H/T to Michael Paulson at his blog, Articles of Faith, for a summary of and link to an editorial in America offering a "modest proposal" for the Church to take a good, long look at the possibility of married priests.
Silence and fervent prayer for vocations are no longer adequate responses to the priest shortage in the United States... For making do within the limits set by present demographic trends presents a double threat to Catholic life: Catholic communities will become only infrequent eucharistic communities, or eucharistic communities will be severed from the pastoral care and public witness of priests.-ConcordPastor
(Read the complete editorial)
A non-starter. But this has been discussed on this blog many times before -- the last time, I recall, in a post about Bishop Gene Robinson.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous One
...and there is a myth that many priests who have left the active ministry to get married would jump at the chance to come back to a full time ministry.....
ReplyDeleteI have believed for many, many years it would be an excellent change and a good change for the church. Our priest(older by the way) pointed out that "back in the day" many of the diciples were married, so it doesn't seem an intrinsic/organic part of the role. Certainly other religions have married leaders in the church and it hasn't brought the world to an end. Then again, Father, I am one of THOSE Catholics who has different opinions from the Vatican and also believes the church would be well served by allowing women larger roles.
ReplyDeleteToday is the feast of St. Catherine of Siena, a doctor of the church. She wrote about the priesthood, among many other things; she was a great reformer of the church. Here is a quote from one of her works, in the form of a dialogue with God:
ReplyDeleteI have told thee all this, dearest daughter, that thou mayest the better recognise the dignity to which I have called My ministers, so that thy grief at their miseries may be more intense. If they themselves considered their own dignity they would not be in the darkness of mortal sin, or defile the face of their soul. They would not only see their offences against Me, but also, that, if they gave their bodies to be burned, they would not repay the tremendous grace and favour which they have received, inasmuch as no greater dignity exists in this life. They are My anointed ones, and I call them My Christs, because I have given them the office of administering Me to you, and have placed them like fragrant flowers in the mystical body of the holy Church. The angel himself has no such dignity, for I have given it to those men whom I have chosen for My ministers, and whom I have appointed as earthly angels in this life. In all souls I demand purity and charity, that they should love Me and their neighbour, helping him by the ministration of prayer, as I said to thee in another place. But far more do I demand purity in My ministers, and love towards Me, and towards their fellow-creatures, administering to them the Body and Blood of My only-begotten Son, with the fire of charity, and a hunger for the salvation of souls, for the glory and honour of My Name.
If American priests knew of their dignity and of the graces available to them if they seek them "faithfully," I doubt there would be so many problems in the priesthood. I believe modern American priests forgot who they are meant to be -- even to the point of ignoring their role as foremost, bringers of the Eucharist.
Anonymous One
If this is to become a reality any time in the near future,talks should begin ASAP. There's so much to consider that has never before been part of our Catholic way of life. Things like the impact on parish life must be discussed. Parishioners have expectations that have been around for years. What impact will it have? What kind of benefits would be allotted? He would need health care coverage, life insurance, maybe housing etc. I've only mention a couple of things. There's much more to think about and it seems to me that it's something that should be given serious thought and discussion. And, I believe that the laity should be involved in the planning.
ReplyDeleteI read the editorial and then many of the comments following. The 9th comment is definitely worth reading.
ReplyDeleteI do think it is time for the laity to come forward on this issue. After all, we are the ones who will have parishes with no priests. We are the ones who will be without the Eucharist. Very few priests and bishops seem to speak out about the shortage of priests. Whether it is out of fear of recrimination I don't know. Since most priests and bishops aren't leading on this issue, it is incumbent that the laity become the leaders of this conversation.
Rosemary
Call me crazy but I seriously doubt that anyone's eternal salvation will be in jeopardy if the Eucharist is consecrated by a priest who happens to also be married.
ReplyDeleteRosemary,
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how the laity can lead this conversation. This is a church law.
Irish Gal
Irish Gal,
ReplyDeleteThere is a very long history behind celibacy and the priesthood (too long to go into on this blog.) I suggest that you might want do some research on the subject. Priestly celibacy is a discipline not a dogma or doctrine. My point in post above was that since most of the clergy are not taking the lead on this, the laity must step forward. We are all the people of God. We are all the Church. We all have voices that should be heard.
Rosemary
P.S. I hope that you read Comment 9 following the "America" editorial.
Rosemary,
ReplyDeleteThis is Irish Gal. Actually, I did do some research since I wrote that. Here is something you might want to read up on:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0014.html
Add on -- From Irish Gal
ReplyDeleteRosemary,
As it happens, celibacy is also written into the canon law. The church law on celibacy was adopted in the 12th century. It has remained written into law ever since; it was ratified in the 1983 update of canon law. So, it is a law. And it cannot be changed by lay people.
This only took me a second to find online by a search, by the way!
The editorial in America calls for conversation about priesthood and celibacy:
ReplyDeleteOur plea is modest. The bishops of the United States should take greater leadership in openly discussing the priest shortage and its possible remedies. These should not be conversations in which we face a problem only to find every new avenue of solution closed. Rather, they should be exchanges fully open to the possibilities offered by the Spirit.I don't think anyone here is suggesting that laypersons have authority to change canon law. It is within church polity, however, for the laity to encourage those who do have such authority to have such conversations.
Is this what you are calling for, Concord Pastor?
ReplyDeleteIrish Gal
I posted the link to the editorial because I found it interesting and certainly something that the Church can consider since we had a long history of married clergy in the Latin rite.
ReplyDeleteAm I "calling for this?" Not in any organized way. I've never written to a bishop about this. I belong to no organized group working for this. I don't think it's the answer to the Church's vocation crisis, at least not in any large measure.
Could it happen in the Latin rite? Yes. Is it already happening through Anglicans coming into full communion with us? Yes. Do I think it is something that could be/should be discussed? Yes. Do I think such a change would occur in my lifetime? I doubt it.
If married clergy isn't going to happen in your lifetime; if it's not the answer to the vocations crisis, then such a discussion seems purely hypothetical. If it raises readers hopes and expectations only to dash them, the discussion seems worse than useless. In light of JP II's Pastores Dabo Vobis (On the Formation of Priests in the Circumstances of the Present Day) this issue is, as the first poster notes, a "non-starter." America magazine puts itself on the same level as Archbishop Milingo (of unhappy memory).
ReplyDeleteCall me "Spirit of JP II"
Archbishop Milingo broke Church law and acted contrary to his promise of celibacy by attempting marriage.
ReplyDeleteThe claim that an editorial proposal for conversation about a Church discipline is on the same level as Milingo's errors does not merit further comment.
Irish Gal,
ReplyDeleteI went to the URL you provided. The article "5 Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy" had an acknowledgement: "This article originally appeared in the CRISIS Magazine e-Letter. It is printed with permission. Copyright @ 2002 Crisis Magazine.
Crisis Magazine is not a source I would use in my own study of Catholic issues.
The article itself said nothing about possible solutions to the shortage of priests worldwide and thus was not helpful to the topic at hand.
The Catholic Church is a big tent and on this particular issue I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree.
Rosemary
Bishops’ conferences from various parts of the world have called for the ordination of married men to meet the pastoral needs of their people. They understand that forced fasting from the eucharist is itself a form of oppression and remaining silent in the face of such fasting a form of complicity in injustice. Priests themselves, in growing numbers, refuse to be resigned to the present burden of mandated celibacy and are calling upon their bishops for a review of the celibacy law – a review favored by most priests and an overwhelming majority of the laity.
ReplyDeleteCertainly the dearth of priests and the pastoral needs of the people of God make the present situation urgent. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, there are more inactive priests in the US than there are active diocesan priests – approximately twenty-two thousand inactive priests and twenty thousand active diocesan priests whose average age is over 60. Many, if not most, of the inactive priests would be serving in our parishes if it were not for the law of celibacy. But even if our seminaries were full and our parishes adequately staffed, the issue of mandated celibacy would need to be addressed. It appears to growing numbers of clergy and laity to be in stark discord with the freedom of the gospel.
Jim McCrea
Jim McCrea,
ReplyDeleteYou don't cite any sources for your assertions. Even if they are true, and I'm not saying they are, the church is not a democracy. It is a supernatural entity with Christ as its head; the Holy Spirit guides the church in its essentials throughout the ages. Given that no pope has shown any willingness to change this rule of canon law, despite persistent lobbying, might you consider that this is what the Lord wishes at this moment in church history?
I am amazed that so many fail to note that the seminarians who are being produced in increasing numbers in orthodox dioceses run by leaders such as Archbishop Dolan, heartily back church law and discipline. It seems that mainly the priests produced in the '60s through the '80s are the unhappy dissenting ones.
Rosemary, I too, like to ignore sources I don't agree with. It doesn't change the arguments.
Irish Gal
To the best of my knowledge, a celibate clergy is not among the "essentials" of the Church.
ReplyDeleteAnd at some point, some pope must have approved a change in law about celibacy - that would be the pope who made celibacy the law, before which it was not.
This is Irish Gal,
ReplyDeleteThe point, Concord Pastor, is not that celibacy is an essential (else we wouldn't have ex-Anglicans who are priests) but that the Holy Spirit guides what the church teaches and what rules it ordains. (I wanted to make a distinction between the atrocious behavior of individuals in the church who have done terrible things like abuse, when I used "essentials".)
Celibacy has been a rule in the Latin Rite since early on, and St. Paul certainly urged it on disciples. Yes, the pope could change it, but since all the popes of modern times have strongly affirmed it, you might have to consider that that is what God wants, right?
Also, the church has gone through many periods with few priests, and even today in many places in the Third World there are few priests, but those places are not where the push to change the celibacy rules comes from.
This discussion really puts a bee in my bonnet, frankly. I've never before heard that celibacy is "In stark contrast with the freedom of the gospel," and I can tell you, the very best priests I know would say that their priesthood is the most precious thing in their lives.
I'd like to see more of those kinds of priests, and I am heartened, as I said, when I meet young priests because they have such dedication.
As somebody who has lived in celibacy for over 10 years in a Church institution, then left and married, happily over all, for over 10 years as well, I find it very bizarre to think of celibacy as a "burden". On the contrary, I find that the burden is in married life. A joyous burden, if you will, but burden after all.
ReplyDeleteI also think it's inaccurate to portray priestly celibacy as an imposition, since the fact is that the calling to priesthood is linked to the calling to celibacy. I think it's hypocritical to talk about imposition as if a priest who is ordained suddenly found out that he has to remain celibate. The two things go together, and everybody knows it. It would be as if I was booked to play for the Celtics and once inside I start a movement to get rid of the "imposition" of wearing a clover in my uniform.
Somebody mention the time (the XIIth century) when celibacy became part of the Cannon Law. But let's make no mistake: even then it was not a sudden imposition that an illuminated pope decided out of the blue; it was merely the legal cristalization of a precious tradition that had been lived in the Church since the time of the Apostles. So it's not really like for 12th centuries priests got married, and for the last 8 they live celibacy.
I don't know what the problems about priest's shortage are about, but I'm pretty sure they are not to be solved by arbitrarily eliminating a tradition of 2,000 years. I'm not saying a tradition should not be changed just because is old. But sure as heck there will have to be very serious reasons to do away with it with one stroke.
My modest suggestion would be that the problem of priestly shortage should rather be addressed by a greater commitment and generousity from laity, and perhaps the Church authorities should consider a promotion and a better use of the work of deacons, who can and do marry and can do a lot of the job of the priest.
One "job of the priest" no other can do is to celebrate mass, the Eucharistic center of our faith. This essential is why the priest shortage should be of such concern to all the faithful.
ReplyDeleteFrom RomanCatholicBlog.com dated Monday, December 04, 2006, an article entitled: "Cardinal Claudio Hummes, prefect of the Congregation for Clergy, Urges the Church To Allow Priests To Marry"
Cardinal Claudio Hummes, prefect of the Congregation for Clergy, has urged the Church to allow married clergy.
Here's a quote:
"Celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma of the church," Hummes was quoted as saying by the Folha de S. Paulo newspaper. "Certainly, the majority of the apostles were married. In this modern age, the church must observe these things, it has to advance with history."
A Vatican spokesman could not be reached for comment Sunday. But the Vatican has strongly resisted calls for relaxing its celibacy rule.
Why Cardinal Hummes would make such a statement in the press so soon after the Holy See made its present position on the matter clear is anyone's guess.
Any thoughts?
**********************************
Cardinal Hummes has not repeated these thoughts since....at least not in a public forum. It does show that at least in December 2006 the Cardinal was concerned about the issue of priestly celibacy and at that time was willing to speak out.
Rosemary
Perhaps the Cardinal hasn't repeated his remark because he realized he was in error;-)
ReplyDeleteBut this is getting to the point of diminishing returns. I can take your Cardinal and raise you three different Cardinals if I spend the time searching on the web.
At the end of the day, the Pope's voice is definitive. And he has spoken definitively on this. Let me add that I am disappointed in the Jesuits of "America" magazine who seem to march in unison against many things the Pope teaches. I can't understand why a man would chose to be a Jesuit, would chose to take an extra oath of obedience to the Pope, which Jesuits still do, and then proceed to break it repeatedly. Nobody forced them to become Jesuits, or to take any oaths at all. Why be so in-your-face?
Irish Gal's last post (really)
Message of Pope Benedict XVI to the editors and staff of America magazine on the occasion, this year, of the journal's 100th anniversary:
ReplyDeleteAs America magazine prepares to celebrate its hundredth anniversary, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI sends cordial congratulations to the Editors and staff, and expresses his trust that this important anniversary will be the occasion of renewed commitment to the high intellectual and apostolic ideals which inspired its establishment. Appreciative of the contribution which America has long made to the life of the Church in your nation, His Holiness encourages the magazine to persevere in its tradition of journalistic and literary excellence in the service of the Gospel and the fruitful dialogue of Christian faith and contemporary culture. He is confident that America, by presenting the Church’s teaching in a clear and convincing manner, will contribute to meeting the great challenge which he set before the Catholics of the United States during his recent Pastoral Visit: that of “working to enrich American society and culture with the beauty and truth of the Gospel, never losing sight of that great hope which gives meaning and value to all the other hopes which inspire our lives.” With these sentiments His Holiness cordially imparts the requested Apostolic Blessing to all associated with the publication of America magazine, invoking upon them an abundance of joy and peace in the Lord.
But wasn't Cardinal Ratzinger the same one who showed Tom Reese the door, back in the day?
ReplyDeleteHere he's using a lot of hopeful "wills"...
Anonymous One
I found this web site that pretty much says everything I'd like to say about the subject. I think it's worth reading: http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp
ReplyDeleteI thought perhaps some recent statistics (10/31/08) for my diocese might be illuminating. Presently, out of 487 active priests, 68 are over the senior priest usual retirement age of 70. In less than 10 years an additional 150 active priests will have reached age 70. This is in a diocese that currently has 292 parishes plus five parishes that are in vigil in the wake of parish closings.
ReplyDeleteThere are 269 active priests age 60 and under. There are 34 active priests age 40 and under. There are 15 active priests age 35 and under. Of priests with active status, 14 are pastors for two parishes and one priest just became pastor of three parishes.
And my diocese's priest statistics are nowhere near as dire as those of the majority of U.S. dioceses. More than 1000 American Catholic churches have been closed recently or are scheduled to close soon.
The number of seminarians studying for the priesthood is not anywhere near the number needed to replace the priests who will attain senior priest status in the near future.
These statistics are alarming to say the least. It is time to address in a serious manner our priest shortage and what possible steps might be taken in light of it.
Rosemary