Several of the commentators have raised a question which has never been clearly addressed by the Church, at least to my satisfaction. Catholics believe each person has a vocation, a calling by God to a state of life, single, celibate, married, priesthood, religious, hermit, missionary, etc.
The Churches responsibility is to discern a vocation to the priesthood: does the person who says he hears a call from God to be a priest in fact have such a call? Certain objective signs may indicate the person is mistaken: he may not have the health or intellectual or physical abilities to be a priest: e.g.. at an extreme, a deaf-mute. Or for other reasons he may not be suitable.
I know that pious and orthodox Catholic women sometimes feel a call to be a priest. The Church says that they do not have such a call. I have explained to them that they may indeed have a special call to the priesthood that is more important than the sacramental priesthood and which the sacramental priesthood was instituted to serve: the priesthood of the baptized, by which we offer ourselves as a living sacrifice to God.
The call to celibacy and the call to marriage are distinct. The Eastern Churches, both the Orthodox and those in union with Rome, ordain married men.
But how has the Church decided that God will call only celibates to the priesthood in the Western Church, while he calls married men to the priesthood in the Eastern Churches (and recently he calls married Protestant and Anglican ministers to the priesthood in the Western Church)? When God calls men does he conform himself to the changing dictates of canon law?
I think the concept of vocation has to be examined more closely. Mostly, except in rare instances, in is expressed through the needs of the community. Does the Western Church (unlike the Eastern Churches) need only celibate priests? Perhaps, but if the need is that clear, why can’t it be explained clearly? And the explanation has to refer to the needs of the Western Church, not the universal value of celibacy.
Eastern Churches in union with Rome have been long forbidden to ordain married men in the United States – the Irish bishops thought it would confuse the faithful, but then the Irish don’t regard the Eastern Churches is really Catholic. Recently, some of the Eastern Churches have decided that they are self-governing and do not need to heed this prohibition, and are ordaining married men in the United States. Their experience will show whether married priests can function well in Western society.
For my part, I would rather have a married priest celebrate the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom than a celibate priest do a dreary or narcissistic version of the Mass.
Having assisted at many Masses in the Byzantine Rite, and at many dreary or narcissistic” versions of the Roman (God save me from each and forgive for any I’ve celebrated), I wholeheartedly agree.
Of course , the Novus Ordo presents certain problems but that’s gist for another dialogue.
There is also the related question of why, if a celibate priesthood is truly God’s will for his people, it took him so long to get around to communicating that fact to the Church, and to this day has only managed to do so in the Latin Rite.
At the great Council of Nicaea, the Holy Spirit was (we are told) able to make himself heard not only on the exact nature of the ontological relationship between the Father and the Son, but also on twenty disciplinary canons which were for centuries afterward considered to be divinely inspired–indeed, they were held by many, including a number of popes, to be as authoritative as scripture itself. And yet this same Council, when the question of mandatory clerical celibacy was put before it, decided against it, and (according to the early Church historian Sozomen) “enacted no law about it, but left the matter to the decision of individual judgment, and not to compulsion.”
If mandatory celibacy is actually God’s will for the Church, and if the Council was competent to discern and define for all time the nature of God himself, how is it that it was incompetent to discern God’s will regarding celibacy when the issue was squarely laid before it?
Mandated celibacy guarantees secrecy and domination. That is its purpose and its function.
Aw
The Church cannot argue that celibacy is in principle necessary to priesthood, but she has the authority to impose the discipline in the Roman Rite. The problem, if any, is that there is no recourse to that authority, and that those who make the rules are celibates, and many of them are homosexuals, so there is no great felt urgency about the issue. Likelihood of change? Next to nil, unless the influx of married Protestant clergy becomes a flood, in which case it will either be stopped or there will come a lot of discord and then a possible and limited reversal of the discipline.
It is true that the evangelical counsel of celibacy will always have a privileged place in the Church, and there will always be ways of life devoted to it. At least I hope so, for the latter. A related problem is that homosexuals in religious Orders of celibates often re-define celibacy to mean they can’t marry but can have homosexual sex. Those neo-romantic traditional Catholics who see the priest as marrying the Body of Christ (rather than, more technically precise, conformed to Christ the Spouse of His People, who are His Body) are also helping with the homosexualization of the priesthood.
In any case, a look through art history is enough to convince one of lots of homoeroticism in religion.
Sardath: It is a problem of the evolution of doctrine AND discipline. Cdl Newman wrote extensively on such matters. Not all problems were settled in the first thousand years. Not all matters were settled in the second thousand years. The Western Church eventually decided for clerical celibacy because it thought it was the most prudent course of action. Maybe the bishops will decide against it in the future. There are many practical advantages to celibacy, and there are some minuses. But there are plusses and minuses to a married clergy. I didn’t know that Nicaea even considered the matter, but from what you report it seems that they punted. I am fine with that too. It is interesting that even in the 4th century it was a pressing problem…. do you wonder why? I simply don’t see the problem with the Western Church deciding to go for celibacy. But if it means that much to you, perhaps you can go Byzantine.
I am all for a celibate clergy, but it appears to have been observed in the breach. And now it has become the perfect attraction and hiding place for homosexuals, either chaste or not. And homosexuals are statistically more likely to abuse minors, and more of them. So celibacy has become a problem, not because of celibacy but because of the breakdown of mores.
It’s not the first time in history that this has happened (large numbers of homosexuals drawn to the priesthood and religious life). St. Damian preached against the widespread homosexual sin in the priesthood of elenth century Italy (Europe). St’s Basil and Benedict counsel against admiring or looking too long at attractive novices. As well, seminaries and religious communities were traditionally on the watch for “particular frienships” (of course, in single gender enviorments, people who would otherwise not be homosexual may experience same sex attraction). Mr. Podles has writen eloquently on the feminization of Western Christianity you mention.
I am approached by many hermits who have a disability asking if I would make them Monastic Habits as they yearn to be a bride of christ but have been declined a descernment by regular orders of nuns, therefore they would like to become hermits following christ within their own homes
OTOH, I can see where now is not the time to provide ammo to those who say that sex is eveything and no one can live a celibate life. It does seem to be a rather prophetic witness to our sex-saturated culture.
Living a celibate life entails far more than abstaining from sex, and it seems rather a sad view of marriage to think a change in the Latin Rite’s discipline would provide “ammo to those who say sex is everything”. The big issue is loneliness. There is a loneliness in being celibate and there’s no way around that, it’s intrinsic to the call. Henri Nouwen (who I had the good fortune to meet) said that this loneliness creates an inner sanctuary for God. To fill that sanctuary requires an intense spiritual life but (except for some possible mystics) this does not make the loneliness go away. Frankly, when I think about sex (and I honestly try not to!) I realize at this point in lifeI’d rather have a peperonni pizza. But when I think of a wife, a life companion, an intimate to whom I’ve given my heart and pledged my all, and children…then I feel the weight of this sacrifice… and loneliness. Yet also joy. I’m set aside for the Lord and give witness to another reality beyond what can be see. But let’s be very clear, except for the young and immature, the essence of celibacy is not abstenence from sex, it’s abstenence from the deepest human intimacy (of which sex is a part and expression). Not everyone has this call. In fact, it is given to only a relative few. Many who do not have it are called to the Catholic priesthood in the Church’s eastern rites. Perhaps many married men would be called in our rite as well were we to change the present discipline. Would that be a terrible thing? Are we better off not doing it in ths moment fo history?
Thomas Tucker, the “prophetic witness” would be chastity, not celibacy. They’re not the same thing, really. An even more “prophetic witness” would be obeidence to God’s revealed standards. Sadly, when it comes to the sexual abuse of children by priests, the Church has failed miserably on both counts.
Yes, I understand the differenc. That’s part of my point- most of society does not, and so for them celibacy is all about sex and the Church changing it’s discipline would be, in their eyes, all about sex.
Furthermore, Father, you are right about the intimacy of marriage, up to a point. Many people could attest that they are more lonely in their marriage than they ever were as single. Everything can be idealized.
Furthermore, I daresay for a lot of people today, marriage and celibacy are indeed primarily about sex. And that is at least one reason that so many marriages fail.
Thanks for your thoughts Thomas. In practice, both marriage and celibacy can fall short of the ideal God has for them. Thank God, I have been privledged to see many happy marriages, including that of my parents. As well, I have witnessed what celibacy can give and lead to when embraced generously by one God calls.