Caelibatus — the Latin word meaning "unmarried". A "caelebs" was a man who was not married. In ancient Roman society it did not refer specifically to a person's sexual activity. For example, the following sentence would have made perfect sense in the ancient Roman Empire: "Although he was celibate, he continued to engage in sexual activity." To our ears it sounds like: "Although he was not sexually active, he was sexually active." Gobbledygook.
The modern world's attempt to separate marital relations from marriage is an obvious disaster. Yet even Christians do not always see just how much damage has been done to their way of thinking, and when they cooperate with the world's immorality by the words they use, then someone has to stand up and point it out. The word "celibate" does not mean "one who is not sexually active," it means "one is not married." Yes, unmarried people are not supposed to be sexually active, but that is not the point. The point is that we are often applying the wrong aspect of the situation to the word, and thereby coloring our understanding of what God has called people to. The difference may seem minor, but it is not. The errant definition of "celibate" means that a man who is married but impotent is, therefore, "celibate". This is wrong. Celibacy has to do, firstly, with marriage not sexual activity. Yes, it is true that marriage assumes the act of conjugal love, but the two are not equal because there is much more to marriage than the marriage bed.
Those who object to the Catholic practice of celibacy (in spite of the clear biblical evidence to the contrary (Matt 19:12, 1 Cor 7:7 & 7:32-33, Rev 14:4) need to realize that they are objecting to virginity also. Our Lady was not celibate (unmarried) but she did remain a virgin; which is another sign of her purity. The general assumption of Holy Scripture is that everyone is supposed to be a virgin until they are married, and they are then supposed to remain married to that same person until death separates them. Thus, celibacy is assumed by the very nature of the fact that no one is born married. We all start life as celibates. Those who commit the heinous sin of fornication (sexual activity before marriage) are still celibate, and that is why is it sinful. This is so because celibacy (being unmarried) is supposed to be without sexual activity of any kind. If celibacy is wrong, then being unmarried is wrong. If celibacy is wrong, then being a virgin is wrong. No one in the Catholic Church is forced to be celibate; really! This is so because no one in the Catholic Church is forced to take holy orders; it is completely a voluntary calling. I pray that Pope Benedict's offer to married Anglican priests to become full Catholic priests will not be seen by anyone as, "finally, they are getting rid of clerical celibacy," and I pray that no one will choose the Ordinariates for the wrong reasons.
I remember hearing a man once comment about a Catholic priest who had committed adultery, "well there goes his vow of celibacy." Yet, this is wrong. For the priest was still celibate (unmarried) even though he committed adultery with another man's wife. In another instance, a family I know had visited another family's home once and they were being told about the host's church. The host said, "we have a couples group for you and your wife, and your daughter can attend the singles group." The visiting husband said, "my daughter isn't a 'single' she's a virgin." The very word "virgin" shocked the host. It was as though you can say "sex" out loud, but the word "virgin" has to be whispered. Our society assumes that everyone has the right to engage in as much sexual activity as he or she desires, so anyone who does not do so is somehow dysfunctional. Imagine St. Augustine visiting one of our churches today and asking to give a message to the "virgins." How many churches would have to say "we don't have that group any more"?
This societal obsession with sex has so twisted the values of the average American, that we cannot think of those who are celibate as sacrificing anything other than sex. We ignore the fact that celibate people also sacrifice the joys of simple (non-sexual) companionship that come with married life (among a number of other joys). So when someone says "celibate" today, people do not think "unmarried," they think "un-sexed." When my friend said his daughter was a virgin, his host was shocked because "polite people don't talk about such things." This is wrong. Celibacy is a gift, given by God to those who "are able to receive it." I am not one of those gifted in this way, instead I have been given the gift of a wonderfully blessed marriage and I thank God for it. I also thank God for those who are called to minister as celibates. Celibacy is not a dirty word. Neither is celibacy that "old" rule where the Catholic Church won't let people "have sex." It is a practice whereby men and women are called to serve in the same way that Jesus did: as a celibate.
Let us change our usage of the word right now. It is not a matter of sexuality alone, but an issue of marriage. It is an issue of purity. It is an issue that extends beyond the celibate clergy, and goes deeper; even to our understanding of the purity of our children (as well as our own hearts). If we fail to change how we think, then future generations will hold just as poor a view of sexual purity as does our modern society. The custom (not dogma) of celibacy may someday be changed (though I doubt it will, and hope it won't). It should not be changed, however, because we think that people have some imaginary "right" to sexual activity, but rather because we discover that the Bible and Sacred Tradition do not support it (which will be quite impossible).
Related posts:
Fr Chori–
I appreciate your thoughts, but I think you're not quite right on the Church's concept of celibacy. An unmarried man or woman, who has discerned they have a vocation to marriage is not 'celibate', but 'abstinent'. JP2's TOB teachings (particularly from 1982) support this:
Christ's words on voluntary continence
3. In regard to this conversation recorded by Matthew one could ask the question: what did the disciples think when, after hearing Jesus' reply to the Pharisees, they remarked: "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry"? Christ considered it an opportune occasion to speak to them about voluntary continence for the kingdom of heaven. In saying this, he did not directly take a position in regard to what the disciples said, nor did he remain in the line of their reasoning.(1) Hence he did not reply: "It is expedient to marry" or "It is not expedient to marry." The question of continence for the kingdom of heaven is not set in opposition to marriage, nor is it based on a negative judgment in regard to its importance. After all, speaking previously about the indissolubility of marriage, Christ had referred to the beginning, that is, to the mystery of creation, thereby indicating the first and fundamental source of its value. Consequently, to reply to the disciples' question, or rather, to clarify the problem placed by them, Christ recurred to another principle. Those who in life choose continence for the kingdom of heaven do so, not because it is inexpedient to marry or because of a supposed negative value of marriage, but in view of the particular value connected with this choice and which must be discovered and welcomed personally as one's own vocation. For that reason Christ said: "He who is able to receive this, let him receive it" (Mt 19:12). But immediately beforehand he said: "Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given" (Mt 19:11).
Grace needed to accept continence
4. As can be seen, in his reply to the disciples' problem, Christ stated clearly a rule for the understanding of his words. In the Church's doctrine the conviction exists that these words do not express a command by which all are bound, but a counsel which concerns only some persons(2)—those precisely who are able "to receive it." Those able "to receive it" are those "to whom it has been given." The words quoted clearly indicate the importance of the personal choice and also the importance of the particular grace, that is, of the gift which man receives to make such a choice. It may be said that the choice of continence for the kingdom of heaven is a charismatic orientation toward that eschatological state in which men "neither marry nor are given in marriage." However, there is an essential difference between man's state in the resurrection of the body and the voluntary choice of continence for the kingdom of heaven in the earthly life and in the historical state of man fallen and redeemed. The eschatological absence of marriage will be a state, that is, the proper and fundamental mode of existence of human beings, men and women, in their glorified bodies. Continence for the kingdom of heaven, as the fruit of a charismatic choice, is an exception in respect to the other stage, namely, that state in which man "from the beginning" became and remains a participant during the course of his whole earthly existence.
Continence is exceptional
5. It is very significant that Christ did not directly link his words on continence for the kingdom of heaven with his foretelling of the "other world" in which "they will neither marry nor be given in marriage" (Mk 12:25). However, as we already said, his words are found in the prolongation of the conversation with the Pharisees in which Jesus referred to the beginning. He was indicating the institution of marriage on the part of the Creator, and recalling its indissoluble character which, in God's plan, corresponds to the conjugal unity of man and woman.
The counsel and therefore the charismatic choice of continence for the kingdom of heaven are linked, in Christ's words, with the highest recognition of the historical order of human existence relative to the soul and body. On the basis of the immediate context of the words on continence for the kingdom of heaven in man's earthly life, one must see in the vocation to such continence a kind of exception to what is rather a general rule of this life. Christ indicates this especially. That such an exception contains within itself the anticipation of the eschatological life without marriage and proper to the "other world" (that is, of the final stage of the "kingdom of heaven"), is not directly spoken of here by Christ. It is a question indeed, not of continence in the kingdom of heaven, but of continence for the kingdom of heaven. The idea of virginity or of celibacy as an anticipation and eschatological sign(3) derives from the association of the words spoken here with those which Jesus uttered on another occasion, in the conversation with the Sadducees, when he proclaimed the future resurrection of the body.
Matt,
Thank you for this additional information. I do not disagree with any of it. My article was intending to point out the actual definition of the word "celibate" and I aimed at improving people's understanding of purity and the Church's call to faithfulness. I think, in the end, we are in agreement.
Oh dear!
Please read "Celibacy: Gift or Law?" by H.-J. Vogels – an exhaustive (and persuasive) examination of the question of compulsory celibacy.
However, as a common (not canon-) lawyer, I'll say just one thing – when the precondition of ordination is a promise of celibacy, celibacy is most definitely not freely chosen – it's a choice made under duress. To assert that it is a choice not made under duress involves denying the all-important distinction between the Latin and Eastern disciplines on this topic. Any half-way decent secular court of equity, when confronted by a similar situation with promises to enter into an agreement conditioned by some such similar coercion, would not hestitate for an instant to set the agreement aside as having been obtained unconscionably. This would include the court of chancery under St Thomas More!
Let's just be a little bit objective here!
I am obviously not cut out to be a lawyer. I fail to see how refusal to provide a benefit because a precondition has not been met would be considered duress.
A less politically-charged analog would be the corresponding argument that getting and maintaining a valid driver's license is something done under duress because having such is a requirement for driving a car.
Or perhaps I've got it all wrong. As I said, I am not a lawyer.
Tim.
In the interest of full disclosure, Mr. McGregor probably should have mentioned that the author of the book he recommends, H. J. Vogels, is a founder of the The International Federation of Married Catholic Priests. This group is not supportive of the magisterium of the Church, and its agenda goes far beyond the issue of whether or not priests should be married.
Father,
Thanks for pointing this out. It would have been nice if Mr. Mc Gregor had shared this information, not doing so says volumes.
James McGregor:
Putting on my civil law hat, I must completely disagree with you. Your position would not find acceptance in any court of law or equity of which I am aware unless, perhaps, an aspirant to ordination is assumed to have an absolute, individual, and personal right to ordination without regard to the theological principles, particular standards, and mind of the Church in question. Of course, that seems to be a commonplace position among the proponents of the ordination of women and among those groups who hold that any internally felt or imagined "calling" is sufficient to confer entitlement to "ordination" or its presumed equivalent, by whatever name called. To equate the requirement that one meet the preconditions for ordination – whatever those preconditions might be – with duress is ludicrous.
Father,
With respect, you're shooting from the hip.
Have a look at the prior thread on this topic.
I suppose then that one could say that if a precondition of marriage is a promise of monogamy, that choice is made under duress. "To assert that it is a choice not made under duress involves denying the all-important distinction between" American and other cultures.
Unfortunately I might find people agreeing with that statement.
A very interesting post, thank you. I am quite sure you have the distinctions and the emphasis correct on celibate.
But are you sure you are reading Matthew 19:12 correctly? In Matthew 19:10 the thing the apostles are finding hard is not celibacy. There is precisely zero reference to celibacy in the chapter up to this point. What they are finding hard is the notion of not being able to divorce. So when Jesus says, "Not everyone can accept this teaching" he has to be referring back to the teaching on marriage and not celibacy. And, I'm sorry, but there is no wiggle room here. There is no antecedent for it to be celibacy he is talking about here.
Making yourself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is what a man does when he marries according to God's plan from the beginning.
And, for there, we can turn around and see why a Priest must abstain from sex. For his commitment to the church is the same as a married man to his wife. He could not keep that vow if he set about seeking a wife while being a priest.
And note that the Church will allow married deacons as well as married priests in the Easter Rite as well as converting from Anglicanism. However, seeking a wife after vows is strictly forbidden. If a married Deacon or priest's wife dies, he may not seek another.
Jules Aime,
Thank you for your input. No quarrel intended, but I have to disagree with your interpretation of Matt 19:12. The Catholic Church's position is perfectly clear in the Catechism (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1579).
The Latin Church clearly has the right to call to the priesthood (normally) only men who have accepted a vocation to celibacy (i.e. to remain unmarried, with the corollary of abstinence from sexual activity). What is unfortunate is that the vocation to the priesthood is often promoted as something a (young) man may simply choose, and then accept as a consequence that he must remain celibate. Should not the Church promote the idea that there is a vocation to celibacy (for both men and women) independent of the priesthood, and that vocation to the sacred ministry is not a right for anyone, but a matter of a calling by the Church? And would not it enrich the sacred ministry to call at least some who also have followed the vocation of Holy Matrimony, at least when their children have grown up and left home?
Father Paul,
This was always JP2's emphasis during his pontificate. If a man discerns a call to priesthood in the Latin Rite, he must also discern a call to (or the gift of) celibacy. If you are a Latin Rite Catholic man, and you think you've discerned a vocation to the priesthood, but you have not received the gift of celibacy, then you do not have a vocation (which is for Catholics, literally, the Bishop's vocie calling you to ordination). JP2 emphasized this point a number of times.
Matt, That makes perfect sense to me. The same logic applies to those women who think they discern a vocation.
However… in light of Anglicanorum coetibus, which contemplates the calling of a married layman to priestly ordination, hasn't it now become possible for a young man (in limited circumstances) to experience such a "dual vocation"?
Anglicanorum coetibus maintains the Latin Rite requirement of priestly celibacy, but exceptions can be granted by the Holy See, just as it is now in the Latin Church. It is understood that exceptions will be granted for experienced Anglican priests who join the ordinariate (just as they often have been for Anglican priests who converted previously). But nothing changes in the existing practice, except that it is pretty loudly hinted that exceptions will be granted for those Anglican clergy who join the ordinariate. Whether exceptions will continue to be granted in the future is less clear, especially since the clergy-to-laity ratio in the ordinariate is likely to be quite skewed, and Rome might well see no pastoral need to grant exceptions beyond that initial movement.
A dual vocation to marriage and ordination is possible, otherwise there would be no exceptions, and in the Eastern Catholic churches it is quite common. But the call must come from God (first and foremost), and from the church, and so the church can and does impose its own rules (which are temporal, and therefore can be waived). Celibacy is one, so is freedom from debt, and good health. Less formally, no one will be ordained unless he sees eye-to-eye with his bishop (at least enough to satisfy the latter).
This may seem to some like the human church hindering the Holy Spirit, but it is in reality the apostles and their successors' duty to order the temporal church as they see best. Does anyone really think that in the Jerusalem church in Acts 6 there were only seven men willing and empowered by God to do the duty that was being asked? Doubtless there were many more who wished with all their hearts they were included in that number, but the apostles chose the number they saw were needed.
I did an interview with a handsome young man who is on his way to becoming a priest.
He had been under the misconception that only men who were not attractive to women and vice versa were supposed to become priests. He tried out having a girlfriend but found that his desire to help the poor became a huge conflict for their relationship. She wanted him to belong to her, he wanted to belong to everyone.
He has found his calling in consecrated life and is now in seminary. Chastity for him does not mean that his desire for women has gone away; it just means that he has to be aware of the temptations and the thoughts he may be entertaining about his sisters in the community and frequently make use of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
I think we're under a misconception that God gives a "gift of celibacy" that somehow turns men into asexual beings who never experience a twinge of desire again.
I think we need to have men called to be priests who are very much heterosexual in their orientation and who love women but love God more, and therefore love women more than using them as objects. This does not mean someone who is like some ascetic monk wandering around India who appears androgynous and sexless.
Spare us that kind of priest.
We really do need to rediscover in our Anglican tradition that kind of robust, masculine, heterosexual celibacy.
Celibacy should not also be a vehicle for those with a deep-seated homosexual orientation to enter the priesthood because they figure, well, I don't want to ever marry anyway, and I will only be giving up something that's bad for me. It's not the same gift if a man is giving up illicit sexual activity to be a priest as it is if a man is giving up the good of marriage and family and children and grandchildren to marry the Church.
Deborah
Mr. McGregor, this was not the point or purpose of Fr. Chori's article. Your agenda is not ours. The goal of the Internation Federation of Married Catholic Priests and its affiliates has already been achieved in a large portion of the Anglican world. Those of us seeking a common life in the Ordinariates find that singularly unattractive.
My agenda?
I am only in favour of clerical marriage, not female ordination, etc., etc.
And error is error, whether articulated here or elsewhere.
You do me an injustice, although, I trust, without realising it.
Father, I hope you do not mean that those looking forward to the Ordinariates find the idea of a married clergy singularly unattractive. My wife of nearly forty years has been a help and stay throughout our marriage. I doubt very much whether I should have been a better or more effective priest without her. The grace of the Sacrament is not limited to the purely domestic sphere.
No, Father. I wasn't referring to the ordination of married men. I, too, have been married for forty years, and twenty-seven of those years as a priest.
I was referring to to rest of the agenda of the Federation of Married Catholic Priests, since Mr. McGregor had urged the reading of a book written by the founder of that group.
Father Phillips,
The reasoning you seem to be relying on would appear to be so:
Hans Kung says the sky is blue.
I say the sky is blue.
I agree with Hans Kung.
This is valid reasoning as far as it goes, but when "I agree with Hans Kung" is stretched to include "on everything", it's false.
I don't know what Vogels believes in relation to other irrelevant issues. The point is, and I discovered this in a university library years ago when I picked up a copy of the Tablet under the influence of some inexplicable urging. Because the Tablet is such rubbish I normally would not do so. In it, I discovered a review by a married former Anglican (now catholic) priest, who described Vogels as "not some footloose radical". On the strength of the review I purchased a copy of the book and discovered an argument in favour of repeal of the "law" on the basis of sound patristics and legal argument – entirely traditional!
Your concerns about this work are misplaced — and I need have no agenda, as the repeal of the requirement for celibacy as a precondition to ordination is inevitable.
Mr. McGregor, if I have done you an injustice, I do apologize. However, even if Hans Kung could prove the sky is blue, I wouldn't refer anyone to him for the proof.
My biggest concern is the reference to the work of someone who is untrustworthy. ""He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much."
Thank you.
"I remember hearing a man once comment about a Catholic priest who had committed adultery, "well there goes his vow of celibacy". Yet, this is wrong. For the priest was still celibate (unmarried) even though he committed adultery with another man's wife."
It is worth pointing out that secular priests do not take vows, they make promises, unlike religious and (ironically?) those who are married. It's also interesting that the emphasis is on the priest breaking his "vows" and not on the woman with whom he committed adultery.
Yes.
And are we to suppose the next generation of Ordinariate laity, having always been served by married clergy, will simply resign themselves to never again being able to promote a married man from within their own congregation to be their replacement priest? If this is the situation Rome intends to engineer (i.e. replacing all married clergy with "celibates" through attrition and then shipping priests hither, thither and yon), I foresee many Ordinariate parishes abandoning the communion of Rome and returning to the Anglican alphabet soup; and Rome being forever and irreconcilably besmirched on this account. Celibacy is a discipline – to each their own, of course; but let us please stop worshiping celibacy and celibates! As for myself and my family, we’ve been taken advantage of one too many times by Mr. "[the author of this article has chosen to delete this portion of this comment]" celibates; and too many times have I heard the tale of other families that tolerate abuse at the hands of a celibate because “he says the old Mass”.
Herein lies the most significant problem with AC; the Ordinariates are completely subject to the machinations of the political machine in Rome. Currently there appears to be a fair wind blowing upon married Ordinariate priests but that could change with a new administration. Treachery is unfortunately an old game in the Church.
I heartily agree with Deborah’s comments above. Unfortunately, there is very little masculinity among celibates today. It is no sin for a man, in general, to desire a woman – it is complementary and natural – whereas it is inherently sinful for a man, in general, to desire another man; and in practice, modern-day “celibacy” fails to make this distinction. I firmly believe this is because there is a complete rupture from masculinity among the Church’s current episcopacy (read Randy Engel’s “The Rite of Sodomy” if you don’t share my firm belief) sure there are a few exceptions; but what effeminate bishop will look for manly priests? Birds of a feather flock together.
The tone of some of these comments and the disparaging remarks are totally inappropriate for a discussion of these two states into which people are called by God. Celibacy and the married state are both sacred and should not be derided by those of any party or group.
Just as the failures of married priests should not be used to call into question the vocations of many faithful and good married priests with families so the multitude of fine celibates I know should not be dismissed for the failures of others. We have enough enemies outside the Church.
Please don't resort to the ugly language and suspicion of the enemies of the priesthood of Christ. We need to remember that this is his priesthood and not the property of any individuals, groups or parties.
As well, the tone of distrust your display for the Holy Father and those who have responsibility in Rome is not warranted and certainly has no place in these discussions. The CDF, Cardinal Levada and others have shown and will show themselves to be very generous.
Those who are seriously considering the Ordinariate must trust in the men whom the Holy Spirit has called to leadership and especially show respect for those who have oversight for our tiny part of the Catholic Church. The ministry of unity is that of the Chair of Peter and his fellow servants both now and in the future. We must have faith that they will discern what God wants for the healing and unity of his Church and whom he calls to priesthood. This is not some sort of political game where we threaten to leave if circumstances don't suit us. This is the body of Christ and we are talking hear of the healing of the body and the unity for which our Lord prayed.
Those who do not have this mind should simply give up the notion and go back to the fissiparous and quarelling little groups they have come from. The Roman bishops I know are dealing with parishes of 1500 families with one priest. They do not have time for petty quarrels and those who call their authority and that of the magisterium into question.
If there are men truly called to the married priesthood as there always have been then the Holy Spirit will assist the Church in this discernment. I for one have no doubts that married men will continue to be called in the ordinariates just as they have in the Eastern Church and have not either doubt that the Church will discern this because it is not a matter of opinion or changing leadership, it is God's Church and God who calls priests just as he has called bishops, cardinals and the Holy Father. Those who don't believe that all of these men are called and chosen for their ministries are simply Protestants and are better to discuss other things somewhere else.
We do not go forward with conditions. We go forward in faith.
I made no threats – just a prediction. I'm questioning no one's authority – only their motives and judgment.
I am not one to prone to going forward with *blind* faith which is what you seem to be advocating. Once you have seen the evil first-hand you tend to be wary of those whose "right hand is full of gifts". I have not, nor will I impugn the Pope – he's my hero – only some of those who are currently in visible communion with him, of whom I am hardly alone in loathing. If you're ready to throw caution to the wind, be my guest.
So, let us be clear. You like the Pope but not those whom he has appointed. You want to be in full communion with the Holy See but are disrespectful of those in positions of authority and use disdainful language (some of which I see has been removed from your original post) about priests, bishops and others in authority in the Church.
Can there be faith that does not involve trust? Do bad experiences with some Catholic clergy mean that people should conditionally enter an ordinariate with the proviso that they will return to a continuing conventicle if in the future the Church makes decisions they disagree with?
You are right. This surely is not blind faith but is it reasonable Catholic faith? I do not see how people can go forward into an ordinariate with such an attitude of mistrust. Who is to discern, who is to govern the Church?
Those who have lived the apostolic vows of poverty, chastity and obedience tell me that it is obedience which is the hardest one. Since we are looking at celibacy and chastity we need to look at these other principles as well.
What you are suggesting seems far from an attitude of obedience to what the Church sees as divinely appointed authority. It looks and sounds like Protestantism where everyone is his own pope.
For the most part, the bishops that are problematical were not appointed by Benedict XVI and now with Cardinal Ouellet replacing Re there is further reason for us to hope that fewer rotters will receive episcopal stripes. I struggle to understand your myopic affection for all personages Roman, which clearly colors your view of the facts: I must wonder what cave you have been hiding in these past forty years of sturm und drang in the Church; aren’t the bishops, even some Popes, directly responsible for the chaos within the Church? Clearly they are; and we all must make reparation for their sins.
I do have deep disdain for those who have used the Church for their own personal agendas and have debauched Her and made Her filthy with their sodomies, whore mongering and Bacchanalias. While I long for communion with the Pope, I will ever hold these other men who are enemies of the Catholic Faith (most especially these in the Church) accountable for their perfidies. Not because I am without sin (Deus, miserere mei); but I am clean of the sins that they are guilty of – sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
Primal Christian obedience is made only to Christ and by dint of this to His churchmen. A monastic makes further profession of “obedience” to a master but this is contingent upon joining that particular monastic club. A parochial priest makes the vow to “obey his bishop in all LAWFUL commands”, I have no problem with this. But if those men who are worthy of honor in the Church make a mockery of the Gospel then their commands become unlawful – I am free from all obedience to them – it is better to obey God than man. Sometimes I may be blind to their shortcomings, for this I am guiltless in ignorance; but if I know a man is a willful doer of evil then I am under obligation *not* to follow him; for by following him I encourage others to do the same. S Peter was told “feed My sheep” which thing he did; now when a bishop fails to feed Christ’s sheep S Paul tells us: “if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel”.
“It is better to trust in the LORD, than to put any confidence in man. It is better to trust in the LORD, than to put any confidence in princes” “As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD”.
Peregrinus,
I think it would be fair to say that you are an ultramontanist.
Would that be your position?
I thought that I had responded to this question:
"I think it would be fair to say that you are an ultramontanist. Would that be your position?" JM
A careful reading of what I have posted would align me as a Newman Catholic. To paraphrase JHN: I toast the pope, but conscience first . . . conscience informed by a reasoned faith, of course. If that puts me over the mountain then I am grateful for the company on that side.
Some of the comments on this thread re. the slaughter of non-believers and putting personal opinion, preference and prejudice ahead of the objective teaching of the Church found in the CCC seem to me, frankly, over the moon.
If we must take sides in this duel. I will have to side with Benedict XVI, St. Augustine, Cyprian of Carthage and Peregrinus.
Thank you Father.
When in my comments in Deborah's Post I mentioned about getting down there was something in this particular thread that weighed on me. I can't really explain it. I think that when I am looking for results and I see people being people it feels like all will be lost. We are better at division than unity.
Sometimes I need to be more like Charles de Foucald and just be faithful to God and allow him to worry about results. This is my weak and fallen nature. St. Monica pray for us.
J.M.J.
Father LR wrote:
"…– whereas it is inherently sinful for a man, in general, to desire another man; …"
That statement may reflect your personal notion but it does not reflect the teaching of The Church.
The CCC makes it quite clear:
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
SWR
"intrinsically disordered" – that is to say "essentially confused". And who, pray tell, prospers amidst confusion?
You appear to be equating a man's desire for a woman with that of a man's desire for a man. Are you sure that's what you mean to say? I happen to believe that desires can be good or evil but never indifferent.
J.M.J.
Father LR -
I was correcting your statement regarding the sinfullness of same sex attraction in terms of the teaching of the church, or at least pointing out that you were advancing your private judgment and not articulating the teach of The Church.
you wrote:
"…– whereas it is inherently sinful for a man, in general, to desire another man; …"
I am not equating any two things. I am reminding you of the teaching of The Church and the norm and standard for the Objective Truth of the Catholic Faith as we will teach and profess in the Ordinariates, and which you will be obligated to follow, should you come into the Ordinariates.
Faithfully,
Sean W. Reed
But you err. A man who, in general or particular, desires another man is in sin. The only vehicle away from such a conclusion is Darwinian Calvinism; by which the man is a rendered “victim” of circumstance and choice has nothing to do with his personal destiny. As Chesterton said (I paraphrase): according to the philosophy of Calvinism the biggest mistake one can make is that of being born.
Something that is inherently disordered – essentially confused – is sinful and must be eschewed. Today's Lauds hymn says it well:
Hence, night and clouds that night-time brings,
Confused and dark and troubled things;
The dawn is here, the sky grows white,
Christ is at hand; depart from sight.
Earth’s dusky veil is torn away,
Pierced by the sparkling beams of day:
The world resumes its hues apace
Soon as the day-star shows its face.
But thee, O Christ, alone we seek,
With conscience pure and temper meek:
With tears and chants we humbly pray
That thou wouldst guide us through the day.
For many a shade obscures each sense
Which needs thy beams to purge it thence:
Light of the Morning Star, illume,
Serenely shining, all our gloom.
All laud to God the Father be;
All praise, eternal Son, to thee;
All glory, as is ever meet,
To God the Holy Paraclete. Amen.
J.M.J.
Father LR -
Its a minor point, but the hymn you list would be for Lauds on a Feria – Tuesday was a feast day and would have a different hymn at Lauds – that from the Common of a Confessor.
SWR
The hymn I quoted was for ferial Wed. I fail to see any relevancy to that day also having also been the feast of S. Hilda, Virgin and S. Louis, King & Conf. It’s still a wonderful hymn. BTW, Tues. was S. Bart, Apostle. You are being petty and insulting – and now there is egg on your face.
My contention that you err in your understanding of the CCC’s "inherently disordered" phrase is a serious contention. I suggest you consider the situation as it was in the Garden of Eden before the fall – suppose Adam and Eve had not sinned; would their offspring have ever experienced "same sex attraction"? Absolutely not! This is an aberration that resulted from their original sin.
Please, remember, S. Augustine describes sin as being a deficiency in perfection. People who choose – yes, choose – "same sex attraction" and desire a person of the same sex are deficient of perfection. This is a state of sin. Your notion that only willful action, in regard to homosexuality, is sinful can only function in a world which man has no freedom of choice. The Catholic Church is the champion of free will; the CCC substantiates this else the CCC is not Catholic. In the final analysis, it is only valuable when understood within the historical teachings of the Church, it can not and should not stand alone. And to think, a mere one hundred years ago everyone in the Church would have agreed with my position. So, what's changed; me or you?
J.M.J.
Father LR -
I missed the day from Tuesday to Wednesday, but that was not my main point. You announce a Ferial Hymn for a Feast of a Confessor. That certainly seemed a strange way for reciting the Office of a Confessor.
You have written extensively about your own private notions. I note you have not answered the direct question about your unconditional acceptance of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
You are unable to support your theory contained in your statement:
"…– whereas it is inherently sinful for a man, in general, to desire another man; …"
by other than your own arguments.
The teaching of the Church is quite clear. Sin comes when the attraction is acted upon, not merely from having the temptation/attraction.
I am curious about one thing, why do you not identify yourself? It appears that it is very important to you for some reason to allege, contrary to what the CCC says, the alleged sinfulness of same-sex-attraction that is not acted upon. Why not identity yourself and also tell us do you or do you not accept without reservation the CCC?
SWR
We are not at a point to take up the cause of married VS celibate clergy in the Latin Church. By this discussion we are creating division and sowing doubt among some traditional Anglicans who are sitting on the fence. What we do know is that Rome is going to be generous with the dispensation from the promise of celibacy to this current generation of Anglican clergy. Beyond that it is foolish to speculate as groups such as International Federation of Married Catholic Priests have a heterodox agenda. At the current time it would be unwise for the Latin Church to change its position on clerical celibacy (as a general norm but with dispensations). A generation from now things may change. We may once again find Latin Rite seminaries (yes, Anglican entering full communion will be part of the Latin Rite) full of men willing to serve as priest and make a promise of celibacy. We may also find even fewer than what we have now which may lead to a change in the general norms concerning celibacy. However, it is not for us to speculate what the church will be like in a generation as the church has changed quite dramatically and in many unexpected ways over the last 60 years.
There are two distinct issues:
1) May married men be ordained?
2) May single ordained men get married?
While the Catholic Church will consider the first possibility, it does not allow for the second. In the case of permanent deacons (and perhaps married priests), it does allow some consideration for the possibility of widowers with young children to remarry for the sake of the children.
See CCC 1580:(issue 1) In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities.73 Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. (issue 2) In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.
My faithful Concise Oxford doesn't agree. Celibate is firmly ddefined in terms of abstention from sexual activity, often for religious reasons. What "caelebs" meant 2000 years ago in Latin may be interesting, but doesn't determine what "celibate" means in English. (Look up "egregius" for an even more interesting example of what can happen to a word of Latin origin!)
Unfortunately, there are many dictionaries that use "common usage" (rather than technical defintions) as their given definition, and that has led to the misunderstanding of the word since it supports "usage" over original meaning. Words change over time, yes, but this is because of "common usage" changes in everyday speech. I am merely trying to point out that our misuse of the word, has meant that we have (unintentionally) changed the word's defintion (to our loss).
Also, Latin definitions are not limited to 2000 years ago since it is still a used language (though not commonly spoken).
When I married my wife I promised to forsake all other woman, not the possibility of being attracted to them. Now a widower, if ordained into the Latin Rite, I shall marry the Church and forsake marrying another woman. May the Lord find me faithful in the latter as I was in the former.
J.M.J.
Father LR Wrote:
"…But you err…."
No, I don't err. I have given no opinion. I have clearly stated the teaching of The Church and nothing more. I stand with the Magisterial Teaching Authority of the Church. Are you saying that that Catechism of the Catholic Church is wrong?
Perhaps you need to spend less time with what YOU think and more time learning what The Church teaches, and that might go a long way toward increasing love and charity in your heart.
You seem to have a real passion for this topic for some reason. The inclination is not by and of itself sinful – what is done with the inclination may be the occasion for sin.
Reread the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You then have a choice – either accept its teaching and be part of the Catholic Faith – or reject it. I truly hope you choose the former.
SWR
I agree, SWR. Since when did temptation become sin?
There seems to be something of a fixation here. We are not to presume to have windows into people's souls. The CCC is very clear about the distinction between a person's disposition and one's actions.
Charity, as you point out, seems to be the missing link here.
"I think it would be fair to say that you are an ultramontanist. Would that be your position?"
I think a careful reading of what I have posted would align me as a Newman Catholic. To paraphrase JHN: I toast the pope, but conscience first . . . conscience informed by a reasoned faith, of course. If that puts me over the mountain then I am grateful for the company on that side.
Some of the comments on this thread re. the slaughter of non-believers and putting personal opinion, preference and prejudice ahead of the objective teaching of the Church seem to me, frankly, over the moon.
The Vatican website has an article – Priestly Celibacy in Patristics and in the History of the Church – that might be of interest to some. It can be found at:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html
You "stand with the Magisterial Teaching Authority of the Church" in believing that desires which are intrinsically disordered are not sinful? This is wherin you err.
"If Sodom flames and smokes with stinking brimstone, 'tis the love of God that kindled it, only to extinguish a more horrible fire"
-William Law, The Spirit of Love
My lack of charity is only in the eye of thy beholding.
J.M.J.
Father LR -
It is really quite simple. Do you or do you not accept, teach, and profess the Catholic Faith, specifically as articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
SWR
Being tempted is not the same as sinning. But is it wise to ordain someone who has a persistent, deep-seated temptation that, even if never acted upon, still defines their personal identity in some way?
For example, we would not want to ordain someone who was constantly tempted by anger, even if he was angry constantly and sinned not.
I think it might be wise as well to consider this, in addition to the CCC:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/ccehomosex.HTM
*********
Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders
Congregation for Catholic Education
INTRODUCTION
In continuity with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and, in particular, with the Decree Optatam totius1 on priestly formation, the Congregation for Catholic Education has published various documents with the aim of promoting a suitable, integral formation of future priests, by offering guidelines and precise norms on its diverse aspects.2 In the meantime, the 1990 Synod of Bishops also reflected on the formation of priests in the circumstances of the present day, with the intention of bringing to completion the doctrine of the Council on this matter and making it more explicit and effective in today’s world. Following this synod, John Paul II published the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores dabo vobis.3
In the light of this abundant teaching, the present Instruction does not intend to dwell on all questions in the area of affectivity and sexuality that require an attentive discernment during the entire period of formation. Rather, it contains norms concerning a specific question, made more urgent by the current situation, and that is: whether to admit to the seminary and to Holy Orders candidates who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
1. Affective Maturity and Spiritual Fatherhood
According to the constant Tradition of the Church, only a baptized person of the male sex validly receives sacred Ordination.4 By means of the sacrament of Orders, the Holy Spirit configures the candidate to Jesus Christ in a new and specific way: The priest, in fact, sacramentally represents Christ, the head, shepherd and spouse of the Church.5 Because of this configuration to Christ, the entire life of the sacred minister must be animated by the gift of his whole person to the Church and by an authentic pastoral charity.6
The candidate to the ordained ministry, therefore, must reach affective maturity. Such maturity will allow him to relate correctly to both men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood towards the Church community that will be entrusted to him.7
2. Homosexuality and the Ordained Ministry
From the time of the Second Vatican Council II until today, various documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.
Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstances can they can be approved.
Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter.7
In the light of such teaching, this dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question,9 cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or who support the so-called ‘gay culture’.
*************
When this document came out, there were a number of Catholics who came out and said, well, the real important thing is whether one has the affective maturity to remain chaste and it does not really matter whether one is sexually oriented towards women or men.
But I think —for the priesthood—it does matter. Because if a man is not attracted to women and deeply identifies as a gay man, even if he never acts upon it, something similar to having a woman priest happens. It tampers with the some of the deep theological mysteries of the Eucharist and the notion of spiritual Fatherhood, since gay "sex" is by nature sterile.
And just as a sensitive person can pick up on someone else's anger, even if it is unexpressed and inwardly resisted, a sensitive person can pick up on the temptations to lust of another person, even if they are resisted and unexpressed. A woman often feels what a man feels for her. She may think the resentment she is feeling is her own, but discover that she is really feeling her husband's resentment for her and expressing it back to him in the form of contempt or irritability. Same with feelings of lust, though the lust she senses may disgust and gross her out so she does not want that person to touch her.
I have a good friend who once was a gay activist and he, before he converted to Catholicism, used to plead with Anglicans to keep the traditional teaching on homosexuality, because while initially he hated it, because his personal identity was so bound up in his sin, he began to realize the love behind it, however tough. The first stage for him was to give up sex with other men.
He was successfully celibate for years. But he still identified as a gay man.
But then something began to happen in his thinking. As he grew in his faith, he began to identity as a man, a man who struggled with same-sex attraction.
Then, he fell in love with a woman. They have since married.
Believing the Truth, without any softening or concession to today's pseudo-science about sexuality and gender, brought him to that point.
Deborah
Perhaps a distinction should be made between an "inclination" and a willful desire.
J.M.J.
Such a distinction is critical to the subject being discussed.
The former may or may not lead to the second.
SWR
Sean:
It would seem that when desire is being used in the sense that means a willful desire, it could then constitute a sin whether the object of such desire was a man or a woman (though not necessarily equal). On the other hand, where attraction is referring to one's inclination in the sense that is not an act of the will, there would not be a sin.