decline in the number of clergy are too numerous to go into here. Almost every Catholic shares some of the blame. On the institutional side, there's the past situation in many seminaries and the refusal of some diocesan vocation directors to present the priesthood in its full spiritual dimension, which includes the challenge of celibacy. If you look around today, it is striking which dioceses (for example, Denver) have plentiful vocations. They raise the bar very high and, taking a page from John Paul II, present celibacy as a great spiritual gift. In contrast, some dioceses, until recently, held out to seminarians the possibility of a reversal of the rule of celibacy; they certainly did not present celibacy in a positive light. Those dioceses with near-empty seminaries might want to look at those that are doing it right. They will find—among other things—a vibrant orthodoxy and a theologically rich understanding of the call to celibacy.
As for the Catholic laity: Along with the widespread use of the Pill, there has been a corresponding diminution of generosity in family size, which means fewer vocations. (One could make the case, by the way, that natural family planning allows a couple to participate in the spiritual benefits of celibacy; the periodic abstinence is part of the "gift" of themselves to one another and to God.) But the point is that there will be many more vocations if both the clergy and the laity fully live their Christian vocations, which include prayer, sacrifice, and generosity. Although it may be tempting in the short term, the solution is not to define the priesthood down in order to attract men who will only take a lightened version of Holy Orders.
Freud's Unwelcome Appearance
The other argument against celibacy is that the Church's requirement of continence is a primary cause of the sex scandals. Plying their Freud, "experts" like Richard Sipe argue that a lack of sexual outlets drives priests into pedophilia. But the recent scandals have little to do with pedophilia, a clinical disorder whose incidence among Catholic priests is no greater than among the general population. Rather, the majority of episodes involves homosexual acts with teenagers or young men, and it may be wondered how marriage would solve this particular problem. It is clear that not a few homosexual men have entered the priesthood partly as a "cover" for their condition. Arguably, it would only make matters worse if they had to take on a wife as additional camouflage. In any event, it wouldn't stop some of them from going after teenage boys, as has been amply demonstrated in other clerical milieu.
It should also be pointed out that Freud was wrong about the nature and effects of "sexual repression"—in other words, abstinence. He considered it the taproot of all neuroses, and the sexual revolution has been driven by his idea that such "repression" is a very bad thing. But we all know celibate priests—and laity, for that matter—who are adjusted and well-balanced. We also meet promiscuous individuals who are not. Freud nonetheless taught that the libido is a pressure that builds relentlessly to the point where it demands release, as in a steam engine; and if you don't find a sexual outlet, you become neurotic, or even worse.
But, in fact, our sex drives don't work that way. There is no build-up of pressure in the central nervous system, and the libido doesn't plot revenge if for whatever reason one is continent for a period of time. It largely depends on what "messages" one allows to get through to it, which is why the Church has always taught the necessity of guarding one's eyes and imagination. This is not Puritanism, but self-possession; and all Christians, not just Catholic priests, are called to this heroic struggle. The more likely neurotics are those who separate sex from married love and, in the process, compulsively turn people into objects, into a means to an end. The sexual revolution, which amounted to a willful misreading of human nature, has failed on its own terms, but there are still those who want the Church to buy into it.
In a world that has absolutized sex, a celibate priesthood is a necessary sign of higher things. It's tough, but then so is Christianity. Those who wish to abolish celibacy generally favor other dilutions of Catholic doctrine and discipline. They are pursuing an essentially bourgeois project. They think that Christianity is fine so long as it makes no demands and, as a corollary, that the Church should turn itself into yet another liberal Protestant denomination. But these leftover modernists are no longer in the ascendancy, if they ever were, and it is not surprising that the recent synod of bishops in Rome overwhelmingly endorsed the Church's ancient discipline of celibacy.
Readers have left 47 comments. Quote(1) Thank You!September 15th, 2009 | 3:00pm I am a 67 year old grandma who has long felt that celibacy should be optional in the Roman Catholic church. This is the first time I have read anything so well reasoned and informative. It has given me something to think about. I'm not saying I'm changing my mind today - but I am far more open to the possibility that a married clergy just might not be the answer to the shortage of priests. Quote(2) all men have to balance work and family lifeSeptember 15th, 2009 | 3:05pm The thought that because a priest is up all night with a dying child does not somehow mean he could not be married. All the married men I know balance work and family live. Think of the firefighter dad that is up all night saving families from a burning building or the pediatric surgeon who does the same. Or the military dad who is deployed for months at a time. The examples could go on and on. That argument does not stand any test of scrutiny.
I think priests should be able to focus on the sacraments as their ministry. I see all the additional demands placed on our priests and it is too much. Quote(3) Re: all men have to balance work and family lifeSeptember 15th, 2009 | 3:31pm The thought that because a priest is up all night with a dying child does not somehow mean he could not be married. All the married men I know balance work and family live. Think of the firefighter dad that is up all night saving families from a burning building or the pediatric surgeon who does the same. Or the military dad who is deployed for months at a time. The examples could go on and on. That argument does not stand any test of scrutiny.
I think priests should be able to focus on the sacraments as their ministry. I see all the additional demands placed on our priests and it is too much. — BethI've often struggled with this in my own life as a software engineer- and the demands placed upon me by my job are entirely imaginary; given enough time and investment any project can become a success. For this reason, I rightly put my family life first- and demand as a condition of employment the flex time I need to put my family first. A priest, or an emergency room doctor, doesn't have this flexibility. Their customers demand their services NOW- later is often far too late- the patient is dead, the soul has moved on to Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell. The balance becomes impossible at that point; the demands far too great for any one human being. Quote(4) good article, but..September 15th, 2009 | 3:58pm As a 24 y/o male who is seriously considering priesthood, I thought this was a GREAT article. One thing jumped out at me twice though and I doubt the author was trying to say this. Twice, it was mentioned that because of celibacy, priests are somehow in a "higher" spiritual state than married people. This is furthest from the truth! No priests, seminarians, or men considering the vocation that I know think that way. Marriage is a different sacrament but it is no better or worse than ordination. All of the vocations (including single life) are great- but God calls different people to them for different reasons. Ultimately, a vocation is about becoming a servant- whether it is a servant of the people, servant of the order, or servant to my wife and family.
So anyways, keep the celibacy!
Just a though from Archbishop Dolan on marriage: “We have a vocation crisis to life-long, life-giving, loving, faithful marriage,” he said. “If we take care of that one, we’ll have all the priests and nuns we need for the Church.”
IMO, young men are less likely to think about going out on a limb and explore priesthood if they know or wonder if their parents and siblings will be blown apart by divorce. In order to become a celibate man and not have a wife and kids, a priest needs a STRONG home and siblings on whom he can rely and trust. If you want more priests, remember your VOWS and stay married. Quote(5) Married and ContinentSeptember 15th, 2009 | 4:01pm Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J. wrote, "The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy," in which he produces documented evidence that the discipline of Priestly Celibacy is an unchanged norm of Apostolic Origin.
In citing the study undertaken during the Council of Trent about "... whether the prohibition of marriage for priests was not in contradiction with either Holy Writ of written and oral apostolic tradition..." and Fr, goes on to cite the resolution of the discussion; "(Matt 19:27) "If the apostles left everything to follow Christ it is obvious that they also gave up conjugal life with their wives."
Fr. Cochini references Pope Siricius' 385 A.D. Decretals directing the Ordained to take back up the ancient Apostolic Discipline. He, rightly, notes it is not legislation intr4oducing a novel practice, but one invoking an ancient discipline of Apostolic Origin and reminding his Priests to get back in line with those who walked with Christ.
The reason for doing so, in a nutshell, is that, back in the day, the OT priests had to live apart from their wives during the time they served as Priests offering sacrifice in the Temple and (My take on it) the N T Priests offer sacrifice daily; ergo, perpetual continence - even if married.
Now, Fr. Cochini collects an impressive amount of documentation and he marshalls impeccable arguments in favor of retaining the Apostolic Discipline ("Ut quod apostoli docuerunt, et ipsa servait antiquitatis, nos quoque custodiamus") and he warns us us not to be so rash or cavalier about discarding this Ancient and Apostolic; "I surprise my audience by first telling them that clerical celibacy is not a Church doctrine. It is a discipline, and so can be changed. The pope could wake up tomorrow and allow priests to marry."
That decisions as described is about as consequential as the Pope deciding whether to order cereal or eggs for breakfast.
For me, the key to understanding the current controversy is to recognise and admit that it is all part of an attempt to dissolve the distinction between the Ordained Ministerial Priesthood and The Priesthood of the Laity and, especially, to weaken the reality of the Sacrifice of the Mass.
We have witnessed what has happened with the N.O. and it's practice of using the Roman Canon about as often as a new Pope is elected: we have witnessed a decrease in the belief of the Real Presence in the Eucharist due, in large part, to standing and receiving Communion in the Hand; we have seen the feministaion of the Sanctuary with the, reluctant, acceptance of Altar Girls; we have see institutionalised rebellion against Roman Discipline in the establishment of The Permanent Ministry for the EMHCs and the last thing we ought to do is make this discipline walk the plank off the Barque of Peter.
If we can't defend the Church by documenting two millenia of Christian Catholic Orthopraxis then at least we could observe the old conservative maxim: When it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change."
In a world ever more secularised how does it benefit the Catholic Church to become ever more like every other Christian Community?
Quote(6) Ukranian parishSeptember 15th, 2009 | 4:18pm I attend Mass at a narby Ukranian Catholic Church--the liturgy is beautiful and often sung. Both priest and deacon are married. I don't see much of a difference...except it is a small parish and might work better there. Also the priest in this Rite must be married by the time of ordination. Quote(7) UntitledSeptember 15th, 2009 | 5:21pm The celibacy requirement has, and will continue to, damage the church. To require it severely limits the pool of good, holy men who would join the priesthood. For those who feel called to a life of celibacy, there could always be a place for that, but it should not be a requirement for the entire priesthood. As to this: Rather, the majority of episodes involves homosexual acts with teenagers or young men, and it may be wondered how marriage would solve this particular problem. It is clear that not a few homosexual men have entered the priesthood partly as a "cover" for their condition. Arguably, it would only make matters worse if they had to take on a wife as additional camouflage. Huh? Major flaw in the logic here. If the celibacy requirement was lifted, straight men, who yes, want to be married (gasp!), could be priests and the pool of available candidates would widen greatly. Quote(8) re: AnnSeptember 15th, 2009 | 5:52pm Ann,
I completely disagree with you. Many of the men interested in the priesthood that I know would be happy in a "either or" scenario. No guys that I talk to are like "I'd become a priest if I could get married too." My girlfriend asked me once if they changed the discipline if I could see myself being a married priest. I instantly replied "NOPE." Becoming a priest isn't like becoming a doctor- it isn't a job or a career. It is a calling from God. If God is really calling me, no woman is going to stand in His way.
Also, it is important to note that Lutheran and Episcopalian churches have seen a drop in men interested in ordination, while they allow married clergy.
If the Church allowed priests to be married I bet there would be a initial surge in vocations, then they would lag and we would be right back at square one. Quote(9) untitledSeptember 15th, 2009 | 7:02pm I agree with Joe in his last post, and in his earlier one in which he stated that divorce contributes to the low rate of vocations. I would guess there aren't many vocations coming out of broken families - we may have missed one among my own siblings due to divorce.
Also, this may have been said already, but I have heard that the use of altar girls contributes to the low rate of vocations, and it makes sense in a way. Some parishes have no altar boys at all, just girls.
It's interesting to note that a few weeks ago the Lutherans finally OK'd gay clergy - I believe they were the last Protestant denomination to give in. Protestants in general OK'd ordaining women long ago, and I believe their clery have always been able to marry. Those who support the ordination of Catholic women know that the first step to attaining this goal is to do away with priestly celibacy.
The Protestant ministers and their families are often severely taxed by their congregations and they don't have to say Mass and hear confessions.
The priesthood is such a beautiful vocation, as is the married vocation. If lived right, both vocations involve much suffering and sacrifice and both are sanctifying if you give your all. You can't give your *all* to two different vocations. Quote(10) The Council of TrentSeptember 15th, 2009 | 7:38pm Note to "I am not Spartacus" [who are you then?}: I would be careful about using the Council of Trent as the final answer for matters of celibacy, since it was a reaction to the Reformation, 450 years ago and presided over by Pope Julius III who had a teenage boy for a mistress. As Casey Stengel used to say: "You could look it up."
I say keep celibacy as the rule, but allow the Bishops to ordain married deacons who are of good character. Quote(11) 3 pointsSeptember 15th, 2009 | 9:41pm 1) As to those who assert that opening the door for married priests will help with the priest shortage, it has already been pointed out that data from Protestant denominations shows it to be no assured help whatsoever.
2) Not-Spartacus referenced a book by Fr. Cochini, which I have not read, but I have read an excellent book by the eminent canonist Alfons Cdl. Stickler which makes what seems to be the same general historical argument. The earliest instances we can find on clerical marriage invoke the apostolic discipline requiring perpetual continence of married clerics (i.e. no relations). Never was this presented as a new norm, but always as the reassertion of the Church's ancient discipline; it is the Eastern practice of allowing its married clerics to praciced "Levitical" continence that is the novelty.
3) Joe, you will find throughout the tradition the assertion that virginity/celibacy is a higher state of life than marriage. We've always taught that, and thanks to the inspired writings of St. Paul always will. That doesn't mean a denigration of marriage; one can fully appreciate a state's goodness while still pointing to a better. Quote(12) UntitledSeptember 15th, 2009 | 10:29pm I think this is a good article overall, and one I would recommend to other people. But I think it focuses too much on the practical, “utilitarian” benefits of a celibate priesthood—certainly not insignificant points of discussion, but ones which I believe are very secondary to the question of clerical celibacy. Untimely, I think it is the spiritual aspects of celibacy which are most valuable to the Church.
While of course all the faithful are called to holiness (and even to sainthood), celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom” does add a dimension of special intimacy to one’s relationship with God. This has been the consistent teaching of the Church since her foundation, and is reflected many places in Scripture.
Because when a devout Catholic makes a commitment to a life of celibacy, God goes from being that person’s FIRST priority in life to being essentially that person’s ONLY priority. This may seem like a subtle shift in perspective, but it carries profound implications. And I would think that the Church needs this sort of deep friendship with God and imitation of Christ in her priests just as much as she needs their sacramental ministry.
Also, we shouldn’t underestimate the witness-value of a celibate priesthood. In freely choosing to renounce marriage and family life—arguably the greatest gifts our earthly existence has to offer—celibate priests testify to their faith in the resurrection and to the existence of the life of the world to come.
I don’t mean to be over-dramatic in making this comparison, but in this sense the choice of celibacy is in many ways qualitatively similar to the witness of the early Christian martyrs. And just as the martyrs’ deaths did so much to build up the infant Church, I think our contemporary Church is helped by the example of a priesthood which “lays down its life for His sheep” with this kind of totality, and which stakes its happiness in the hope of heaven.
Quote(13) UntitledSeptember 15th, 2009 | 11:26pm Yes, yes, we've all heard that it is "only a discipline."
But while it may be true that it started out as only a discipline, over these many, many years, one could point out that it has started to take on the look of Tradition.
As such, maybe the Holy Spirit has been saying something, lo these many years. Maybe the theology of the priesthood is deeper than celibacy being only a discipline. Quote(14) UntitledSeptember 16th, 2009 | 7:46am Well Joe, I disagree with you on the priest shortage. But that's ok. We can outsource our priests from other countries if we have to I guess.
I don't think celibacy is a healthy state for most young men. Sorry, I don't. I think celibacy could still have a role in certain orders, but for your average parish priest in the community, marriage would be a benefit for all.
And believe me, there are many countries around the world where priests are not celibate, and such is the culture that no one says anything about it.
Unlike here where we heckle a violator on a scale almost as bad we heckle an abuser. Quote(15) Link to excerpts from Fr. Cochini's great studySeptember 16th, 2009 | 9:19am http://tinyurl.com/q9twc3
Quote(16) Life of the Virginal and Celibate is Superior to Married LifeSeptember 16th, 2009 | 9:35am http://www.religious-vocation.com/ Quote(17) Trent Session XXIVSeptember 16th, 2009 | 9:46am CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema. Quote(18) Anathema?September 16th, 2009 | 11:46am Note to "I am Not": so you are saying that celibacy is more blessed than to be married? Where is this from? More claptrap from the Council of Trent and that boy lover Julius III? So we are going to allow that pederast to dictate our thinking via some quote from 450 years ago? Some of you guys are a bit scary. Quote(19) Celibacy is not only a priestly issueSeptember 16th, 2009 | 12:28pm I don't think celibacy is a healthy state for most young men. Sorry, I don't. I think celibacy could still have a role in certain orders, but for your average parish priest in the community, marriage would be a benefit for all.
So Ann if celibacy is not a healthy state for most young men do you advocate single men sleeping around? How about men in consecrated religious communities. What if in my married state my wife becomes unable to continue marital relations is it okay for me to 'outsource' to satisfy my needs. If single people are called to lead chaste and celibate lives why is it so impossible for priests?
As to the comment about if firefighters can stay up all night saving lives and still be married why can't priests. Perhaps you should consider that many marriages of police and firefighters end up in divorce because of the stress and demands of the career. Quote(20) rather flawedSeptember 16th, 2009 | 1:11pm The Johnson article makes some good points but is essentially flawed in 1) not locating celibacy in the original apostolic tradition and 2) arguing a utilitarian case. The well-recommended works of Cochini and Stickler and others show how celibacy was of apostolic origins. St. Paul's reference to a bishop having only one wife is in fact a reiteration of the practice of married clergy discontinuing the use of marriage after ordination (this continues in a halting way in Orthodoxy where marriage is not permitted after ordination, and the reservation of the the episcopate "the fullness of the priestood" to celibates.) If celibacy is recommended chiefly because it is pastorally useful then one might say, as Flannery O'Connor said of a Eucharist which is only symbolic, "To hell with it." Permanent celibacy is tribute to the perfect Sacrifice of the Mass, as temporary celibacy of the Jewish priest was tribute to the sacrifice of the Temple being impermanent and this requiring repetition. One should also observe that sexual failings and disorders are, by every statistical reckoning, far more rampant among those denominations which permit married clergy. Consider Anglicanism which is an ecclesiastical Chernobyl. And what does one do with divorced clergy? There have been numerous instances among Protestants of remarried clergy, including bishops, some actually marrying the divorced wives of other clergy. Most recently, the Anglican archbishop of South Africa divorced his wife who is now suing him for support. Not a pretty picture. Quote(21) UntitledSeptember 16th, 2009 | 2:24pm "I don't think celibacy is a healthy state for most young men."
Thank God the Church is guided by the eternal wisdom of The Holy Spirit and not the mind of the modern liberal.
Quote(22) UntitledSeptember 16th, 2009 | 5:10pm Celibacy is not an absolute requirement for priesthood. We can go through all the examples (the Eastern rites, married priests who then come to the R.C.C. etc). In other countries, the celibacy requirement is quietly ignored or a total joke. My mother said her priest in rural Ireland had a woman and everyone knew it and no one said anything.
You can try to insult me with the term liberal all you want, I don't care. I don't think it's healthy for young men to enter seminary at such a young age with the celibacy requirement on their shoulders. God made women so man would have a helpmeet and companion. I like how we conveniently ignore that part of the Bible.
And let's get real. The celibacy requirement repels straight men and attracts gay men to the priesthood. Who is more likely to want to hang out with a bunch of guys for the rest of their lives? Straight guys or gay guys?
The saddest thing to me is when a good priest leaves the priesthood because he falls in love with a woman. What is the shame in that. Quote(23) Life of the Virginal and Celibate is Superior to Married LifeSeptember 16th, 2009 | 5:27pm Austin. Here is what The Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about Pope Julius III: "The great blemish in his pontificate was nepotism. Shortly after his accession he bestowed the purple on his unworthy favourite Innocenzo del Monte, a youth of seventeen whom he had picked up on the streets of Parma some years previously, and who had been adopted by the pope's brother, Balduino. This act gave rise to some very disagreeable rumours concerning the pope's relation to Innocenzo. Julius was also extremely lavish in bestowing ecclesiastical dignities and benefices upon his relatives."
You accept ancient rumors with certitude while you acidly oppose the ancient Apostolic Origins of Priestly celibacy and continence and the Catholic Church's Doctrine about both.
Irrespective about the truth or falsity of the rumors, I think we'd both agree with Jesus: "1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.
Identifying or imputing sins to those holding Divinely-Constituted authority as a way of opposing the Doctrines they teach automatically calls into question the relative impeccability of the critic thereby rendering his accusations nugatory for who has Divinely-Constituted him as authoritative?
Quote(24) Re:September 16th, 2009 | 6:01pm
And let's get real. The celibacy requirement repels straight men and attracts gay men to the priesthood. Who is more likely to want to hang out with a bunch of guys for the rest of their lives? Straight guys or gay guys?
— AnnAs a male considering priesthood, I can 100% attest to the fact that I am not homosexual. I love hanging out with men and the community that one gets in religious life is VERY attractive in contrast to what the world has to offer. Sure, some men who struggle with SSA may find the priesthood to be a way to channel some of the energy and love into a life-giving ministry, but studies have shown that very few priests identify themselves as having SSA. Quote(25) Marriage and Clergy ShortageSeptember 16th, 2009 | 8:28pm Permitting clergy to marry does not increase vocations. There is a serious clergy shortage among the Protestant denominations that have married clergy, especially "main line" denominations such as Presbyterian (U.S.A.), Evangelical Lutheran, Methodist and Episcopal (and also, in many places, among the Orthodox.) The Roman Catholic clergy shortage, which lately shows signs of improving, is more conspicuous because of the increase in the number of Catholics contrasted with the sharp decline in Protestant membership. Ordination of women worsens the demographics. Since the Episcopal Church began to ordain women in the late 1970's, its membership has been in free fall and the number of young males being ordained has almost disappeared. As for homosexuality, denominations that permit clergy to marry have an increasing rate of homosexual clergy, many of them in "committed partnerships" or legally "married" in some states. Studies at Johns Hopkins and other similar institutions indicate that pederasty is far more frequent among Protestant married clergy than among Catholic celibate clergy.
Quote(26) seriously?September 16th, 2009 | 9:17pm Ann, do you realize that in holding up countries where priests have their "women" and no one has a problem with it, you are holding up fornicating priests (and their mistresses) as a "no-problem" situation? Do you then realize how absolutely absurd that is? A priest who is sinning gravely by having relations with a woman not his wife is already exercising a severely disordered priesthood. Add on that a whole parish population that has no problem with the whole sordid scenario, and you come up with a rather pathetic ship of fools. Quote(27) To my confused friendsSeptember 16th, 2009 | 10:16pm If celibacy is not superior to the sexually active married life, then why did our Father will it for His only Son and why did the Father and the Son will it for our Blessed Mother?
God wants us to live our lives moving further from the things of this world while moving closer to the things of eternity... or as Jesus said, "When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but they are like the angels in heaven." - Mark 12
Quote(28) attracts gay men???September 16th, 2009 | 10:57pm An wrote: "The celibacy requirement repels straight men and attracts gay men to the priesthood."
It attracts gay men? And how is that??? Quote(29) UntitledSeptember 17th, 2009 | 8:06am I am not holding up the cases of priests with women as an example, just a reality.
And they never really knew what Sheila's car was doing up at the rectory all of the time anyway. She never married. Maybe they were just friends. Quote(30) Response toSeptember 17th, 2009 | 8:13am So you accept the Catholic Encyclopedia verbatum? Are the writers of the Catholic Encyclopedia speaking excathedra? They are going to whitewash pederasts like Julius III, as well as the Medici Popes, Borgia Popes, and all the other rot. To keep falling back on the Council of Trent seems to indicate a lack of serious thought for 450 years. "Divinely Constituted Authority" indeed.
The celibate state is NOT superior to the married state. They are both valid and one is not "superior" to the other. I don't put celibates on a pedestal, be they clerical or laity. This is their choice, and that is fine, but they are not "superior" to anyone. This kind of irrational clericalism is what gets us in trouble. Quote(31) Read the history of the Catholic ChurchSeptember 17th, 2009 | 9:52am I find the same old arguments and nonsense in this article as always. I could go through the whole article and point out absurdities, but I won't. I'd just like to point out a few examples starting with the idea that a married priest couldn't be up all night with of his parishioner’s children who was seriously sick. This author writes, "A light bulb went off over my friend's head: You can't do both. If you fully understand the vocations to marriage and to the priesthood—the total availability and self-emptying that each demands—you would not choose to do both” Then with that reasoning every doctor should be celibate? How can he answer the call to deliver a baby, or attend one of his/her patients in an emergency situation? Also why would a priest be there with a sick child all night? This is a ridicules example.
Then I read the ridicules statement, "But the celibate lives of Mary and Joseph, who brought the Old Covenant to perfection, speak of a new dimension of self-giving." What proof do we have that Joseph and Mary was celibate? Nowhere in the bible does it say that they refrained from martial relations for the rest of their lives. They should have lived their calling to perfection to be husband and wife and parents.
I feel sorry for these sincere people who come to this priest for reasonable and truthful answers to questions that are indeed very troubling to lay people. We are not living in the Dark Ages or Middle Ages any more. People are waking up. The real reason for celibacy is control, power, and money. Read the history of the Catholic Church where you can find the unvarnished truth and real honest answers.
Quote(32) Council of TrentSeptember 17th, 2009 | 10:01am As it was written, the Council of Trent placed a person under anathema for not holding that the celibate state is higher than the married state. The Council of Trent is Inerrant and the bishops there exercised the charism of Infallibility. So to denigrate the Council is heresy and you have placed yourself informally under the anathema you who rail against the Council. You had better look up anathema- it's not a pretty thing.
I support a married priesthood as this was not placed under an anathema. I think that Cardinal Stickler's work proves too much as it would necessitate celibate altar boys (girls too now) using his arguments from the canons of Elvira and Carthage. This would mean that every altar boy and girl would have to remain celibate for life. So, either the Subdeaconate would have to be reinstated (something I'm not opposed to) or people are going to have to stop using the good Cardinal's argument. (For the record, even though I'm taller, I look up the great Cardinal)
It was said that St. Paphnutius kept mandatory celibacy from being the norm during the Council of Nicaea even though he was perfectly chaste his whole life. So, there has always been a tension between a perfectly celibate clergy and a married parish clergy. In the East, the monks are celibate and the parish priest and deacons are married.
I would also add a correction, in the East (Catholic and Orthodox) a married man may be ordained (Deaconate, Priesthood, Episcopacy) but once ordained, he may not be married. That is the norm across the board, East and West. Quote(33) answering "Read History of Catholic Church"September 17th, 2009 | 10:44am The claim is that no where in the Bible that Mary and Joseph refrained from marital relations after the birth of Jesus. This type of arguement where they say "its not in the Bible" should not be used as an arguement for Catholics. Much of what we have has been derived from other than the written word. We are taught how confession and other sacraments came about and if we really know church history this should be apparent.
Bottom line is that juggling is not the arguement. The clergy is a higher calling and are held to a higher standard. Celibacy helps one reach that goal. It's a form of fasting which separates us from the material and brings us closer to the spiritual which is essential for the priesthood.
Lastly as far as Mary and Joseph are concerned I find it illogical to be believe they had relations. If celibacy raises our level then raising the Savior has to be a requirement. Also why the virgin birth? Why call her Immaculate Mary? The angel Gabriel said she was full of grace. If your full of grace how do you succumb to the earthly desire for sex? Her answer to the angel was I do not know man. If she intended on knowing man why would the angel take the time and trouble to explain how else this could be done?
God gave us the ability to reason for a reason... Quote(34) Response to "Dr" EricSeptember 17th, 2009 | 10:47am The concept of infallibility is a product of the First Vatican Council of 1870. Trying to retroactively apply this to the entire Council of Trent and proclaiming that to disagree with anything from that Council makes you a heretic is absolute nonsense and nothing more than pure superstition. Pehaps we should get back to selling indulgences? 150 days out of Purgatory for $25 anyone?
The Vatican needs to make its peace with the modern laity and come to the realization that they cannot bring back the good old days of the 16th century. We are not stupid children to be cowed by mumbo jumbo from 450 years ago, but should be persuaded by reason. The Jesuits seem to have some inkling of this, however, unfortunately, much of the hierarchy seems to have their feet planted firmly in the 16th century. Trying to crush anything that is less than 450 years old is not the answer. Quote(35) Sac.September 17th, 2009 | 11:34am I have been a Catholic priest for over a decade and have worked in different settings. I just know this from personal experience. Combining a married life with my vocation and ministry as a priest will inevitably break up that marriage.
I sometimes wonder why it is the married folks who are much more concerned about us priests getting married than we priests are. I think the church would benefit more if the married folks worry about getting marriage right and the priests worry about getting the priesthood right. Going back and forth in thinking that the grass is greener on the one side or the other is of no help to any one, most of all, our holy mother the church. Quote(36) Re: Sac.September 17th, 2009 | 11:57am I have been a Catholic priest for over a decade and have worked in different settings. I just know this from personal experience. Combining a married life with my vocation and ministry as a priest will inevitably break up that marriage.
I sometimes wonder why it is the married folks who are much more concerned about us priests getting married than we priests are. I think the church would benefit more if the married folks worry about getting marriage right and the priests worry about getting the priesthood right. Going back and forth in thinking that the grass is greener on the one side or the other is of no help to any one, most of all, our holy mother the church. — Casey, JAll I can say to that is Amen, Father. Quote(37) UntitledSeptember 17th, 2009 | 12:41pm Our Father and Jesus loved our Blessed Mother. Love is desiring the highest and best for another. They desired celibacy for Mary. Our Father willed it for Jesus as well.
Sadly, many of the folks commenting here seem to be treating the issue of celibacy as a sort of competition (just because they don't have sex doesn't mean they're better than me!). Maybe it's time to stop thinking and talking about the issue and start praying about it. One of Satan's deceptions is the promotion that sacrifice is passe' ... it is not. Fasting is better than feasting and truth is eternal, not dependent on particular centuries and certainly not dependent on the "enlightened" minds of modernity. Quote(38) Response to CelibacySeptember 17th, 2009 | 1:45pm I remember the days when there was no shortage of priests. Many parishes had three or more priests serving them. My belief is that it is the modernism and changes in the Mass that have caused the shortage of priests--not celibacy itself.The identity of the priest and the work that he would do was attacked by liberals and laypeople were given a lot of those liturgical activities formerly given only to priests. The lack of belief in the Real Presence and the over emphasis on sex in this society is the reason I see for a shortage. I go to an fssp approved parish and we don't have any shortage because the role of the priest is respected and the laity have a different role. The priest is allowed to say the old form of the Mass and our parish is really blessed by holy priests.
I am a single person and am expected to be celibate and I really did not have a vocation to the single life. Rather single life is something that happens to some people because of circumstances and yet I look up to good celibate priests and nuns to help me be faithful to good morals in my life. Not all of us are so blessed as to find the right person to marry so we have to have the strength to live a good christian life as a single person. I find a celibate clergy devoted to God entirely to be a great help to me personally so that I, too, can be devoted without worrying about "keeping up with all the others" in what they are doing. Quote(39) UntitledSeptember 17th, 2009 | 1:52pm The bishops at Trent were prepared to make priestly celibacy optional if the Reformers had showed up, but as we know they never did. Too bad! Quote(40) YawnSeptember 17th, 2009 | 2:20pm The concept of infallibility is a product of the First Vatican Council of 1870. Trying to retroactively apply this to the entire Council of Trent and proclaiming that to disagree with anything from that Council makes you a heretic is absolute nonsense and nothing more than pure superstition. Pehaps we should get back to selling indulgences? 150 days out of Purgatory for $25 anyone?
The Vatican needs to make its peace with the modern laity and come to the realization that they cannot bring back the good old days of the 16th century. We are not stupid children to be cowed by mumbo jumbo from 450 years ago, but should be persuaded by reason. The Jesuits seem to have some inkling of this, however, unfortunately, much of the hierarchy seems to have their feet planted firmly in the 16th century. Trying to crush anything that is less than 450 years old is not the answer. — AustinFirst sentence: false. You mistake the formal definition of papal infallibility - which, by the way, even the non-opportunists believed in - with the concept of conciliar infallibility, which had been in place for over a millenium prior. Second sentence: disagreeing with the teaching Trent intended to bind upon the faithful does make one a heretic. Cf. notes to false sentence one. Second paragraph: you must be completely oblivious to history if you believe the last five papacies have had some sort of stylistic congruence with the 16th century. John Paul II and Benedict XVI are both European liberals who have sought to bring the faith into conversation with basically every kind of modern philosophy and theology that exists, while always seeking to persuade over impose (oftentimes to a fault). That, you may note, has nothing to do with crushing and cowing. Don't confuse the belief in infallibly revealed truth with the desire to heavy-handedly impose that truth upon others. Quote(41) Heretic?September 17th, 2009 | 2:59pm I have seen the term "heretic" thrown about quite a bit by some posters, as if they are the Inquisition. To paraphrase Patrick Henry with a twist: "If this be heresy, then make the most of it."
Believe what you will, and I will believe what I will. Fair enough. Quote(42) Celibacy in ContextSeptember 17th, 2009 | 8:31pm [Good Evening My Brothers & Sisters in Christ:
I am 57 years old and I am studying to be a Roman Catholic Priest. I have been celibate for over twenty years and, while finding it difficult at times, I find great joy in offering back to God the gift he has so graciously bestowed upon me. Whhile this is a good article, I find the ascetical meaning of celilbacy missing and this also applies to the comments I have read.
One of the best articles I have read is from FIRST THINGS titled: Celibacy in Context. You can access this article from their web-site. Even though I am "Roman" and the writer is "Byzantine," the concepts still apply, both to me and to you, the reader. Here are some snippets from it. . . . .
"Eastern Christianity insists that both marriage and celibacy are necessary for a healthy Church. Eastern Christians do not see these two vocations as opposed to each other. They would regard it as suicidal to abandon clerical celibacy in such a way as to imply that the principle of celibacy no longer has any value. . . .
Celibacy in Eastern Christianity is viewed primarily as a form of asceticism. Asceticism means, in essence, to live at the same time on earth and in heaven. It means to understand that everything we see in this life, everything we touch, taste, think, and feel, is in some way a revelation of the life to come. . . .
It is the same with sexuality. For an ascetic, all human relationships—even the sexual act itself—reveal divine love. Hidden beneath the surface of all smaller loves, lies the immeasurable abyss of God’s love. The ascetic realizes that what other people give him by way of love finds its true and deeper meaning in the One who is the source of all love. Celibacy is the practical recognition of the reality that lies behind the image, of the prototype behind the icon. Human love without celibacy is at best mere sentiment, at worst a form of idolatry. . . .
Who then is called to be celibate? Simply put, every single Christian who is capable of love is called to discipline that love through the asceticism of celibacy. Just as every Christian is called to prayer, fasting, and almsgiving, so also every Christian is called to be celibate. Seen in its true context of asceticism, celibacy ceases to be a legal requirement for a small section of the Christian faithful and is revealed instead as an aspect of the universal vocation of all believers. . . .
For a legalistic mind, the division between celibate and non–celibate seems vast. For an ascetical mind, however, the difference is negligible. Both the life of marriage and the life of celibacy are directed entirely toward God, and find a common meaning in Him. . . .
It may come as a surprise that I speak of a universal call to celibacy. This word has largely juridical associations, especially for Latin Catholics. Chastity is the term used in the more
general sense to speak of the obligation of all Christians to use the gift of their sexuality in accordance with the divine will. . . .
Unless all Christians accept their vocation to live the asceticism of celibacy within their own lives it is pointless to expect a small group of "elite" Christians to live up to this ideal. Not only is it psychologically difficult to expect one group of men to do this, it is also extremely bad theology. Celibacy is a common calling, expressing the faith of the Church in the coming Kingdom. It will only be possible for this faith to be lived in its most radical way if this life is deeply understood and valued by the wider community.
To be blunt: it is both psychologically dangerous and theologically illiterate for a Christian community that values sexual "freedom," including sex outside of marriage, adultery, abortion,
and the contraceptive mentality, to then demand an entirely different sexual standard from its priests. Priests do not become celibate merely because they feel a personal call to a life of sacrifice—at least, they ought not. Priests accept celibacy because they lead a community that is as a whole committed to the ascetic discipline necessary to transfigure human sexuality into an experience of the divine. Celibacy is healthy when it is regarded as a common labor in which each Christian has a share. . . .
Many blessings to you all and, in deepest humillity, I ask for your prayers of intercession that I may successfully complete this God-ordained call.
Steve
Quote(43) The Deposit of FaithSeptember 17th, 2009 | 8:32pm Priests ought to be allowed to be married because it is a right given to them by Jesus, and left to His church in "The Deposit of Faith".
It is the DOF that the archdiocese of Boston correctly cited, when they were recently asked about ordaining women. Women are not to be priests. It is nowhere in Scripture and it is not in universal church Tradition.
Just over the 4th of July, I read a book by Edgar Davie titled, "Illicit Celibacy and the Deposit of Faith". Catholics and most particularly, Catholic priests, should read this book. Quote(44) Optional celibacy and religious priestsSeptember 18th, 2009 | 7:21am A purely practical question for those who support optional clerical celibacy:
What would optional celibacy do to the health/growth of religious orders?
I am sure young men would still knock at the doors of monasteries and convents, but my sense is that religious life would suffer.
I don't put this question out there as an argument against optional celibacy. But I wonder how many who support it have thought of how it would influence religious vocations.
Fr. Philip, OP Quote(45) FaithSeptember 18th, 2009 | 12:41pm It is great to see so many positive posts about celibacy. It is a heavenly gift to The Catholic Church. It is also a shame that there are so called catholics like Ann. Ann and her mother who condoned the relationship in Ireland with a Catholic priest and a woman. Shame on you, shame on your Mother, shame on the blind eye silent community. It is precisely because of catholics like you Ann that the Catholic church is in such a mess. Quote(46) From the horse's mouthSeptember 21st, 2009 | 10:58pm From a married priest, in support of priestly celibacy:
http://tinyurl.com/m36q7v
Sacerdotalis Caelibatus From Pope Paul VI:
http://tinyurl.com/klmff2 Quote(47) If there is a change....September 22nd, 2009 | 5:45pm If the discipline of celibacy in the Latin Church is ever changed, it would likely amount to the adoption of the discipline of the Eastern Church:
1. Men who are married before ordination to the diaconate will be able to retain their wives, but once ordained will not be allowed to marry, or in the case of widowers, remarry.
2. Bishops will be selected only from the celibate clergy and the occasional widower.
Some years ago, a Russian Orthodox priest was writing in Commonweal (I think; it was before the internet, and I haven't found it online.) The Orthodox priest commented that it was customary to blame Humanae Vitae and mandatory celibacy for the priest shortage. He pointed out that the Orthodox Church has never issued a document like Humanae Vitae and that celibacy has been optional in Orthodoxy. He blamed the low pay Orthodox priests receive for part of the shortage, but ultimately blamed the Orthodox priest shortage on trends in modern society militating against the spirit of sacrifice. (Somewhere in the article, the priest also commented on how Orthodox parishes are generally run by lay boards that sometimes see their parishes, "as their own property".)
|
