Celibacy in the Priesthood, and Related Issues

[yovargas]

Then be a priest in a religion/denomination where you have the choice.

What an odd idea. People don't change denominations like they changed fashions. People usually, you know, belief what their church teaches.

[truehobbit]

I realize there is a certain...dissonance in my advocating for the "right" (feels weird to use that secular word in a religious context...how about "ability") of Catholic women who hold a religious viewpoint very different than my own, to serve as priests. However, I understand their position, because I am not yet fully equal in the Jewish denomination with which I closely identify (yes, even in my agnostic mode), and it is a difficult choice to make - whether to accept inequality in the denomination in which you otherwise feel most comfortable, or turn to a (usually more liberal) denomination whose teachings you might not as closely identify with. It's not as simple as "just go to the more liberal denomination." Each of us has the right to advocate for the religious environment in which we feel most comfortable, rather than merely be told by the traditionalists to go elsewhere.

nel, I know what you mean, that's why I thought Jewel's questions were so impossible. You can't just say 'if this and that were different, I'd change denominations' if everything else in there is as you like it. Sometimes you just have to swallow a few things you don't like about a group you otherwise feel you belong to.
I happen to like having male only, celibate priests, and I don't know whether I'd be able to swallow it if it were changed.

But you have that choice to switch your allegiance. And crucifer was saying that the most important thing for him would be to have the choice of marriage. Well, then, he can change denominations.

You just can't have it both ways sometimes, and the expectation that things will be changed to accomodate your personal wishes is not a desirable trait, IMO. So, it's vain to say "I want to be a Catholic priest with a choice to marry".


Btw, re your question:
I just would want to understand more about why the religion believes that choice to be spiritually or practically beneficial.
Ro explained that very insightfully in her first post in here, I think.


bt -

People don't change denominations like they changed fashions. People usually, you know, belief what their church teaches.

Not according what I know of many Protestants, esp in the US.

[nerdanel]

Oh, my bad, Hobby and Ro. I think I missed some of Ro's early posts. I'll go back and read them and respond as time permits.

[baby tuckoo]

People don't change denominations like they changed fashions. People usually, you know, belief what their church teaches.

Not according what I know of many Protestants, esp in the US.

Must agree with Hobby here.


I've questioned many an American about the basic beliefs (theology, if you will) of their denomination, and I've found the deviations to be profound, even remarkable. This includes Catholics . . . perhaps in high relief to the trend.


Odd it is that this disturbs them little. We select our doctrines personally, not as a tribe. Other things are tribal these days, but not our holy wars.



Someone explain that to me, huh?

[Rodia]

Yeah I'd be repeating myself, I think I said pretty much everything in my first post. I mean, I can repeat myself, but it's late...

nel. Slightly off topic, but I was actually wondering about women in Judaism, and whether they suffer similar inequalities. A couple of years ago my (Jewish) friend from school was shooting a documentary in a synagogue. I said, you should have told me, I'd have loved to come along. He looked at me like I was crazy and said 'You're a woman. They wouldn't let you in there.'

I took his word for it- I should know this, really, I've read enough stuff about the Jewish faith to know...but I don't. Sievebrain. Anyway, was he messing with me or something? It rang familiar, like something very Orthodox.

Just curious, really.

Oh, and Prim. What you said about not teaching anyone how their religion should work. There are many many religions out there that have rules that seem crazy and often oppressive to me...and yet they have willing, devoted followers. And when I think about the rules of my religion, well, everyone has to work them out individually. Some of them I don't agree with because their effects are, in today's world, almost wholly negative- like the rule against contraceptives for example. I will defy that rule and will take the risk of working it out with God, because I feel strongly about it. However, I won't take the same measure with the sin of, I dunno, laziness, for example- if I'm lazy it's not because I feel that it is my right which religion is trying to take away. I'm just lazy. And I'm not gonna bend religion around my laziness to justify it.

That's essentially it; striving to change a religion for its greater evolution is awesome. Trying to get rid of a rule because we can't be bothered to abide by it is not.

Er...what was I trying to say? Ah, that 'pointless' rules can be very helpful, we just need to figure out where they stand in our life and how we intend to use them. I don't think I'll go to hell for not going to Church all this year, but I'm not about to claim that there is no need for me to even consider going to Church.

...If rambling was a cardinal sin...

[Holbytla]

I am really not going to get involved in this thread, because to this day I am still to angry to speak about it rationally.
I will just say the last straw for me with the Catholic Church was the situation that JS referred to.
Specifically...

And it came to a head in Boston, where about 10 years ago Cardinal Law called down the wrath of God on the Boston Globe for daring to break the story of what turned out to be a huge problem that had been going on for years, with the Church complicit in some horrific abuse.

The fact that they can stand at the altar and preach to the congregation about forgiveness of sins and the importance of penitence, yet cannot do the same themselves, so rubbed me the wrong way and smacked of hypocrisy.

Not only could they not bring themselves to ask for forgiveness, they covered it up and paid people off for their past crimes.


The list of grievances I have is long, but I could have overlooked most of them. This one just broke whatever connection I had and the ties are severed.

[JewelSong]

But I would like to have the choice if I was a priest.

Then be a priest in a religion/denomination where you have the choice.

But you have stated yourself that you could not switch religions or denominations so easily - or even at all. That you would stop going to church rather than switch to another denomination.

Yet you blithely and dismissively say that if a Catholic woman is called by God to be a priest, she should simply be a priest in another religion as if that is a very easy thing. As if...well, as if how DARE a woman even think about being a priest.

And I know you are not called to the priesthood. I was asking you to imagine how you might feel if you were. What would you do, if you strongly felt God's call towards the priesthood? You have an imagination...I wanted you to think about it just a little bit.

Would you think that God must be wrong? Would you challenge your Church? Or would you, as you suggest above, simply go be a priest in another religion?

[MithLuin]

Well, I sincerely wish I knew what God was calling me to be .

Some people feel vocations very strongly, but for most people, it seems to be a gradual thing that grows over time. If I thought the pull was "priesthood" - I would have to have a lot of long talks with God about that, and I would probably seek out spiritual direction. Ie...."help me out here! What am I supposed to do?"

I certainly know young men who have struggled with the decision "priesthood or marriage?" The ones I've known have had peace about their decision in the end (and I've known them to choose both ways). One of the men who chose to get married (he now has 2 children) went on to study canon law.

I would not convert. But I would not petition Rome, either. I think I would try to find a way to live out my life being true to my call. What about the priesthood calls to me? Is it the ability to lead souls to Christ? To minister to people who are at difficult times in their lives? To be part of the liturgy?

Having a ministry as a youth minister, preacher of retreats, or spiritual director may be a way to follow the first one. Counseling seems to offer opportunities for the middle one. Becoming a lector or eucharistic minister would be part of last one...or I could be the person who takes communion to those who are in prisons, hospitals, shut-ins - then I'd be the one doing a personal one-on-one liturgy.... All of these things can be done by women, and often even lay women.

And if the idea is to consecrate my life and heart fully to God....then it would be a matter of finding a religious order. That lifestyle has always seemed infinitely more appealing to me than being a diocescan priest anyway - so if I wanted to be part of an order of priests (I dunno, the Jesuits), can I find an order of sisters that would be a good fit for me?

But if it all came down to, "no, no, I want to be ordained!" Well...why? What is it about that.... I know people who have been turned away from the priesthood. They wanted to be ordained, but were told "no." They had to deal with that. I suppose I would have to deal with that, too. But in the end - I would accept the no. My ex-bf had to accept the "no" when he wanted to marry me and I wanted to break up. Intensely disappointing, but part of life (and he is happily married now, so it all worked out ). [Though there are cases of guys who do not accept it - this ex of mine...his mother broke off an engagement, and the guy called her up every year to see if she was still married....until he died 10 years later.]

My sister wanted to be a priest from the age of 5 until at least the age of 12 or so. In high school, she determined she wanted to get married, and was intensely disappointed that she couldn't get a bf. When she was 18, she met this guy...they're getting married in August. Things have worked out for her.

With the issue of vocation....it is a matter of listening carefully, but ultimately of trusting in God. They are worth fighting for (Therese petitioned the pope directly to be allowed to enter Carmel at the age of 15 - not that it did her any good). Lots of people couldn't find an order they liked, so they founded their own . The literature of the world is filled with stories of very determined lovers . I don't know what the solution is for a woman who feels called to be a priest...but I do trust that she and God can work that out. With the emphasis on God .

But Crucifer's original comment was that he would want the choice to marry as a priest. I know of a few ways to do that and be Catholic at the end of the day.

• 1) Be raised and ordained Episcopalian. In the process, get married. Convert to Catholicism, and petition for the ordination to be recognized. There are a handful of married convert priests in the US who have followed this scenario. The reasoning for the "loophole" has something to do with the Oxford Movement.
  
  2) Be Eastern Catholic, and get married prior to your ordination. You will never be a bishop, but you will be a legitimate, married Catholic priest in full union with Rome. Oh, and they have much cooler liturgies, so it will be fun . This is not a loophole, just part of the tradition of the East.
  
  3) Get married. Become widowed. Join the seminary. I don't recommend this scenario, but I know priests who have followed it.
  
  4) Decide that the fun part of ordination is presiding at weddings and baptisms. Get married. Become an ordained Catholic deacon. Brag to your friends that you've received all 7 sacraments .

I personally know someone who has done each of these things, but it is worth pointing out that no one was 'angling' for the priesthood. This was just how their lives turned out.

There is precedent for the Catholic Church accepting married men into the priesthood. But not so with women - I suspect that that rule would not be changed, ever.

[Alatar]

Just to clarify an earlier point. I asked a priest friend last night the situation re: celibacy. He said that the vow of chastity is made on ordination to Deacon, which is obviously a step along the line between Seminarian and fully ordained priest. Up until that point you're free to do what you like (assuming you get absolution afterwards) but that its hardly conducive to the way of life if you choose to spend that time shagging all round you. His words, not mine

[Primula Baggins]

A most pertinent point, Alatar.

I should mention that even Lutherans sort of frown on that kind of thing among seminarians.

[yovargas]

Well, geez, shagging all round you probably isn't conducive to much any way of life, priest or not!

[MithLuin]

Precisely. Living a chaste life is a virtue, regardless of your state of life. And chastity is about faithfulness to your vows as well as respect for other human beings. I have made no vows (I'm not married, and I'm not religious), but it still wouldn't be right for me to sleep around!

[vison]

Why is chastity a virtue?

[Jnyusa]

Communicable disease.

[Crucifer]

I think that Protestant pastors don't have such an elevated role.

Having been on both sides of the proverbial fence, I would say that that depends on your point of view.

For me, a pastor is a friend, a confidant, a shepherd, among other things.

Christ didn't elevate himself above 'normal' human beings.

Why should priests have an elevated role, if Christ, (if the priest is Christian) didn't?

[baby tuckoo]

Why is chastity a virtue?

Why indeed?


Someone has to make babies, for instance.



Plus, it is a perfectly honorable way to have fun, one for which no apology is needed so long as honest adults are involved.



But that's another discussion, and I think we've had it.

[MithLuin]

Ah...someone can make babies while remaining chaste. Chastity means, among other things, being faithful to your spouse. That is, in my book, a virtue.

[baby tuckoo]

Ah...someone can make babies while remaining chaste. Chastity means, among other things, being faithful to your spouse. That is, in my book, a virtue.

Of course, Mith. That part of my post was just a little joke, in light of my eternal infancy.

[solicitr]

There is precedent for the Catholic Church accepting married men into the priesthood. But not so with women - I suspect that that rule would not be changed, ever.

Right. They come from two entirely different places.

The rule on priestly celibacy is merely a discipline. Part of the Vatican Employees' Handbook, like wearing black with a dogcollar. It wasn't in effect for the first 8 or 9 centuries: even St Peter, the first Pope, was married. The new rule was issued for the most secular of reasons: The Church was alarmed by the number of benefices passing by inheritance (or quasi-inheritance) to priests' (and bishops') sons- in a period when Western law was still very fuzzy on the distinction between ruling and owning territory. The Church was experiencing a real-estate drain. And of course, for long afterwards priests from the bottom right up to the Lateran Palace openly kept mistresses without serious consequences- Chaucer and Rabelais got a lot of comedic mileage out of the fact - but *illegitimate* sons weren't a problem. This rule naturally only applied to that portion of the Church which fell under one of five metropolitan sees, that of Rome. The other four, all Eastern, never bothered.


Since it's merely a discipline, not a matter of doctrine at all, the Church is free to change its mind whenever it wants: and I expect within a generation it will have to.


On the other hand, ordaining women is (IMO unfortunately) considerd a matter of dogma. The rationale advanced is that Jesus and the Apostles were all men, therefore all priests must be. To my mind, that would mean that all priests would also have to be illiterate Jewish peasants, but wtf.......

[MithLuin]

Celibacy was always a requirement for monastic societies, east and west. Thus, the monastic priesthood has been celibate for as long as it has existed. Celibacy was expected of the secular priesthood well before it was definatively enforced during the reforms of Pope Gregory VII. It is true that the Church was having problems with inheritence, but that was not the only reason for the reform. If you know anything about the reformers....it is clear that to them, the land was the excuse, and the reform of the clergy was the goal (not the other way around). As they saw it, they were closing up the remaining loopholes, not introducing a new discipline. So priestly celibacy has a bit longer of a tradition than you are giving it credit for (in the East as well as in the West). Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to quote the Church Fathers on it...but we can. It would be a huge deal if Rome decided to change that rule, and I really doubt they would. The vocation crisis in the US isn't sufficient reason. The only concession we are likely to see is the Vatican II re-establishment of the permanent diaconate, which is open to married men. Though if a married man is ordained, and then widowed, he is not permitted to remarry.

As far as Rome is concerned, she has no authority to ordain women.