Priestly celibacy up for debate: Pope's deputy

The Vatican has opened its door to the possibility of married priests, a move that would go against centuries-old Church tradition.

September 12, 2013


The Vatican's newly-designated Secretary of State Pietro Parolin has said that priestly celibacy is an issue up for discussion within the Catholic Church.

The Vatican has opened its door to the possibility of married priests, a move that would go against centuries-old Church tradition.

The Australian



13 / 09 / 2013

www.pravoslavie.ru [pravoslavie.ru]

I'm always surprised when these stories are presented as news. There is nothing new in this article or many others that have been circulating here. This is what was said:

The work the church did to institute ecclesiastical celibacy must be considered. We cannot simply say that it is part of the past. It is a great challenge for the pope, because he is the one with the ministry of unity and all of those decisions must be made thinking of the unity of the church and not to divide it. Therefore we can talk, reflect, and deepen on these subjects that are not definite, and we can think of some modifications, but always with consideration of unity, and all according to the will of God. It is not about what I would like but what God wants for His church. … It has always been said that the church is not a democracy. But it would be good during these times that there could be a more democratic spirit, in the sense of listening carefully, and I believe the pope has made of this one of his pontificate’s objectives. A collegial movement of the church, where all the issues can be brought up, and afterward he can make a decision.

Alice,

I couldn't read the Russian, but here's an article I found in English on the same subject: Vatican Official Opens Door to New Debate Over Celibacy for Priests [newsmax.com]

Totally agree; there is nothing new here except a reminder that Roman celibacy is NOT dogma, so it is possible that it could be changed if the Church deems it proper. Perhaps the news is that there may be more emphasis in this papacy on collegiality, that is synods, than pronouncements from Rome. This should be very welcomed by the Eastern Churches.

And there are thousands of Latin priests who have been laicized because they wanted/needed to be married.

The United Church of Canada actually has a policy on any RC priest who has married and who would like to be a minister in that Church - he only needs to attend a parish for one year before he would be allowed to be a minister.

Hopefully, the Latin Church will allow married priests (who aren't former Anglican, Lutheran or Methodist ministers) and will allow those who have had to leave the active Priesthood because they wished to get married, come back.

To paraphrase St Thomas More, "This (Church) is planted thick with laws; Man's laws, not God's . . ."

Alex

I have no problem with the reinstatement of the policy to ordain married men to priesthood. OTOH, I do, however, have a huge problem with allowing someone who was ordained celibate and "left" simply because he desired marriage, to "come back" as it were. As I see it, those latter either (a) should not have been ordained in the first place or (b) were simply not able to restrain their carnal urges. Whichever, there is the matter of disobedience to consider. The fact is that the man was ordained and then contracted a marriage. That part is a no-no, and to me it makes no difference if he "left" or not. IOW, if one is ordained celeibate, he remains celibate. Period. The alternate (i.e, contracting a marriage after ordination)is far too Protestant for my taste.

Agreed. Marriage does not preclude ordination, but ordination does preclude marriage (to say nothing of remarriage).

There is some very fine scriptural and historical information found in ¶XXII of the defense of the Augsburg Confession, "The Marriage of Priests"

http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_22_marriage.php

In particular, paragraph 23 contrasting the early Councils with the more recent (16th century) practice.

I agree.

On the other hand, if he is willing to give up his ministry and find another career, he's perfectly welcome to stay in the Catholic Church as a layman. (That might go without saying, but I felt it should be said explicitly.)

I completely agree with you malphono. I see no problem if the discipline is changed to allow married men to be ordained priests in the Roman Rite. However, to allow men who were priests and left to get married to function again as priests is another story. They broke their promise of celibacy when they got married and should never function as priests again.

Applications for married men to be ordained to the priesthood in the Latin Church are currently on hold, as Pope Francis is considering how to proceed.

Dear Malphono,

The Catholic priests I have come to know who have been forced to leave the active Ministry because they decided they could not live a lie and needed to be married are NOT Protestant.

Surely, an exception could be made in their case because they did not have the option to be married prior to their ordination.

It is all about man-made laws which can be changed, even now, with the stroke of a pen.

As for Protestantism in general - what is there about the current Latin Church that doesn't already smack of Protestantism?

Alex

Surely, an exception could be made in their case because they did not have the option to be married prior to their ordination.

They did have the option to get married before their ordination. They just chose to be ordained instead.

That one may not marry after ordination to the priesthood is one of the oldest laws of the Church, going back to the so-called Apostolic Canons:

Of those who have been admitted to the clergy unmarried, we ordain, that the readers and singers only may, if they will, marry.

Why?

Is this not a man made law about who should be considered worthy to be a priest? Married - unmarried - remarried?

Since the Roman Catholic Church sets it's own rules - why can't they rule on this as well - to allow men who were priests and got married to come back as priests?

They accept anglican and episcopal married men as priests - certainly that is worse than a Roman Catholic Priest who falls in love and marries is it not?

Of course we look to tradition - but tradition does evolve.

Some religious have stated - that it is a man made law - not a law of God - and can be abrogated at any time -

but simply has not been abrogated

Is it time for the evolution of religion? Is it wrong for Catholicism to change? If Catholicism is not allowed to change - they better go back to the Eastern Orthodox Church on hands and knees asking forgiveness - no? Does tradition trump what we know about human nature (that even celibates are sexual beings whether they like it or not)?

Why not do the same for bishops in the East and West as well? They are of equal weight and same standing.

Haydukovich,

I think there's an important distinction that needs to be made between "abrogating" a law and making exceptions to it. Abrogating means doing away with the law altogether. A law can also be *derogated*, which means that certain exceptions, limits or other changes are added to the law. However, it is not necessary to make any permanent changes to a law if an exception is declared in light of special circumstances, which would certainly be the case if Rome were to begin allowing married priests.

I think a lot of careful consideration would need to be given for priests who left the active ministry for no other reason than to get married--a blanket re-admission would be equally unjust as a blanket rejection. It wouldn't be easy, but I think it could be done.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

A very good point Father Deacon Richard - especially about admissions and rejections.

another question I have is
have we become dysfunctional in our thinking and our behavior toward this issue?

Why not indeed

I believe THE RUDDER states that a Bishop should be the husband of just one wife and loyal to her ...

I sound almost anglican here ... but really I have more questions than answers ...

Marriage of the Hierarchy of East and West (well of The Church) was originally the way the Early Christin Church operated right?

This, and other issues as well.

It is part of our fallen nature to seek after what is tangible to us. For some, this can only be worldly success, honors and pleasures--nothing spiritual. For those who have been radically transformed in Christ (i.e. saints), on the other hand, the spiritual reality of the Kingdom of God really is tangible. The rest of us, however, are continually seeking after that which is both spiritual and tangible.

This sounds like a bad thing, but really, all our religious practices are just that: tangible expressions of spiritual realities. The key here is that they are visible things that point to the invisible, tangible things that point to the intangible. The problem comes in when we confuse the two, and become so attached to the expression that we lose sight of what is being expressed. This is where the expression takes on more importance than properly belongs to it.

At this point, it becomes easy to look at the differences in expression (or tradition) of different Christian groups, and conclude that the others have to be somehow less Christian than we are. We come up with a lot of high-sounding words to "prove" that we're right, but ultimately, we're engaging in dysfunctional thinking.


Yes. The practice came to an end when more and more bishops were successfully arranging for their sons to succeed them, thereby keeping the power and prestige (read: worldly benefits) of the office "in the family."

[Oh, I just re-read your question here: "marriage of the hierarchy," meaning ordination of married men--never marriage of ordained men.]

At the same time, monasticism had emerged as a bastion of the true Christian spirit, so it was only natural to select bishops from among their ranks.




Peace,
Deacon Richard

I don't know if I would say that. Some might see it as a form of proselytizing, but I would argue that it isn't -- it's a reasonable accommodation for someone who wants to become Catholic of his own accord, not a way to push someone to become Catholic.

So I would say, No it isn't worse at all.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
In thinking of what spiritual fathers who are monastics have said about asceticism as a universal call that is uniquely answered by monastics, we should keep in mind that prior to the legalization the Church, red martyrdom was a call to offer one's self fully. White martyrdom through the monastic/celibate life flowed naturally from such a call, and its prevalence could be arguably increased by the absence of calls to red martyrdom. Because Bishops occupy the role of shepherd of the flock in an eparchy/diocese, it's not surprising that they have traditionally been called from the white martyrs, as monks have answered that call.

That we would simultaneously have a rich tradition of parish priests who are married is no conflict, and I will be overjoyed to hear of more openness to this other tradition as time goes on.

With respect to all:
Even with all the Roman Rite wacky "liturgy" currently prevalent as well as dissent from basic Christian doctrines, one thing has remained: Pope Leo XIII's declaration of the invalidity of Anglican Orders. Lutheran and Episcopal ministers are not considered ordained at all. Mandatory re-ordination is required (there are occasional exceptions). Thus, these married ministers are not actually ministers at all and thus are married men to be ordained. There is no contradiction here. Just as Latin Deacons may be taken from the ranks of married men and Greek Catholic married men may be ordained Deacons and Priests (which is normative for the Orthodox Church), these Protestant ministers are simple laymen from a sacramental reality. Again, I do not mean to offend. Fr. Deacon Trevor

Well, apparently married clergy is not a problem in the Eastern tradition, although most were either married in Eastern Europe prior to ordination, or the clergy were married in Orthodoxy, ordained, then received in the Eastern Catholic tradition.

Dear Father Deacon,

I agree wholeheartedly - careful consideration for these (thousands) of Latin Rite priests should be given. Blanket readmissions never work well . . .

JBenedict pointed to the "so-called Apostolic Canons" (what else would we call them? ), but then Rome herself has likewise broken a few of these in her life-time (fasting rules etc.).

I also apologise for my sometimes negative estimation of the "Protestantism" of the contemporary Latin Catholic Church. I will stop with that.

Axios!

Alex

Dear JBenedict,

It is somewhat disingenuous to say that they had the option to get married but they got ordained instead.

We're talking about the possibility of married priests in the Latin Rite, which would be a return to the more ancient tradition of the universal Church.

They had NO option to be married prior to ordination.

Epiphanius' post on this matter is a very balanced and pastorally sensitive one (which I'm sure you may agree).

Alex

Married men may be ordained to the presbyterate; presbyters may not marry. Period. Full stop. End of discussion.

I guess all those men and their so-called wives are all living in sin.

End of sarcasm.

Not to split hairs, but I don't believe that you should "stop with that" flat-out. I mean, our view of "Protestantism" should in fact be somewhat negative, right?

Dear Peter,

I believe so . . . My Latin Catholic college tended to emphasize what Catholics and mainstream Protestants had in common above what differentiates us.

One came from that with a kind of "hierarchy" of belief - what we, as Catholics, shared with Protestants appeared to be "above" all else in Catholicism that we didn't.

Alex

Dear Stuart,

Yes, but there is the principle of potential economia that the Church might apply to Latin priests who got married.

I will trust and follow the Church on this, whatever it decides.

Alex

Interesting. I guess I've spent so much time on catholic.com that I had forgotten that there are Catholics out there who do that.

why?

I believe the question was *not* whether we should ever "allow priests to get married," but whether--assuming the laws in the Latin Church that allow married men to be ordained under very restricted circumstances are expanded--we might allow *some* of the priests who had left the active ministry in order to marry legally and openly (as opposed to making "other arrangements") to be re-admitted to service.

Granted, this would have to be done on a case-by-case basis, and would only apply to those who were ordained prior to the "new" law taking effect.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

haydukovich:

Because a priest is married to the Church. St. Paul sets out the requirements as a man being married but once prior to ordination and that figures in.

The mystical marriage of the priest to the Church is an icon of Christ Who is espoused to the Church. So once ordination takes place, further marraige is out of the question. It's been the Apostolic practice.

Bob

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change." - Charles Darwin

I am sure some people here may not be a fan of Darwin. Though there is much wisdom and truth in the above quote. I wonder how many of the nay sayers would volunteer to be married to the church in the future to sustain it's ecclesiastical numbers?

In my humble opinion, I believe priests should have marriage as an option. Married to the church or married to a woman, he would be fulfilling a sacrament.