I do not agree with your assesment because the celibecy is a man made rule not laud in place by Jesus.  All of his disciples except John were married men and for the first 125 years after it remained the same.  It was changed by a man for property and monetary possessions and to me means nothing and does not take anything away from the priest.  All other faiths including sects of our faith allow marriage and those ministers are good if not better in se instances than our priests.  They lack that intimate knowledge to relate to a married person and it not only hurts them but our church as a whole.  This antiquated rule has kept many from joining th priesthood myself included.

How wise Holy Mother Church is when she tells us to avoid proximate occasions of sin.  As you said Jimmy, “there are lots of people in the world who are romantically off limits to every single one of us.” If the priests and their mistresses had heeded the church’s wise teaching these situations could have been avoided.

@Andrea- While I respect your feelings on this issue and can appreciate the complexity, your facts are a bit off. Yes, celibacy is a Church doctrine that is not made mandatory in the Bible, but the practice is encouraged and seen as a very good thing in the eyes of Paul (who was not married/at the very least he was an unmarried widow).

My prayers go out to all those involved in making these decisions and that an accurate portayal of the issue is given (I may be praying for a miracle for the latter).

Andrea, on what evidence are you basing the matrimony status of the disciples?  The only one we have evidence for is Peter—but since we hear of his mother-in-law but not his wife, there is no reason to believe he was not widowed at the time.

As someone who struggled greately with the concept of clerical celibacy for a long while (due to the twin desire to have children and to be a priest) I can sympathise greatly with the priests involved, I can also sympathise to an extent with their mistresses as I know of young beautiful women who have entered the covent leaving young men wondering where all the young girls had gone.

However having since embraced my vocation to the priesthood (I should start seminary next year)I have found how embracing the gift of celibicy allows one to love more and not less, I have began to love God more closely and intimately than I ever did before, I have also found that can be closer to women and to love them with purity of heart instead of trying to impress them with courtship. Its like drinking freshly pressed apple juice as opposed to drinking the stuff made from concentrate.

Ton conclude whilst I sympathise with both parties engaged in the sinful activity the fact remains that Jimmy is right about the activity being sinful, also I conclude that Holy Mother Church is right to keep the discipline, not to knock Holy Matrimony or anything but Celibate Love beats it hands down.

Marriage is great, but there is an even higher calling that the Church should always uphold.  When you are married, you become morally compromised - ideal choices are no longer available than if you had been single.  Just two stanzas from La Noche Oscura by San Juan de la Cruz, that I am always reminded of when this topic comes up. 
5. ¡Oh noche que guiaste,
oh noche amable más que el alborada;
oh noche, que juntaste
Amado con amada,
amada en el Amado transformada!
6.  En mi pecho florido,
que entero para él sólo se guardaba,
allí quedó dormido,
y yo le regalaba,
y el ventalle de cedro aire daba.

Obviously there must be some good looking priests out there to even consider the concept of to be celibate or not (Father What A Waste & Father Too Bad He’s A Priest to name but two).

A little friendly flirting may be acceptable…to a point.  But that may be too much temptation.  Depends on how much a sense of humor the priest has.

I have never heard the same arguments for religious sisters and nuns.  So what is it with only the male sex???

As an Eastern Catholic, I have a favorable view towards the exercise of a married priesthood and see great advantages that the community of a family can provide to a priest. I have seen it with several of the priests whom I serve and know that celibacy need not be a mandatory discipline for the proper and full exercise of the priestly call. A wife and children can serve as a great means of support to a priest, and his service as father and husband to his family also shapes and refines in virtue his own fatherly service to his parishioners. The wife of a clergyman can serve as a wonderful sounding board for his ministry, often helping him to see opportunities to exercise his ministry and even helping him to realize where he may have fallen short in his words and deeds. In my own exercise of diaconal ministry, my wife is a great support to me, as are my children, and the wives of clergy (priests and deacons) often help to serve the needs of the women in the parish. They offer a heart to the leadership of a parish family that is often needed for a balanced parish life. We need to be careful, therefore, not to neglect the sacrificial nature of the gift offered to parishes by its married clergy and their families. A celibate priest is not somehow automatically more generous in his calling than a married priest, whose wife and children often serve their parish in a myriad of ways.

And let us not forget that even so great an advocate for the celibate ideal as St. Paul also instructed his disciple-bishop Timothy to utilize the family life of men as part of the discernment of their worthiness for ministry in the Family of God, the Church. This much neglected - and simultaneously divinely revealed - biblical means of discerning the worthiness of a candidate for sacerdotal and diaconal ministry should not simply be discarded by the West. The fact that the Synod refused to accept the idea of identifying older men (deacons) of virtue as candidates for the priesthood is perplexing when so many Catholics around the world are languishing because of the shortage of priests. (The objection of some of the Eastern bishops at the synod were not really matters of vital importance, but rather pertained to the difficulty of moving priests with families from parish to parish. Sure it is much easier and less expensive if a priest is celibate to send him somewhere else. So what? They of course failed to mention the explosion of vocations in areas like Ukraine, for instance, where 800 men are responding to the call to what will be for many a married priesthood.)

And the idea of ordaining a mature man of virtue to the priesthood is not new. The very word “presbyter” means an elder, literally a “gray bearded one.” The presbyterate was generally seen in the early Church as the office of the more mature man, whereas the diaconate was the office of the younger man. The mandatory requirement of celibacy has inverted this order, however, whereby the call to priesthood is now something primarily for younger men and the call to the diaconate is the domain of the retiree! (A recent study of the diaconate in the US bears this out.)

The Church also needs to bear in mind that the ascetical ideal of celibacy is a means, not an end in itself. Service to the Church, access to her saving mysteries and pastoral care is vital to her common life and mission, whereas celibacy is not. When the Church stands before Christ at the judgement I have my doubts that a criterion for the judgment will be “Did you maintain the celibacy requirement for all candidates for the priesthood?” but rather “Did you feed my flock and tend my sheep?” I know of many good and worthy Latin deacons who would make excellent priests, and some even serve in so-called “priestless parishes.” Apart from Latin Church law, why should they not, with the proper training, be ordained to the priesthood? And let us not forget that a priest is not simply a shepherd for the flock he already has, but also an apostle for the flock he does not yet have. By ordaining more priests, you are also sending more apostles into the mission field to grow the Church.

That said, if the Latin Church is going to insist on maintaining the celibacy requirement, I think that it needs to ensure a greater sense of fraternity among priests by restoring the community life of the rectory. The model of Fr. O’Malley rattling around in his rectory by himself is an aberration, and should not be exalted as though it represented some sort of spiritual ideal. I think a return is warranted to more of a Basilian ideal of a community life of ascetics serving as a crucible of charity and support for the ascetical ideals they have embraced. Priestly ministry is and should be a fraternal exercise and priests need a sense of common life in their home. If this means closing down parishes, or at least consolidating rectories among several parishes, so be it. I believe that a sense of true fraternal life - which should include common meals and the praying of the Divine Office - will help to strengthen a celibate priest’s embrace of the ascetical call to celibacy.

Regarding these women and the priests with whom they are romantically involved, I think your analysis is spot on. But I think a stronger sense of priestly fraternity will help guard against these types of scandals.

While it is true that priestly celibacy is not a dogma, it is a practice that she be kept, enforced and praised. As it is, priests have little time to attend to the needs of their many parishioners: the sacraments, visits to the housebound and infirm, etc. They also have little time for personal prayer, which is so essential for spiritual growth and the development of a personal friendship with Christ. Imagine adding a wife and perhaps a couple of children. His first obligation would then be his immediate family and not the parishioners. And who would support them? Parish collections are down. Are we going to sacrifice maintenance of sacred places (chapels, parishes) to support them because it is the fair thing to do? Wouldn’t the priests be tempted, at least every once in a while, to talk about the wife about the private affairs of the parishioners to “unload” some of the weight? What about the people (myself included) who would feel as if they couldn’t approach the priest lest the wife and children know “something’s up”? And these are just some starting points. Celibacy provides freedom to love and cherish all creation while keeping our hearts for God alone. What’s wrong about that?

I want my priest to be a holy, prayerful soul available to his flock, and not worried about sending kids to school and supporting his family. I’d rather drive long distances to a celibate priest than go to a married one. I’ve done it before.

To all priests that treasure and uphold their vow/promise of celibacy, may God reward you abundantly for your sacrifice with eternal life.

This is nothing but fornication. There isn’t an easy way around it: the priests and their mistresses are committing mortal sin via fornication.  On top of that, instead of acknowledging their error and asking forgiveness, they contact Rome in order to “change the rules,” so to speak.  Instead of realizing their fault and changing themselves, they ask the Church to change the standards by which they’re judged.  These are certainly strange times we live in, in which fornicators have the audacity to command the Church to change to suit their own preferences!

Over the last 40 years, we’ve had enough change thrown our way. If there is to be any change now, it should be to change these fornicator-priests out for ones who actually value their vocation.

Monica,

Your praise for the celibate call is true and good. There can be no doubt that it is a worthy calling and one that should be greatly esteemed by all the faithful.

However, this sentence is very problematic:

“I want my priest to be a holy, prayerful soul available to his flock, and
not worried about sending kids to school and supporting his family. I’d
rather drive long distances to a celibate priest than go to a married one.
I’ve done it before. “

First, being married does not preclude a priest from being either holy or prayerful. The priests I know are both, and their family joins in with them for Orthos (Matins) and Vespers daily. (For one priest, his son is in a professional choir and helps to serve as chanter for the services they have at home.)

Secondly, regarding avoiding receiving from a married priest, this attitude was condemned by the 4th century local Council of Gangra, whose decisions were ratified by the Ecumnical Council of Chalcedon. The specific canon (4) reads:

“If any one shall maintain, concerning a married presbyter, that is not lawful to partake of the oblation when he offers it, let him be anathema.”

Granted you have not asserted that it is strictly speaking unlawful to receive from a married presbyter, but you must admit that your attitude towards receiving from a married priest violates at least the spirit of what is taught by the Council Fathers as contained in this ancient canon of the Church. Further it is taught by the Catholic magisterium that married priests can and do exercise a fruitful and worthy ministry and that the discipline of the East is worthy of veneration.

The ascetical discipline of celibacy is also certainly worthy of veneration, and it is greatly esteemed in the East, but it is a point of legitimate debate whether the mandate by law should share the same esteem.

This whole article is extremely problematic because it just emphasizes the common opinion in the Catholic Church (as institution) right now that priests are somehow higher than lay people. The question we never ask in response to this is, “if the priest has a change in being on his ordination, making the priest something other than human, than can a priest really mediate Christ for me anymore?” As Christ is fully human, a priest must be too, which means there must be no ontological change, or as the article quotes a special “ontological belonging to God”. The basic assumption in the celibacy discipline is that sexual intercourse itself is unhealthy (which we get from the ascetic tradition, but is made popular by Augustine.) (And no Jesus did not recommend celibacy for everyone, that’s a narrow reading of Luke’s Passion discourse to the women of Jerusalem.) Unfortunately, we can’t really prove this assumption, because since marriage is a sacrament, then sexual intercourse must have some holiness (e.g. why we have a theology of the body?) (And in this light, why don’t we speak of holy matrimony, if we’re convinced as a Church that marriage is a Sacrament, then it should be spoken of as holy, which we don’t do in this circle, and my question is why?)
Also, why are we so convinced that just because these women are “living a life of sin” that their word means nothing. To be fair, to our own point, everyone lives a life of sin in some way, does that negate our testimony to something that might be wrong. And as this article states, one can disagree with clerical celibacy and not have a problem with it. It’s not a threat to the Catholic faith to not have celibacy in its priestly vocation, but Jimmy Akin seems to think so. This assumption creates a bad argument which ignores reality. There is always a desire to have physical union with another person (not always intercourse, but some form of physical union, e.g. between all aspects of a person). By favoring the asceticism of the priesthood which Pope Benedict’s comments favor, then it denies that innate desire. To say one is giving that up for something more holy is a skeptical statement at best, because if our desire to love is holy, then our desire to have a deep intimacy with someone else is also holy (again, not just physical). Until we overcome the belief that sex is a necessary evil, then we will never be able to engage the full reality of human experience as people. And when the Church can’t engage experience it has no means of inculturation amongst the people, which means it can’t grow to its full potential, which is a problem for any Church. This should be an issue that’s on the table as well as discussing the person of the priest.

Adam

How will the church support the priests’ families if they marry?  Will we expect them to have jobs on the side to supplement their income?  Is it worth it to us to pay more to have them available 24/7?

Adam,

Just a few points:

1. The authentic asetical tradition of the Church does not treat human sexuality as something dirty or base. Holiness is open to both the married and celibate state, and even as great an ascetic, proto-monastic and Doctor of the Church as St. Ephrem the Syrian has noted that in his own time, there were married men and women who represented the ideal of holiness far better than some celibates. We cannot assume holiness based on the call to be celibate or not. Other criteria must be used, namely, a life heroically lived according to the teaching of the Commandments.

2. The celibate call is not unnatural (otherwise we would be saying something terrible about Jesus and Paul and Jesus’ words about eunuchs for the kingdom would be heresy), but it requires a supernatural grace to fulfill since it requires a man or woman to offer such a natural good as his or her procreative powers in sacrifice for the sake of the Kingdom…to discover a new way of being generative and generous in the Family of God. Neither state, celibacy or marriage, is exalted by demeaning the other. In fact, there is an essetial complimentarity to each state in the Kingdom and both reflect the eschatalogical nature of the Church, although the celibate call is more in keeping with that state we will all be in “in the Kingdom,” where we are neither given nor received in marriage, as Jesus taught.

3. That said, it is wrong to fundamentally identify the ascetical call to celibacy with the office of presbyter. This union with confusion that we frequently see in the piety of the West (despite magisterial statements to the contrary) does not respect the distinct nature of each calling, although the two callings can certain work well together, as can marriage and the priesthood. Matters and disciplines of the law - not the intrinsic demands of the office - have made it so. That said, for those who are called to the “angelic life,” (which the Fathers of the Church refer to as the celibate call) should be honored and supported for their sacrifice. And whether or not they are celibate or married should not in any way diminish their vocation to “mediate Christ” as you say.

In the East we traditionally have a great veneration for the monastic vocation, and in fact, our bishops have traditionally be chosen from monasteries. Here these spiritual fathers serve the needs of the faithful and of local clergy for spiritual direction and for works of mercy. They are able to dedicate themselves to all of the Monastic Offices of Prayer as well, which “cathedral clergy: are not able to always do. But the normative practice for parishes is a married priest (or several) with his family.

Finally regarding these women, like it or not, these priests have made promises to God and the Church and having mistresses violates their promise of celibacy not to mention that it is simply fornication between two people who are not married. They should either leave their mistresses or leave the priesthood and marry these women.

In the East and the West, a clergyman cannot marry after ordination even if he was married when he was ordained in keeping with the mandate of being a “man of one wife.

J.M.,

Two ideas:

First, larger Catholic parishes would generally have no problem supporting married priests with a family. Most of the large, wealthy Latin parishes I know of would have no issue with this financially. A parish rectory is often designed to hold 4-5 people, and if the rectory is on site, the utility bills are simply part of what is covered by the parish. Insurance rates might be a bit more for a clergyman with his family, but in general it runs around $1000 a month depending on the policy.

Secondly, smaller to mid-size parishes could either utilize non-stipendary priests just as they do for the most part with married deacons, or priests could hold jobs as they do in the missions. If you have several priests serving (which would likely be the case if married deacons could be ordained), this would not be an issue since the responsibilties could be divided among them, just as they are among priests and deacons now. If the priest already has a home, the rectory could be used for other things.

These practical matters really are not an obstacle for most parishes.

Just one thought to add to the discussion - Money.  Priests do not get paid enough, will not ever get paid enough, to raise a family.  Catholic collections are not going to increase enough for this to even become a viable option.

Blake,

It depends on the parish…and on the priorities of its parishioners in supporting their clergy.

I know of parishes who regularly receive $50-75,000 a week in tithes. That is not every parish, but our lowly mission makes $700 a week in tithes and we have a priest with 5 children and two deacons. Father works 20 hours a week to pay for insurance and household needs and he supports the mission.

Believe me, it is workable.

Jimmy—i have preface my comment, as you pick topics that are so challenging…(and do well with them.)  Before this issue fragments away from the core topic (priestly celibacy) to how to support the family of priests, and what if the priest’s family has distracting issues… just want to comment.

Christ remained unmarried and celibate.  The Bible says in the ‘later days’ even if you are married, behave as though you are not. There is a singleness of heart and mind that comes with celibacy. Holy Mother Church needs to respect the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the celibacy of Christ in the structure of the priestly order, as something more than ‘happenstance.’  We may never know the totality of Divine Providence related to this issue, but it’s there—and needs to remain front and center.

“The Bible says in the ‘later days’ even if you are married, behave as though you are not.”

Yes, so what is your plan for married couples and families to live this Gospel teaching as you have interpreted it?

As much as one would and should praise celibacy, neither Scripture nor Tradition (nor the magisterium) considers celibacy as an indispensable condition for the priesthood, so to assert that it is somehow intrinsic to the “structure of the priesthood” is simply not true. And “Mother Church” is not simply Rome or the Latin Church. The Latin Church is one of 22 Churches that make up the Holy Catholic Church, and it alone (save those churches that have suffered a Latinization) mandates celibacy for priests.

Celibacy is to be praised, however, as the Fathers of the Church and the living tradition of the whole Church teaches us.

Re: Fr. Deacon Daniel

“Secondly, regarding avoiding receiving from a married priest, this attitude was condemned by the 4th century local Council of Gangra, whose decisions were ratified by the Ecumnical Council of Chalcedon. The specific canon (4) reads:
“If any one shall maintain, concerning a married presbyter, that is not lawful to partake of the oblation when he offers it, let him be anathema.”
Granted you have not asserted that it is strictly speaking unlawful to receive from a married presbyter, but you must admit that your attitude towards receiving from a married priest violates at least the spirit of what is taught by the Council Fathers as contained in this ancient canon of the Church.”

As you point out, I never said that it is unlawful to receive a sacrament from a validly ordained married priest. My first two years in college the chaplain was a married former episcopalian priest. Not once did I go to Confession to him, and I never heard of anyone going to him either. We would make the trip to the local parish church. And I’m aware that in the Eastern tradition there are married priests.

If the Holy Father changes the current practice, fine. I respect and admire the Holy Father and will accept whatever policies he approves. But I’m still allowed to look for a pastor that I feel comfortable with, just the way people choose, for example, to go to the TLM an hour away from home instead of the local parish just 15 minutes away. In many dioceses it’s already rather difficult to get a hold of a priest for a hospital visit, etc., imagine if we had to consider his 9-5 and family obligations?

Celibacy should be cherished and fostered in the priesthood. As Maureen points out, priests (at least in the Latin rite) should follow Christ also in His celibacy.

Monica,

“My first two years in college the chaplain was a married former episcopalian priest. Not once did I go to Confession to him, and I never heard of anyone going to him either.”

Are people you know in the habit of announcing when and where they go to confession?

“My first two years in college the chaplain was a married former episcopalian priest. Not once did I go to Confession to him, and I never heard of anyone going to him either.”

Absolutely that is the case. But if you avoid him simply because he is married, which is implied in your first post, then that does violate the spirit of the canon.

” In many dioceses it’s already rather difficult to get a hold of a priest for a hospital visit, etc., imagine if we had to consider his 9-5 and family obligations?”

I know of a married priest whose full time job is to serve as a hospital chaplain. Our own works from home and another I know works as an HR manager, while another is a DRE. If a married priest is to work, very often their choice of profession must factor into it the flexibility required for ministry. And very often they have an understanding with their employer that they may be called away from time to time for an emergency. Our priest has even gone to see people who were sick and dying while he was on vacation with his family. At the same time, I know of a celibate priest who scandalously refused to answer hospital calls - even deathbed calls - and he lived right next door to the Catholic hospital, so they were forced to contact a priest some 15 minutes away. What matters is not whether a priest is married or not, but how generous he is willing to be with his spiritual fatherhood.

“Celibacy should be cherished and fostered in the priesthood. As Maureen points out, priests (at least in the Latin rite) should follow Christ also in His celibacy.”

You have no argument from me regarding cherishing our celibate priests and honoring and fostering celibate vocations. If the Latin Church, with certain exceptions, chooses to impose this upon ALL its candidates for the priesthood within its own sui juris Church, it is a decision that is certainly up the Holy Father, of whom we are both great admirers. I personally think that there would be great benefit to opening up vocations to older, mature deacons who are properly trained.

One more thing. As Mr Akin points out, these are mistresses and priests we’re talking about. The priests made a vow/promise of celibacy. What they are doing is fornication. How can these priests preach on chastity (which we’re all called to based on our state in life) and marriage if they themselves are causing scandal by breaking their vows? To my knowledge, if a professed religious were to take a sexual partner (say, they “fell in love”), they are dismissed from the community. But if a diocesan priest takes up a mistress, the mistresses appeal to the Holy Father because they don’t like the policy? So… following that line of thought, a vowed religious (say, a nun) could do the same thing while wishing to remain a religious. If the priest took a vow of celibacy, he should avoid the occasion of sin, just like all the faithful are called to do the same.

If I think back in my life to the time i lived the most purist was when I had no sexual thoughts and my mind was clear of all sins related to this. This is how I feel about Catholic priest as being free of sexual thoughts. When a priest answers the call to become one he knows what he is getting into. The rules are simple don’t like them don’t join. These mistress are sinful by nature and are corrupting the true intended nature of the teacher

Still, it is true that, since clerical celibacy is not a matter of dogma, if the Church had not made clerical celibacy a practice, then it would have been much easier for them to not live in sin.

I will also share with you the remarkable speech of Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Maximos IV that he was not permitted to give because Pope Paul VI refused to allow the question of the celibacy discipline to be discussed by the Council Fathers. So the good Patriarch simply sent it as a letter to His Holiness. You will note that I borrowed from the first sentence of Patriarch Maximos in one of my posts…

http://povcrystal.blogspot.com/2010/01/celibacy-vatican-ii-and-maximos-iv.html

“1. Neither Scripture nor Tradition, especially the Tradition of the first centuries, considers celibacy as an indispensable condition for the priesthood, a condition sine qua non. The early text of the schema affirmed that “even among the first Apostles, a few were married.” The new text preferred to omit this mention, as if by omitting it we could change the truth of history. It is unnecessary to recall that Saint Peter and most of the Apostles and the first disciples were married. Those who today in the Eastern Church are likewise married deserve all our support.

2. The East clearly distinguishes between priesthood and monasticism. A man can be called to the one without being called to the other. This distinction opens up new perspectives. Celibacy is the specific vocation of the monk-religious, but it is not necessarily the specific vocation of the priest, in his capacity as a minister of the Church. The priesthood is a function before being a state of life. It is linked not to a personal striving toward perfection such as celibacy for the sake of God, but to the usefulness to the Church. Therefore celibacy can disappear if the usefulness for the ministry of the Church requires it. The mystery of the redemption, perpetuated in the priesthood, is not subject by obligation to any accidental form. In case of need, it is not the priesthood that must be sacrificed to celibacy, but celibacy to the priesthood.

3. This distinction between the priestly vocation and the monastic or religious vocation was from the earliest centuries of Christianity subjected to the influences of an idealistic rigorism. At the First Council of Nicea in ad 325 we see certain Fathers seeking to impose perfect continence on the married clergy. According to Socrates (Hist. Eccl., Book I, Chapter 2, P. G. Vol. 67, Col. 103), Saint Paphnutius, Bishop of upper Thebaid, a confessor of the faith and a miracle worker, universally renowned for his chastity and his austerities, defended with much common sense and with a realistic spirit the traditional discipline of the married priesthood. And, the historian tells, all the Fathers of the Council were won over to his view. Since then, the Church of the East has remained faithful to this tradition that favors celibacy of priests but does not impose it. The Western Church has followed a different tradition which gradually brought it to impose, definitively and universally, ecclesiastical celibacy at the First Lateran Council of ad 1123. This is a tradition that, after all, was established at a more recent date.

4. Be this as it may, it is certain that the Eastern tradition maintains and favors more numerous priestly vocations, which the Church needs so much, especially today. In fact, the lack of priests, felt in our modern times in an agonizing way especially in certain countries, cannot be resolved by palliatives that are not sufficiently effective even if excellent, such as the lending of priests by the more favored dioceses, because the urgent needs are disproportionate to the help offered. The Church is in danger of being submerged by this rising human tide, and the danger is growing with each passing day. In this state of urgency, the Christian East counsels that more should not be imposed on priests than Christ himself has imposed.

5. In addition, there are many individuals who experience an immense desire to serve the Church and souls, but who are incapable of maintaining perfect chastity. This is particularly true in certain areas where physical and moral isolation constitutes a serious danger for an average celibate priest.

6. Finally, I shall add that there is no need to fear that the freedom provided by Eastern discipline to choose between celibacy and marriage may gradually cause ecclesiastical celibacy to disappear. There are now and there always will be in the Church many souls called in a special way, to whom flesh and blood are foreign, and who, while they are free to marry, will remain virgins in order to give themselves more totally to God. We have proofs of this in the Eastern Churches, whether Catholic or Orthodox, in which the two categories of priests have rubbed elbows for centuries, each developing fully according to his state and in his own special perfection. With this freedom of choice and of consecration, we have on the contrary fewer downfalls to deplore and more virtues to admire ......

Why should they be mistresses? They should demand civil marriage from their priests and the protection of the law that marriage entails. O, they are afraid their husbands would get fired by the church authorities. \The same church authorities who bent over backwards to protect criminal child rapists.

As priest become the only priest in parishes they will naturally turn to women (or boys) for emotional companionship and in many cases this will lead to to sex. People need community. To expect a lone priest to live without community is psychologically weird.

I do not think that any parish in my diocese of Austin can afford married clergy.  The priest salary is $22000 and even housing and living subsidies would make this a salary good enough for a 5 to 10-people family.

Most parishes have more than one priest and rectories would not be able to accommodate several families, which would not be advisable anyway.

Even considering that perhaps a priest’s wife could do office work for much less than another paid employee, hardly would it offset the difficulty in maintaining the priest’s family by the parish.

And the Eastern Churches are right by objecting to changes in the Latin Church.  Priests should be shuffled every now and then.  We cannot ignore that when a priest stays for too long at a parish it becomes “his” parish.  This is not healthy, but it would be harsh on a family to submit it to moving a couple of times every decade.

Surely, “man should not be alone”, he should be in community, but to think that family life is the only type of communal life conceivable is denying centuries of religious traditions.  Priests should live along side his brother priests and perhaps even widowed deacons.

Unfortunately, the first victims of the shortfall in priestly vocations were the priests themselves, who more and more lost their rectory companions.

At the end of the day, however, the real problem is the crisis of commitment in the West.  We wouldn’t be talking about celibacy if there were enough priests.  Yet, the mistresses are perhaps the pinnacle of this commitment crisis.  They represent this crisis perfectly.

St. Joan of Arc, pray for us.

I do not think that any parish in my diocese of Austin can afford married clergy.  The priest salary is $22000 and even housing and living subsidies would make this a salary good enough for a 5 to 10-people family.  Even if a parish collects tens of thousands of dollars every week, most of it goes to servicing its debt on multi-million-dollar facilities.

Most parishes have more than one priest and rectories would not be able to accommodate several families, which would not be advisable anyway.

Even considering that perhaps a priest’s wife could do office work for much less than another paid employee, hardly would it offset the difficulty in maintaining the priest’s family by the parish.

And the Eastern Churches are right by objecting to changes in the Latin Church.  Priests should be shuffled every now and then.  We cannot ignore that when a priest stays for too long at a parish it becomes “his” parish.  This is not healthy, but it would be harsh on a family to submit it to moving a couple of times every decade.

Surely, “man should not be alone”, he should be in community, but to think that family life is the only type of communal life conceivable is denying centuries of religious traditions.  Priests should live along side his brother priests and perhaps even widowed deacons.

Unfortunately, the first victims of the shortfall in priestly vocations were the priests themselves, who more and more lost their rectory companions.

At the end of the day, however, the real problem is the crisis of commitment in the West.  We wouldn’t be talking about celibacy if there were enough priests.  Yet, the mistresses are perhaps the pinnacle of this commitment crisis.  They represent this crisis perfectly.

St. Joan of Arc, pray for us.

Would Roman Catholic clergy who are wrestling with celibacy have an easier time of dealing with their celibacy if masturbation wasn’t a grave sin?

Your comment on the letter of the Italian priests’ mistresses is thought-provoking and very informative. One intriguing point you mentioned is “the practical difficulties of a married clergy” encountered by the bishops in the Eastern Catholic churches, who, as you noted, were very vocal against changing the celibacy requirement in the western church. What are these difficulties? Can you give me a source? It is obvious that no decision is without risks and problems. Unfortunately, many people when faced with a problem like clerical celibacy become convinced that there is a perfect solution. Not, I’m afraid, in this imperfect world.

Thank you Monica for your wonderful comments about celibacy and what you are looking for in your priest.  There are many of us who have not only one but two or three churches and yes, very little time for oneself.  If only having a little time for oneself it will be very difficult to have time for one’s wife and maybe children.  Also, when one is married there is now another family (spouse’s) that also comes into play.  Rectories are not built for families either.  Having been married in my late twenties for eight years and now celebrating 12 years of priesthood I can honestly say that I would not look to get married (if it was allowed) and I am certainly not going to go against my vow or bring disgrace to my parish family or myself in having a mistress.  Would permitting married priests increase the low numbers?  I’m sure it would but it wouldn’t solve many of the problems that already exist and would also open the Church up to more problems that it would have difficulty in it’s dealings.

Fr. Deacon Daniel,

“First, larger Catholic parishes would generally have no problem supporting married priests with a family. Most of the large, wealthy Latin parishes I know of would have no issue with this financially.”

“These practical matters really are not an obstacle for most parishes. “

That’s a sweeping statement that seems to be based mainly on anecdotal evidence and I wonder how true it is across the US and worldwide? Where in the country are you and does your experience translate to other regions? Most of the parishes I know would have a trouble with it financially.

Likewise I’ve seen the wife of an Orthodox priest complaining about the lack of financial support, saying many priests’ families that she knows are on food stamps and the only reason her family isn’t is because her husband has a side business. Also anecdotal evidence, I know; but it makes me question your premise.

To me it seems the financial consideration is a grave one and should be seriously considered not just shrugged off. If we are going to embrace a married priesthood we must make provisions to provide them with a just living wage so that they may support their families adequately. Already the Latin Church has a problem of seriously under-compensating married men and women who work in various ministries. My diocese is in grave financial situation, not running in the black and is currently laying off laypersons who work for the Church. The clergy fund is struggling to pay for the health care and pensions of the unmarried priests we have. If we had married priests we’d not only be having to find money to care for infirm or elderly priests; but also be providing health benefits for wives and children, support for the families of priests who have died or who are sick and unable to work, pensions would have to be much larger for retired priests to support their families on and so forth.

Let’s not forget that the clergy sex abuse settlements in the millions of dollars have left many dioceses in bad financial states.

Melanie,

True, my evidence here about the financial conditions of most Latin parishes is largely anecdotal. And yes, the lawsuits have drained the coffers of many dioceses - something which did not have to happen had the cases of abuse been handled more responsibly.

I think there certainly will be occasions where in certain parishes married priests will have to work. The same is true of married deacons, since most do not receive a stipend or a salary from the parishes where they serve. Their generous service is done out of a love for treasures in heaven. (I put myself squarely in that category, along with my father, who is also a deacon.)

A parish can have several priests who serve, some non-stipendary and others who serve full time, which would likely be the case if some of the married deacons could be ordained to serve as priests.

I do not mean to say that material issues are not important, but they are certainly not insurmountable obstacles either. Again, the model of a young twenty-something going to seminary, getting married and then getting ordained is not what I am referring to here. I am talking about mature married deacons (men in their 40’s, 50’s and 60’s), many of whom have houses on their own and careers and older children - perhaps they are even retired early - who can be ordained to serve the Church. I would even go so far as to say, if need be, have a celibate pastor with celibate and married associates. All one is doing is multiplying the number of hands and feet who serve in priestly ministry…so that Father Neil and others like him do not have to travel all the time to support three parishes.

As to whatever problems Fr. Neil is referencingg, my only thought is: how can it possibly get any worse?

@ “Truth Unites”

The Church does not assign gravity to a particular sin, but rather discerns its nature and severity. That said, masturbation would certainly not solve any problem, but only make it worse since this type of activity serves only to reduce women (or whomever) to objects of lust and self-gratification, a personal mental harem, as CS Lewis describes it. Marriage is not about sexual release and gratification, but relationship.

@ John Mack - I doubt lonely priests will naturally turn to “boys” for companionship, unless they suffer from a lack of a fundamental disorder to begin with. But your point about the need for community is absolutely true I think. Isolation can be the deathnell to vocation.

“unless they suffer from a lack of a fundamental disorder to begin with…”

Obviously I meant “from a fundamental disorder” not from a “lack of”...

>Fr. Deacon Daniel G. Dozier is a deacon in the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic >Church, the largest jurisdiction of Eastern Catholics in the Catholic >Church, serving along with his father, Fr. Deacon Stephen G. Dozier, at >St. Nicholas Mission in Raleigh and St. Michael the Archangel Mission in >Southern Pines, N.C. He is an Instructor and Director of Distance >Learning at Holy Apostles Institute for Ministry, Catechesis and >Evangelization, and has a special interest and expertise in the area of >Christian Iconography, one of the rich treasures shared by the East and >West, and its role in liturgy, spirituality, evangelization and >catechesis. Fr. Deacon Daniel (deacons in the Christian East are referred >to as “Father” since they are ordained to serve as icons of the Bishop’s >fatherly service to the Church and the needy) has written a two part >series for Eastern Christian Publications entitled The Twelve Great >Feasts of the Messiah and the Mother of God to help families explore more >deeply the meaning of icons in celebrating the mysteries of Our Lord and >of the Blessed Mother’s life as commemorated by the Great Feasts of the >Church year. He is currently working on a book of Rosary Meditations >based on Byzantine Icons for families and individuals as well as a book >on Catholic leadership.
From http://www.ignitedbytruth.com/bios.html

Just wanted to point out that it’s a deacon and not an ordained priest who’s making all these pro-married-priesthood statements.

tiredintheisland,

And your point is…what precisely?

I never claimed to be a priest. The title “Fr. Deacon” is a title used by all Eastern Catholic deacons.

Also, if you have a substantive argument to make, by all means please join in.

Sin makes you blind. Its like beating a dead horse when you talk about such issues. The older I get and hopefully the holier and wiser I become…don’t hold your breathe I am amazed at the wisdom and beauty of the Catholic Church. I love my faith and when I see things such as this I only wish that these people could know the truth and be on fire for God instead of wasting their time and everyone else’s pulling down the church.

Also, tiredintheisland, why not share your own bio in the interest of self-disclosure? Perhaps we can then ascertain your own background and thereby determine the worthiness of your argumentation.

Oh wait, you’ve made no substantive point here. Nevermind…

Father Deacon Daniel..has my respect.for who and what he is..but he does not have the same respect as my priest..and I enjoy the work of Scott Hahn, who is an accomplished theologian. He is married to a woman who is the BEST female speaker I have ever heard..I am sure they share my respect for our priests..and do not have the need to “top” them in any way. They have their own dignity and do not need to look to “being better” than anyone…for any reason.
Hold your own place today, Father Deacon Daniel, unless someone asks for your advice, and I don’t think anyone will do that who is of any importance to the Holy Father.
My celibate Roman Catholic Priests hold a special place in the hearts of all of those they touch. They are all Holy men…far above those who need bodily “pleasure” in order to sustain their being. Their understanding is greater than that.

Mia,

Thank you for your thoughts. No, I do not think anyone from Rome will be calling and asking for my advice. And I too am an admirer of Dr. Scott and Kimberly Hahn, as I am also of celibate priests in East and West. In no way would I ever denigrate such a vocation in the Church.

Based upon conversations with some dioceses about the deaconate, I do not believe they are willing to pay deacons, much less priests.  One diocese wondered why no young men were entering deaconate formation and I told them that it made it hard for one to support their family since they did not pay them.  They responded, honestly, that they had never even thought about that.  Most dioceses are strapped for cash and have a history of paying their employees much less than anything close to minimum wage. It would be extremely difficult to live on the wage from a 20 an hour week job.  All I am saying is that most have not thought about the money issue much, if at all when discussing this topic.  I do not think it would be a good idea to have married priests for a whole host of other reasons.

What many people tend to forget is that the vow to celibacy and the oftentimes lonely life of a priest is also a call to accept an act of ‘suffering’ on the priests behalf for himself to be holier and grow stronger by abstaining from sex to avoid the sins of lust, just as fasting helps avoid the sin of gluttony and also by these suffering helps his soul and will to overcome the strong impulses and temptatins that the body is subject to. Also the act of accepting these sufferings helps to expiate his own sins on Earth before his death, not only for himself, but also on behalf of others souls who will die, or even for souls in Purgatory. The priest accepts celibacy and a host of other disciplines to suffer just as Christ suffered and to be closer to Him and a living example of control over his passions for the rest of us to see that, yes, it is possible to control our ouw sexual impulses and save ourselves for marriage, and see our s[pouses as more than just some object for sexual release. The Priest leads by example. His strong example can encourage his parishioners to take him seriously and see that we too can be just as strong to overcome our sinful nature by being closer to God.

I am not surprise that this issue is sponsored by the National Catholic Register the catholic tabloid. What a hoax!  Fr. Deacon Daniel, are you a priest or permanent deacon?
I am happy that your talk has expose the hypocrisy of the Europe. You cannot deceive me again. If I cannot trust you as celibate priest should I trust you as married priests? White man has deceived black too much. The only one I can believe now is the dead one.
Thanks

I don’t think it would be possible for a man to be one with his wife and one with the Church at the same time. Priests are called to follow Jesus, the first Priest. Jesus is the example, not the apostles. As for those mistresses, if they think a man who is clearly unable to remain faithful to one vow will be able to remain faithful to one taken with them, they are deluded. Women can be so stupid at times.

Fr. Deacon Daniel:  “That said, masturbation would certainly not solve any problem, but only make it worse since this type of activity serves only to reduce women (or whomever) to objects of lust and self-gratification, a personal mental harem, as CS Lewis describes it.”

It could be that some masturbating priests might be tempted to violate their vow of celibacy because they’re masturbating, while for many others, masturbating might just be the very thing to help them not violate their vow of celibacy.

I apologize beforehand for treating this serious subject with such a flippant response.

I wonder how many of these mistresses would be surprised to find that even if priestly celibacy were done away with, their priests would not be be interested in marrying them?

MaryAnn,

You wrote:

“I don’t think it would be possible for a man to be one with his wife and one with the Church at the same time.”

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church asserts that it is not only possible, but actual and for 2000 years at that.

Consider this from Vatican II:

“This holy synod, while it commends ecclesiastical celibacy, in no way intends to alter that different discipline which legitimately flourishes in the Eastern Churches. It permanently exhorts all those who have received the priesthood and marriage to persevere in their holy vocation so that they may fully and generously continue to expend themselves for the sake of the flock commended to them.” (Decree on Priestly Life and Ministry, 16)

And this from the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches:

“Clerical celibacy chosen for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and suited to the priesthood is to be greatly esteemed everywhere, as supported by the tradition of the whole Church; likewise, the hallowed practice of married clerics in the primitive Church and in the tradition of the Eastern Churches throughout the ages is to be held in honor.” (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, 373)

And I would be careful trying to divide the apostles from Christ. The Church’s nature is, after all, “apostolic.”

Truth…

Can’t really agree with your train of thought here. If anything, this kind of behavior more than likely weakens the will when faced with more serious temptations involving other people.

shame on all the mistresses particularly Stefania Solomone. Look for men other than priests that you can tempt.Stefania quello che fai e scrivi al nostro caro Papa e’ vergognoso. Lasciate i preti e la chiesa in pace. Lasciate molto da biasimare e i preti meritano essere puniti in quanto hanno fatto dellesacre promesse a Dio che devono servire con fedelta’.

Stafania tu e le tue compagnie pensateci bene e lasciate i preti in pace.

i wrote my previous message in italian in the hope that this Stafania would read it. Hope some or the writer of this article would give me her e-mail address.
It is shameful that these women appeal to the Pope to change the rules. These priests have taken a vow of celibacy, chasitity etc. But the women do not care about respect for the priesthood, and they are selfish and egotistical. There is plenty of men around to tempt, why go after the priests.

Deacon Daniel: I don’t think that MaryAnn is separating Christ from the apostles. She simply stated that the model for priests should be Christ and not the apostles. After all, all but John abandoned Him, and Peter denied Him three times. And, as far as I know, John was *the* celibate apostle. Sure, Christ forgave Peter (and all of them), but the fact remains that He is THE Model to follow.

Vinnie: Quello che ha detto è così vero! Queste donne dovrebbero vergognarsi di se stessi.

I agree with the current stance that priests should be celibate, giving their wholehearted selves to serving God.  A crude example that happened to me several years ago was when I was divorced and all my children grown.  My parents and siblings reignited my desire to become a priest.  I have a granddaughter which is the love of my life.  After much prayer I decided against the idea because I could separate the love and desire to watch my granddaughter progress in all areas, I could not do that as a priest.  I could not serve God with all my heart and soul.

Was just considering what might help priests to not violate their vows of celibacy.

Brainstormed that masturbation might help priests to not violate their vows of celibacy.

Monica,

I understand her point about Christ being the “model” of the priesthood. I just disagree with her that priests are to imitate Him and not the apostles. I think that this introduces an unnecessary dichotomy in priestly spirituality, especially since bishops, priests and deacons have a share in apostolic ministry. And actually, if one follows the teachings of the Church Fathers such as St. Ignatius, the 2nd century Martyr-Bishop of Antioch, the Bishop is the icon of the Father, the Deacon is the icon of Jesus Christ and the presbyters are the icons of the Council of Apostles! :-)

God bless!

to Monica Arroyo:
grazie per il tuo commento. I am sick to my stomach and I do not like to dig into the church traiditions,the word of God to reason about this awful sin. The priest has made vows and he should keep them. If he does not like it let him leave the church and save his soul. Again shame on the women and the priests. Now tha this scandal is in the open, hope the priests get punished/reprimended. This is blatant hypocrasy on the part of the priests. Dare they to hear confession and administer the sacraments.

I pity the so called “lonely priests”. 
I pity also the “mistresses”.

Every time I see a priest I see someone who gave all to God and his Church.

Most of all I pity the rather poor, mediocre, insufficient preparation received in Seminary.
Those young men deserved better trained teachers.
A piece of paper issued by a mediocre university does not qualify someone to prepare and guide the young men who gave all. 
A poorly trained soldier is a danger to himself, to his battle group and to his nation.  So are the poorly prepared priests.

But there is another dimension that makes me pity those “lonely priests” and their “mistresses”: 
The lack of Eucharistic devotion - ultimately, the intimate, personal, living relationship with Jesus himself.
Once they spend time each day with Jesus they will be filled with divine fire/grace to share with the sick, with the sinner waiting…

Sadly when a priest has no time to sit in the confessional or to visit the sick, he is wasting it searching for companionship in the back alleys of life…

How sad.  Indeed I pity the mediocre Seminary Professors, the ill prepared Priests.

I have faith.  The Church shall always survive.  It is Christ’s promise.
I believe “celibacy” is a divine call. 
A celibate for himself is a joke.  A celibate for the kingdom is a blessed gift.

I pray daily for my priest, for all priests.
Indeed I have been blessed by priests’ total dedication to our parish through the years.
Whenever I read about failure - I pray

Was just considering what might help priests to not violate their vows of celibacy.

Brainstormed that masturbation might help priests to not violate their vows of celibacy.

Which might lead to less priests fornicating, less priests being pedophiles, less cover-ups or less allegations of cover-ups, less calls for married priests, and less calls for women priests.

Truth unites: one evil does not fix another evil. When God gives the call to a particular vocation, He also gives all the necessary graces to follow it. It is up to us to accept them and foster a prayer life that will sustain it. Masturbation is wrong. Period. Read 1 Cor 6:18 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2337 - 2359. Masturbation is selfish and all about self-gratification, and is just like adding gasoline to a fire. Your suggestion is deplorable. For the record, I’m not saying that the married state is evil; fornication - the problem pointed out in this post - is.

Amen, Monica.

There is lots of gay sex going on in the priesthood.  The straight priests who are still in the system witness this and feel cheated.  So, they go find girlfriends.  A previous commenter wrote: “I think a stronger sense of priestly fraternity will help guard against these types of scandals.”  It’s already there, and it’s called homosexuality, the pervasive gay culture of the priesthood.  The straight priests tend to meet women, leave the sexual corruption they live with every day among priests and bishops, and get married.  Gay priests tend to stay and enjoy the well-funded gay lifestyle that mandatory celibacy has allowed them to build in the priesthood right under your noses.

Was just throwing out for consideration that it just might be the “masturbation-is-a-grave-sin” rule which is actually the very gasoline that gets poured onto the priests’s sexual fire which then leads to the subsequent violation of priestly celibacy.

Of course, it could be the other way around too.  Was just searching and wondering on how to help priests remain celibate.

In other words, might masturbation be a way to douse a priest’s sexual fire, so to speak?

There is a very good book about this subject of sacred celibacy :

« Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy » (Ignatius Press, 2002) of Christian Cochini s.j.

Henri de Lubac wrote about this book (french first edition, in 1980) :

« Cet ouvrage est de première importance. Il suppose des recherches considérables, longues et méthodiques. Dans la production de notre siècle en la matière, je ne pense pas que rien puisse lui être comparé, même de loin. »

Here are two extracts in french :

« Quel genre de vie les apôtres ont-ils mené à la suite du Christ ? »

http://v.i.v.free.fr/spip/spip.php?article3589

« La continence des clercs au concile d’Elvire (v. 305 ?) »

http://v.i.v.free.fr/spip/spip.php?article3590

John Schuster:  “There is lots of gay sex going on in the priesthood.”

Obviously, the expected standard is that Catholic priests are to be celibate and to not masturbate.

But if that standard is not met, which of the following choices would you choose:

(A)  Pedophilic priest sex.

(B)  Gay priest sex.

(C)  Fornicating priest sex.

(D)  Masturbating priests.

(E)  None of the above.  Any of the priests who do A-D should resign their priesthood.

I am sad to read this.
The concept of sin seems to have become foreign.
And I agree 100% with Mr Akin.

A mistress cannot rightfully,without sin, lay claim to a married man
any more than a priest.
But they do that too now.
And with the scandal of too frequently granted annulments destroy
marriage vows and celibacy vows.

“(E)  None of the above.  Any of the priests who do A-D should resign their priesthood.”

That’s the problem.  They are not going to quit.  They lead double lives while Catholics blindly trust them, obey them, and give them more money.  It is all about their lack of integrity and they way they play on your trust. 

They next time your priest says he is flying home to Michigan to visit his ailing mother, find out if he really isn’t flying to Miami, San Francisco, or Thailand.

You play by the rules, and they play you for chumps.  More and more Catholics are finding this out, and they don’t know what to do with the disgusting truth they have discovered.

There is an interview in french of Christian Cochini, on Zenit:

« Les Origines apostoliques du célibat ecclésiastique », par le P. Cochini, sj (1)

http://www.zenit.org/article-14210?l=french

« Les Origines apostoliques du célibat ecclésiastique », par le P. Cochini (2)

http://www.zenit.org/article-14221?l=french

Sorry, there is none english version.

Obviously, the expected standard is that Catholic priests are to be celibate and to not masturbate.

(E)  None of the above.  Any of the priests who do A-D should resign their priesthood.”

John Schuster:  “(E)... That’s the problem.  They are not going to quit.  They lead double lives while Catholics blindly trust them”

Okay, let me add another option:

(F)  None of the above.  Any of the clergy who do A-D and who do not resign must then be removed and dismissed by their superior.

Blaise: I read «La continence des clercs au concile d’Elvire (v. 305 ?)». Thank you for providing all the links. The Council of Elvira (Spain) called for the celibacy of all priests and bishops, even those who were married. The council is believed to have taken place in 305 AD. Some of the points are:
27. A bishop or other cleric may have only a sister or a daughter who is a virgin consecrated to God living with him.  No other woman who is unrelated to him may remain.
33.    Bishops, presbyters, deacons, and others with a position in the ministry are to abstain completely from sexual intercourse with their wives and from the procreation of children.  If anyone disobeys, he shall be removed from the clerical office.
It is interesting to see how even deacons were called to refrain from sexual intercourse. Thank you, Blaise. Your links have been very useful.

Here is an excellent article that addresses many of the arguments of Cochini and Cholij (a Ukrainian Catholic priest and theologian who eventually renounced his previous position on the mandate of celibacy) as summarized by Stickler.

http://www.east2west.org/mandatory_clerical_celibacy.htm

As to the points above by Shuster, not all priests are homosexuals, practicing or otherwise. That some have been is no reason to assume that many are. Most, I believe, are faithful to whatever state God and the Church have called them to be, married or celibate, whatever the claims of the anti-Catholics may be.

Monica M Arroyo, PhD:  “The Council of Elvira (Spain) called for the celibacy of all priests and bishops, even those who were married.”

So priests and bishops did marry.  I think some of the mistresses referenced in the story above mentioned that they had celibate relationships with their priest “boyfriends.”  Maybe some of them are asking for a celibate marriage with their priest boyfriend.

“If anyone disobeys, he shall be removed from the clerical office.”

Should priests who masturbate be removed from the clerical office?

I wonder how many priests would be left if all masturbating priests were removed from office.

Ah yes, the local Synod of Elvira, whose decisions as far as I can tell, were never ratified by any Ecumenical Council and in fact was simply a local gathering of 18 bishops in Spain.

Here are a few of the other Canons developed by this Synod:

50. If any cleric or layperson eats with Jews, he or she shall be kept from communion as a way of correction.

61. A man who, after his wife’s death, marries her baptized sister may not commune for five years unless illness requires that reconciliation be offered sooner.

79. Christians who play dice for money are to be excluded from receiving communion. If they amend their ways and cease, they may receive communion after one year.

81. A woman may not write to other lay Christians without her husband’s consent. A woman may not receive letters of friendship addressed to her only and not to her husband as well.

I wonder if there will be any effort to restore these canons to contemporary Catholic practice as well…

We are ALL called to celibacy at times in our life. As a wife and mother of 7. The times I feel closest to God and my husband is when we have times of celibacy, finding other ways to live out our love for one another. The problem we have today is celibacy seems to be foriegn to all of us. Satan through the form of birth control has convinced us that we should indulge our lusts when ever we choose. Most people don’t know how spectacular life giving love can be, wether it is life giving love through celibacy or through the marital embrace with our God. Holy Matrimony is a beautiful gift from God and should be treated as such. The problem the world has with celibacy is that most of us have been condition to believe that our body controls our spirit. We have forgotten we are made in the likeness and image of God and we have a body and a SPIRIT. Like Jesus our spirit needs to be in charge of our body not the other way around.

On the subject of priests and families, I was not raised Catholic.  My father was a Baptist pastor and he neglected us to the point of abuse because he and his church were so much more important to him than we were.  I think it’s wonderful having celibate priests serving God and the Church with their whole heart and not being divided between serving God and serving their own family because one side or the other gets cheated.

Carolyn,

Your story is truly tragic, and I am truly sorry for the pain your childhood caused. But I have seen the same phenomenon with lay people who are actively involved in so-called “lay ministries,” businessmen and women in the corporate world, sports fanatics and political activists. While there certainly is something to be said for the need for balance with clergy families, it does not necessarily follow that every situation where married clergy is involved leads to one side or another being “cheated”...especially when bishops are willing to ordain several men to serve to serve. My own experience in the Baptist church was that very often it is a pastor essentially flying solo with his deacon’s board at varying levels of involvement (or uninvolvement). The solo part is what can make it so problematic and unhealthy, especially if one gets into a habit of adding all sorts of church activities while failing to delegate and animate others properly.

God bless you.

I can think of many good reasons to ordain married men. But we have no reason to believe it will solve any of the following three problems:
- pedophile priests: teachers can get married and yet they too have their tragic scandals. better screening and immediate suspensions would work better.
- fornicating priests: the possibility of marriage does not stop the laity from fornicating. better screening and communication of expectations would work better.
- shortage in vocations: when church choirs get lax about the rules on attending practice and arriving before mass starts, their ranks dont swell with volunteers. promoting stronger (e.g. contraception-free) marriages from the pulpit would work better.

if we look into the church history till 12th. century priests were married and even 39 Popes were married it is only because of property matters the celebacy rule was imposed on the priests.In the Roman catholic communion there are around 23 denominations and out of that many have married priests[eg. Maronite Priests]Here we are simlpy spiritulizing the celebacy where marriage is a Sacrament.Today there are more than 150,000/- married catholic priests who are celebrating the sacraments and living their family life[eg.Rent-a-priest.com]

So what ever the decision may be or who ever will take the decision we must go in to the reality,history and the truth and not blind spirituality.

Father, I think you are speaking the truth about the history, especially as it pertains to the inheritance rights of the children of clergy vis-a-vis Church property. While it cannot be said that this alone brought about the change in discipline in the West, it certainly was a significant contributing factor.

And the Catholic East certainly has maintained its discipline where Latin and/or direct Roman interference has not squelched it.

That said, “rent-a-priest” is hardly a legitimate movement, since most of these men are priests who have simply elected to ignore their promises of chastity to be married civilly or in a religious ceremony not in a Catholic Church. Such a practice is not at all acceptable to the Catholic or Orthodox East, although there was a case a number of years ago in the Antiochian Metropolia where a widowed priest was permitted to remarry, but this was not well received by other Orthodox jurisdictions at all.

Celibacy is a self-donation - a GIFT to Almighty God for His Kingdom.
Priests who do not self-donate and die to themselves every day (pick up your cross DAILY and follow Me)....should no longer be allowed the faculty to act as priests.

Satan must be having a wonderful laugh at this twist of truth he has put into the hearts and minds of our priests..just another incident of strike the shepherd, scatter the sheep.

Holy men ordained by God, seek first the Kingdom of God and you shall not be disappointed.

You can no more masturbate your way to celibacy than you can use bacon to help stay on a vegan diet.

“Satan must be having a wonderful laugh at this twist of truth he has put into the hearts and minds of our priests..just another incident of strike the shepherd, scatter the sheep.”

That’s utterly accurate.  Look at how Satan struck this former Catholic shepherd-priest (in his own excerpted words about his time in Catholic school):

“Many priests tell themselves that if it isn’t vaginal sex, then it’s still celibacy. This is a perfect example of the “what’s the least amount I have to do to meet the prescriptions of church law?” morality, which is widespread among Catholics.

The church trains its children to compartmentalize sex, into distinct acts, from the very beginning, with only one act, unitive and procreative vaginal sex between a man and a woman, who are married to each other, considered holy.

Catholics have all sorts of ways of dealing with this. I had a Catholic friend in college, who vowed she would be a virgin until she got married, but she blew most of the guys in the theatre department.

In seminary, I believed I was still a virgin, because I had never had sex with woman. Men didn’t count, so the fooling around I did in college ...

I learned that celibacy also involved chastity, which meant no masturbation. Of course, I did masturbate, but prayerfully, thinking about communion with god.

All Catholics are called to chastity, and I would venture to guess that 99% of them don’t live chastely. They masturbate alone or with their opposite sex spouses.

There are such guilty, fearful, and grandiose expectations placed upon the sexual act in Catholic moral teachings. Few Catholics can live up to these prescriptions; therefore, people develop ways of rationalizing their behavior, so that they can meet the church’s unachievable sexual sainthood.

It is no shock that pedophile-priests would not consider raping children, and the lesser sin of groping a child, a violation of celibacy. The system of Catholic sexual ethics sowed the seeds of their distortion and their crimes long ago.”

If you want to read it all, here’s the link.

Dear Holy Family, Pray for us!  Monica, thank you.

Who were the 39 married popes and source for this claim please.

I know of one married pope.  The very first pope:  Apostle Peter.

Correct me if I’m wrong on this, it is theologically possible for a married man to become a deacon or a priest.  It is theologically impossible for an ordained deacon or priest to get married. I try to imagine a dating priesthood.  This is simply an impossibility in my mind.  The scenario presented in this article is that of priests-or in this case their mistresses, unfaithful to their vocation, instead of repenting of their unfaithfulness, asking the Church for an unwarranted remedy of their sinful situation. I sympathize with weakness.  Go to confession, receive the sacraments, get your life right with God.

So Fr Deacon are you what would your view of married bishops be and why? After all it is only a discipline and not a doctrine. According to the arguments you provided it would be of great benefit as the wife would be able to help handle the papers, etc. Perhaps she could be chancellorless of the diocese. If they had children it would be even better as they could help the cathedral choir. There would be no need to ask for men to volunteer as users and the altar boy shortages potentially be solved if the priest had enough sons. Perhaps it would be a fast track for their sons into the priesthood and also solve the priesthood shortage. Wouldn’t the early fathers such as Ignatius, the apostle Paul, etc approve of this as it would be such a practical aid to fixing things and the diocese would run so much more efficiently if the bishop had a family he could trust and rely upon to keep things under control? Why couldn’t the wife be able to coordinate the diocese’s ministries to married woman better than a woman religious? After all according to current common belief to understand something you must experience it to offer sound advice/ counsel (though I wonder what the requirements for consoling/ counseling the dying would be). How could single people really have a clue how married people feel or how to counsel married people when they have never been married?

If the only reason in the East that bishops are required to be celibate is tradition how does that outweigh the practical benefits? After all from what you have said if marriage doesn’t distract or prevent a priest from attending to his duties then why not have married bishops? After all it can be changed no? It is the logical end of the argument you are using and if applying it to priests what is there to prevent it from being applied to bishops.

Now I am not attacking the tradition of the East but if you are slighting the tradition of the West then you are undermining the tradition of the East. The tradition is not based primarily upon practicality (though it does play a part). As I am sure you will agree it is based upon a spiritual truth- as all sound Christian traditions are. Both traditions exalt celibacy though in different manners. The East does it by saying that bishops are to be chosen from men who live celibate lives. That is the shepherd of the flock- the spiritual heir of the apostles should be a role model if you will and require more of himself than others- especially as when in the past so many laity led exemplary celibate lives. Whereas in the West the priest represents is an alter Christus and so is expected to mirror Christ as close as possible. The difference is not one of essences but focus- perhaps of magnitudes. In the East the generals (bishops) are expected to live a strict life. In the West even the unit commander (priest) is to live a life as strict as the head commander (Christ). As to which is more spiritually ideal I’ll leave that to the Fathers. The Father’s are unequivocal that virginity (at least celibacy) is the higher calling. That is Christian tradition. To exalt marriage above virginity is contrary to tradition, the teachings of Christ and the Fathers. Of course you are familiar with the eastern tradition and rightly hold it in regard. However, I suggest you learn more about the western tradition. They are different ways of esteeming the virtue of virginity/ celibacy.  As Pius XII said though virginity not necessary for Christian perfection it is to be esteemed as something more perfect. Having said that it explains the views of many such as Monica. I suppose we in the West just expect our priests to be more perfect. That is not to say married priests can not be holy or that celibate automatically are holier. Rather we have a higher standard that is very much so in accordance with the principles and ideals of the Early Fathers. Just because something is permitted does not make it more perfect or better. Married priests deserve respect and honor for what they are and do. The same with celibate clergy. Those who remain single for the sake of the gospel do merit recognition as having given more. It is only just as that is what our Lord promises to do when He returns. No one is forced to become a priest and the Church possesses the authority to determine the requirements/ qualifications.

I am glad that in your experience being married does not inordinately hinder those clergy you are familiar with. However, your experience does not contravene or make null the experiences of others recorded in history or the testimony of numbers of saints. There is a practical reason for celibacy and I humbly suggest you familiarize yourself with the Western Churches experience in addition to your personal experiences. The Latin Church does have some pretty good practical reasons also. As there is mutual respect between our Churches regarding the traditions I suggest there be mutual respect for why those traditions are in force. In the East it is not primarily because the priest’s family provides so much help to the parish- at least never have I heard someone quote the Fathers, etc in support of it (not saying it is bad or negligible). The following links are good starting places. Thank you and your family for your services to Christ’s church.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

Sacra Virginitas
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12sv.htm

PS: Yes the modern life of the lone rector is an aberration. If the Church were to reinstitute medieval canonical life to the priesthood that would be ideal. Unfortunately most of those who are not willing to live a life as a celibate as a Latin priest would also object to such an arrangement. It is more of a spiritual/ formation issue than solely fraternal- evidenced that there is little shame. The disorder is much more serious. Instead of heaven they have another goal and love someone other than our Lord.

Truth Unites… and Divides:

Catholicism is not there to come up with morality that everyone can comfortably follow. And the Catholic Church rightfully teaches that EVERYONE falls short of the glory of God. Nobody is perfect, and being perfect is hard by ourselves. We must follow Christ’s example of wholly committing ourselves to God so that by His grace we are freed from our lusts and sinful temptations.

This is not hypocrisy. It’s the plain truth, that mankind is sinful and SHOULD FEEL GUILTY and REPENT and throw themselves at God’s mercy. Christianity calls mankind to perfection! Feelings of guilt help us to understand that we are violating God’s law which is written on our consciences. When we cannot fuifill our moral obligations, especially with regards to sex, then we must count on God’s mercy. This is what the sacraments of reconciliation and Holy Communion are for.

Anyone trying to argue otherwise or justify their actions are still guilty and still sinners. This is the pathetic state of mankind which has fallen from grace in Eden. Now we are suffering to get it back. And suffering as an act of penance and reparation is a good and worthy thing so that we can be worthy of going to heaven when we die, because no unclean person can enter and see the beatific vision of God, because God’s good and perfect nature will destroy what isn’t clean. This is why Purgatory exists to purify us, and why hell exists for those who will never let go of their sinful natures and will always remain unclean and stained by sin.

Okay, we have priest dateing,lets see maybe a dateing service,then he can hookup see if they are sexual mates,and if not! try try again. The priest took a vow,end of story!!!!!!

Johnno:  “And the Catholic Church rightfully teaches that EVERYONE falls short of the glory of God. Nobody is perfect, and being perfect is hard by ourselves.”

I completely agree.  The expected standard is that Catholic priests are to be celibate and to not masturbate.

But as you helpfully said “Nobody is perfect, and being perfect is hard by ourselves”, and so if that standard of non-masturbating celibacy is not met, which of the following choices would you choose:
(A)  Pedophilic priest sex.
(B)  Gay priest sex.
(C)  Fornicating priest sex.
(D)  Masturbating priests.
(E)  None of the above.  Any of the priests who do A-D should resign their priesthood, or if they don’t resign, they should be removed from office by their superior.”

Truth Unites: You are obstinate in your position that masturbation is the solution to fornicating priests. You refuse to accept the Church’s teachings, both from Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That makes you a heretic. You’re intent in causing scandal by continuing to present a sinful alternative to the problem. You claim to have masturbated in seminary “prayerfully, thinking about communion with god”. That is sinful, scandalous, and sacrilegious. For your sake I hope you’re joking in the interest of getting more attention. The priest (in the Latin rite) is married to the Church. He is called to celibacy in imitation of Christ and for the benefit of souls. Formation takes many years so if a seminarian feels that God has not given him the necessary graces to be celibate, or he feels a strong attraction to the married state, he should not be ordained. He should withdraw and lead a fulfilling, holy life as a lay man at the service of the Church (since that was his primary intention in joining the seminary). I invite all readers of this thread to pray for Truth Unites, that he may see the errors of his way. An evil does not fix another evil. Also, never in the history of the Church has a heresy been the solution to a problem in the Church.

I like life without a wife.

bob,
1.  I would have no objection in principle to the idea of married bishops (and neither did St. Paul, St. Timothy, many of the Apostles, the Fathers of the Church and several Popes, so I feel confident I am in good company) were it not for the development of the episcopal office as more than simply the pastor of a local church but now to an administrator of a myriad of parishes, which presbyters functioning as quasi-episcopal heads. A legitimate tradition developed of drawing bishops from the celibate and monastic clergy, and I have no interest in seeing such a practice upended so long as the current model is in place. Such functioning added to the responsibility of pasturing his own Cathedral would surely cause problems for a married man and his family.

2.  Wives of priests and deacons do have an important role in parish life, and are even given titles by the faithful such as Matushka and Pani Matka, meaning “Little Mother.” Their service is often a complement to their husbands and they do often help to care for the needs of women and children in the parish. Not sure why you find this something to make as a point of jesting, but I guess it is something so outside of your own experience I can see why such a thing is difficult to understand at first. There is also a rich tradition especially in the Byzantine East of the Ordos of Widow and Deaconess to help serve the needs of women. These offices were never seen as offices of “ordination to Major Orders” in the modern sense, but they were nonetheless legitimate ministries that flourished. I therefore find nothing strange at all about the notion of someone dedicated to ministering to women. In fact, it was common for the deaconess (who were older single women) to travel with clergy to visit the homes of younger women to ensure nothing scandalous might occur. Perhaps there is something to resurrecting this office after all, in light of the article above…

3.  I am in no way slighting the tradition of the celibacy. I believe that if a man senses the Lord’s call to that form of asceticism in addition to his service in the offices of deacon and then priest, then he should pursue the Lord’s leading with the discernment of the Church and the support of the faithful. Celibacy is a beautiful gift from God and even certainly acknowledge that it is a “higher” calling (not necessarily a holier calling) than marriage, but it is a not a gift given universally as our Lord Himself says in the Gospels. Therefore I will not venerate the mandate of excluding married men (specifically deacons) carte blanche because they are married, although I do believe that more mature married men are more fitting for service in the office of presbyter, rather than younger ones just starting their family. That is a matter of policy, not purely principle although there are certainly worthy principles and spiritual ideals involved, and it is a policy that developed later on across the West. Ireland (God bless the Irish!) was one of the last holdouts and had married priests into the 2nd Millennium.

4.    I think what you are saying reflects the “union with confusion” that I alluded to earlier. Yes, the call to virginity (or celibacy) is to pursue the path to “perfection,” much like the words of Jesus to the rich man “If you wish to be perfect, go and sell all that you have and give it to the poor…and then come and follow me.” No doubt the call to a virginal/celibate life, which should also include the call to poverty in conformity with Christ, is a higher calling of radical asceticism and availability for the sake of the Gospel. (Whether the current exercise of priesthood in the West also embraces the ascetical ideals of poverty is another discussion altogether…) But as Patriarch Maximos indicates, the call to virginal perfection and the call to Office are two distinct calls which have been muddled together, the West opting for a “monastic” model as applied to the office of priest, while the East in an unbroken, continuous tradition since the time of the apostles, allowing for both celibates and married men to serve in the office of presbyter. One could argue that the celibate state is fitting for the priesthood, and I would certainly have no objection. But the married state as well, as affirmed by the Magisterium, can be the vocation of a priest, but with some notable exceptions, that same Magisterium relegates this practice of a married priesthood to the East alone.

5.  As far as mutual respect between our Churches, it is actually historically something of a mixed bag. Rome has in the past seen fit to impose the disciplines of its own sui juris Church (the Latin Church) upon Eastern Churches, and despite the calls of Rome and the Vatican to the contrary in recent years, married priests are still given a hard time by many of their celibate brothers in the West. This is not universally the case. Your suggestion that I brush up on the Western discipline is noble and well intentioned, however, quite unnecessary.  We in the East are more than well aware of the disciplines and teachings of the Latin West, in part because our Churches have undergone lengthy periods of Latinization (the adoption of Western views and practices), from which we are attempting to extract ourselves to rediscover our own traditions. Nevertheless, so great is the Latinization that very few Eastern Catholic bishops are willing to ordain married deacons to the priesthood at least here in the US and Canada. But I will return the suggestion by saying it is a good and worthy thing for every Western Catholic to familiarize himself with the different practices and teachings of the Catholic East. In so doing you will be fulfilling the aspirations of soon to be, God willing, Blessed Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic letter, Orientale Lumen (Light of the East).

6.  You wrote: “Yes the modern life of the lone rector is an aberration. If the Church were to reinstitute medieval canonical life to the priesthood that would be ideal. Unfortunately most of those who are not willing to live a life as a celibate as a Latin priest would also object to such an arrangement. It is more of a spiritual/ formation issue than solely fraternal- evidenced that there is little shame. The disorder is much more serious. Instead of heaven they have another goal and love someone other than our Lord.” All I can say is a hearty Amen! A priest should never be alone. Even St. Benedict talks about the vocation to the solitary life as one of an advanced monastic, and even then, of just a select few. There is great protection and development inherent in a common life, and for a priest, such a community is vital, whether it be the community of a religious or monastic order, a Christian fraternity life in the rectory with other priests or a, in the case of Eastern Catholic and Anglican convert clergy, a family. No priest should ever be alone.

@ Cathy,

You wrote: “Correct me if I’m wrong on this, it is theologically possible for a married man to become a deacon or a priest.  It is theologically impossible for an ordained deacon or priest to get married.”

It is not as much a question of theology, but of canonical tradition rooted in revelation (St. Paul’s letter to St. Timothy re: bishops and priests being men of “one wife.”) Deacons can be dispensed and can remarry if their spouse dies in specific cases if they have younger children, but even then it is a permission that is not given too frequently. The Coptic tradition ordains young men to the diaconate, and then allows them to marry but if they are ordained to the priesthood, they must remain as they are (married or single). You can imagine the terrible confusion and pastoral mess that could come from a priest (or a deacon in the Catholic Church) dating, so there are good reasons for the Church Law. In the Catholic East, once a man is ordained to major orders as a married man, if he becomes a widower, he cannot remarry. Period. Hope that clarifies it…

@ Fr, James - May God bless you in your ministry!

I also do not agree that priests should be celibate; it is in the benefit of the Catholic church that they allow men to marry.  This would allow the priest to connect with families and marriage in a way that benefits the Catholic family.  He can relate to the beauty and blessings of family marriage, it is so unnatural to have made this law.  It only hurts the church, a priest can bring more compassion when he has hes own family and can relate better and understand God’s plan for a families, also when priests are more engaged with others his sermon can better be reflected with his own experience.

I fully agree with you Jimmy 110%!
I was a former dominican priest of 7 years and when I fell in love with a woman, I opted to ask for Vatican dispensation from my religious and priestly vows which I received without any difficulties from Rome. My marriage was blessed by a priest in the absence of witnesses.
I endorse the Church teaching on priestly celibacy.
Keep up writing and God bless you always, Jimmy Akin.

Monica M Arroyo, PhD:  “Truth Unites: You are obstinate in your position that masturbation is the solution to fornicating priests.”

No, I’m not.  I think it’s a possibility to consider.  A possible “solution” to significantly lower the rate of pedophilia, gay sex, and fornication among priests which would allow the Church to both maintain its rule on celibacy and to reduce the great expense and scandal that arises from sexual misconduct by priests.

Another possibility is consider is to remove from office in a timely and decisive manner those priests who engage in pedophilia, gay sex, fornication, or who masturbate.  The expected standard is that priests are celibate and don’t masturbate; the standard must be upheld and enforced.  The resulting difficulty is that this might exacerbate the current shortage of priests.  But then again, that might just be what God’s Perfect Will is for the Church.

There are people who break laws and then try to justify themselves by trying to revoke the laws they broke.  This seems to be the case with the push for married priests, for the push for homosexuals in the priesthood etc. etc.  Mother Theresa would call this spiritual poverty.  Whether priests could be allowed to marry or not they have taken a vow of celibacy.  They will face temptations and those temptations are NOT sins unless they are embraced.  If any of us believe in the grace that Christ opened up for us, we will RUN to confession and confess temptation to sin and receive God’s grace.  There seems to be such a shortsightedness to all these discussions.  People are unhappy, their lives have suffering, they are hurting - and if we would only change the rules everyone could be more at peace, suffer less here and now.  Has everyone forgotten they were not made for the miserable seventy years of life on this earth?  They were made to know, love and serve God on this earth and to be with Him for ETERNITY in the NEXT LIFE!  If he were the focus of the priests lives they would not be looking at women as sex objects but as sisters on the journey.  Both parties would distance themselves from occasions of sin.  This is true of all temptations of every nature.  So many say the lack of vocations is because it’s too hard to be celibate.  The lack of vocations is because of our lack of holiness.  Grace is real.  It makes the difficult easy.  Who is your God and what is He worth to you?

Monica M Arroyo, PhD:  “You claim to have masturbated in seminary “prayerfully, thinking about communion with god”.”

FWIW, that wasn’t me.

While I have some sympathy for these women, I suspect that they are deluding themselves with the idea that, of course their lovers would marry them if it weren’t for the Church’s rule on clerical celibacy.

Mistresses of married men often fall for the same line…“I’d marry you, but I can’t because of the children”,“My wife won’t give me a divorce…” and so on. The fact is, male adulterers are often quite happy to have both a wife and a girlfriend on the side.

These women are wasting their time on men who aren’t available. If they really want to be wives and mothers, they need to drop their clerical adulterers and find men who can actually offer them lives.

You’re right MargaretC. These women are indeed “wasting their time on men who aren’t available and just fooling themselves and the women involved!

Reading all of these posts disturbs me just a bit because they reveal two essential problems. First, no one is willing to deal with the issue behind the issue here of how priests are viewed in the light of this problem. People see celibacy as a sign of following a higher calling, which in my opinion is wrong. A witness to Christ means many things, not just being willing to give up sexual intimacy. (This is noted in many comments of people who have such a high respect for priests which is more than should be given to a normal person, it’s rather unhealthy because we all sacrifice for God by living our lives, and can be taken to be idolatrous.) (There is also an inherent problem in thinking that exercising sexuality by its nature can’t do that because that’s inconsistent with the Theology of the Body and the authentic ascetical tradition.) Celibacy is not the issue here, celibacy is only an apparent fruit which is hiding a bigger problem in how power is used (especially against high-school and college age youth.) My last question in response to this is, “Can we do whatever we want in our teaching just because we believe we’re right?” Your answer to this question will determine the validity of the Spirit’s role in your actions.

Fr. Deacon Daniel, I like your response, but the problem I’m encountering is not an engagement with an authentic ascetic tradition (which I’m briefly familiar with the Desert Fathers and the growth of monasticism by Benedict going to a Benedictine MA program, but don’t have a great knowledge to really speak about it.) but how this tradition is used to take advantage of young people in the conference setting (e.g. think Stubenville conferences, etc.) to convince them that priesthood is a higher calling and cause unnecessary anxiety if they are in a relationship and thinking about marriage, and to persuade more people to join the priesthood (even though they never actually tell people about the statistics that a good number of priests actually leave the priesthood in their first few years of work because of never being told what life is like in an isolated setting. E.g. there are issues with seminary formation, (that it’s too monastic.). As authentic as this tradition is, I really don’t think Jesus wanted people to be manipulated and taken advantage of (especially since a good definition of Love comes from Love and Responsibility which precludes the use of persons in order to have real love (see chp. 1 of Love and Responsibility.)

Monica Arroyo, PhD. I was thinking back to your post where you cited 1 Cor 6:10 and CCC 2346-2359 against masturbation and was a little disturbed by your general citation. The point you make is true for the general idea that masturbation is a grave offense, the problem in your citation comes here. Cited at length “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into acount the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that can lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability. (CCC 2352).” In our feeling threatened by culture, (which I would argue is not always a logical action either) we cannot ignore nuances in the text just because they seem convenient. Jean-Luc Marion in the Erotic Phenomenon (book title) writes about the human desire for assurance over and above the desire for certainty about one’s existence. Not having this assurance in life causes psychological problems because everyone needs that love. (This is no more clear than working in a freshmen dorm as a Resident Assistant and watching the different struggles men have with sexuality. Many have issues with assurance and being affirmed of the good of their existence, and others do want to dominate and take advantage of women who don’t have that.) Masturbation is not a simple black and white issue and your citation of 1 Cor 6:10 is poor at best, because it assumes people are their sins (at least your interpretation of it does). The question becomes is a person doing this sin because they want to, and fully have the capacity to choose whether they want to, or are there deeper hurts which need healing, love, and compassion. (e.g. like the CCC note, psychology becomes extremely important in examining any moral action.)
As to your argument with Truth unites… and Divides, I’m not exactly sure where I stand on that issue because I haven’t studied it enough, but my sense is that I like your argument better there because it’s too simple to think that masturbation will solve the problem of sexual sin in the Church. My own solution would be to treat the priest like a regular person and engage him in the goods of human existence (similar to Cardinal Newman’s vision of the priesthood, given well in this article at newstatesman.com “The Pope, the people and the paedophiles.”

But yes, let’s deal with the real problem as honestly, I haven’t seen anyone engage the real problem seriously (which also might just be the readers of this site too, not wanting to admit there might be a problem of power in the church.) (yes, I do pay attention to biases as well, especially my own in making these comments.) Because in engaging this issue, there is a real ascetic tradition which is often not known to people involved with the issue, but rather what this practice is doing to people and their view of holiness. Until we engage this phenomenon, we’re never going to be to truly meet the existence of others.

What Do Italian Priests’ Mistresses Want You To Know?

Perhaps they want folks to know what a significan segment of Irish and Polish priests are saying.

(1)  “More than 300 diocesan priests across the island of Ireland were asked for their views. Almost three-quarters want the right to marry and have families while many said they suffer profound loneliness and feel depressed because of their isolation.

Most of the priests who favour an end to celibacy believe that allowing priests to marry would encourage more people to join the clergy.

More than half of those who took part in the survey said they favoured the introduction of female priests and would not object to the ordination of openly homosexual clergy.”  (Published in 2004).

(2)  “Majority of Poland’s Catholic priests ‘want end to celibacy’

A survey of Poland’s Catholic priests has shown that a majority favour an end to celibacy, with some admitting they are already in a relationship with a woman.

A survey of over 800 priests carried out by Professor Josef Baniak, a sociologist specialising in religious affairs, found that 53 per cent would like to have a wife, while 12 per cent admitted that they were involved in a relationship. A further 30 per cent said that they had had a sexual relationship with a woman.

His latest research echoes an earlier survey carried out by the Tygodnik Powszechny newspaper. The conservative publication, aimed at Catholic intellectuals, found that as many as 60 per cent of priests wanted the right to marry.

Professor Baniak’s survey, however, has come under fire from the Church. Bishop Wojciech Polak, chairman of the Church’s Vocations Council, described it as “full of generalisations”, adding that he found the “conclusions hard to agree with”.  (Published in 2009).

Afitz211:  “But yes, let’s deal with the real problem as honestly, I haven’t seen anyone engage the real problem seriously ... Because in engaging this issue, there is a real ascetic tradition which is often not known to people involved with the issue, but rather what this practice is doing to people and their view of holiness. Until we engage this phenomenon, we’re never going to be to truly meet the existence of others.”

Wise words.  In honestly engaging the issue of some/many Catholic priests breaking their vows of celibacy and it then becoming both terribly scandalous and expensive for the Roman Catholic Church, not to mention spiritually damaging to the Catholic flock, here are a list of choices:

(a) Do nothing. The current Church teaching on priest practice and discipline is sufficient.

(b) Scrap the celibacy rule. Allow priests to get married. Majority of Catholic laity approve of this.  So do a number of priests.

(c) Keep the celibacy rule. Have a near zero-tolerance policy on priests who engage in pedophilia, who engage in homosexual sex, and who fornicate. Remove them from office. Allow women to become priests to alleviate the shortage of priests.  A significant number of laity and clergy approve of this.

(d) Permit priests to periodically masturbate without feeling or knowing that they are committing a grave sin. The flexing of Catholic dogma on this issue is done with the purpose that such flexibility might douse the sexual fire of some/many priests who might otherwise commit pedophilia, gay sex, or fornicate.

Anyone, what choice would you pick above? Would you pick (a), do nothing? Hope it all goes away, and it’s just a temporary thing? How about (d)?  (c)?  Think that might help. Or do you have your own ideas? Knowing that any suggestion you have will introduce other downstream challenges.

Anyways, with regards to (d), it might be helpful to conduct a large private, anonymous poll of Catholic clergy asking them if they masturbated after they became priests.

And a follow-up question might be: “If you answered yes, that you have masturbated since becoming a priest, have you confessed your sin to another priest in the sacrament of penance?”

And there’d be other questions on the survey to assess priest’s beliefs and conduct on sexual matters.

The survey might show that less than 5% of priests masturbate. And that those who masturbate, none of them, or very few of them, engage in pedophilia, gay sex, or fornicate. This would be helpful to know.

Or the survey might show that over 85% of priests masturbate. And of the priests who masturbate, almost all of them don’t confess their grave sin to another priest. This would be helpful to know.

Or ask them a survey question if they think periodic masturbating will help them and other priests to maintain celibacy if such masturbating could be done without it being guilt-laden. Finding out what percentage of priests believe that would be helpful.

There’s all sorts of potentially helpful information that can be gleaned from polling priests on an intelligently-designed, wide-scale survey on masturbation and other sexual questions.  Such statistical data in addition to prayer might help in setting forward-going policy to address the problems in the Catholic clergy.

@ Fr. Deacon Daniel,

Thank you for the clarification.  I believe that, what many are gleaning here, is that a priest after ordination should or could be allowed to marry, not that a married man should or could be allowed to become a priest.  There are many “Christian” denominations that allow for ordination and marriage and women priests and gay married bishops and abortion and divorce and contraception and probably what ever one might like to believe.  Instead of polling to be more like them, I offer, go ahead-join them, they will vote on many things because they choose the authority of the public and themselves over the authority of Christ.  As for me, I trust the authority of Christ through His Church and I believe all that Holy Mother Church proposes for my belief.  I don’t get a vote, cool!  I choose to follow, thank God!

In the past,. even popes have made some serious errors. You might want to reasd Scotos “Joan of Arc..So I never follow blindly. I do trust Benedict XVI, and believe him to be the wisest and most intelligent man who has ever lived..as well as fully capable of being the representative of Our Blessed Lord..but if I did not agree with him, I would not hesitate to openly disagree.

Mia Archer:  “but if I did not agree with him, I would not hesitate to openly disagree.”

The Italian priests’ mistresses heartily agree with you.  They did not hesitate to openly express their disagreement on clerical celibacy in their letter to Pope BXVI.

Why aren’t we discussing the “elephant in the living room” - obedience (and trust), as Jesus gave to His Father, as we are to give to the magisterium?  Why are we trying to argue for OR against celibacy?  At this time in our Roman Catholic Church, celibacy is the expectation for our priests, chastity to our state in life is the expectation for all.  A bit more self-discipline and submission to the will of God for our state in life is what is needed.  In case you’ve forgotten, IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU - it’s about fulfilling the plan God has for you in the big picture of the salvation of souls.

The “elephant in the room” is the lack of ecclesial discipline upon priests who don’t model obedience to Church teaching.

Besides, it’s not just Italian priests who have mistresses.

“For Laclau, the solution is more sexual honesty among the clergy.

“I thought I was one of the very few (priests) to have a love life. I slowly discovered how numerous we are,” he said.

Groups around Europe have sprung up to bring together people like him, from the Belgium-based Married Priests association to a group called Plein Jour, or Light of Day, which includes some 150 Frenchwomen who live with priests.

Many have borne the priests’ children. Many maintain a low public profile, but seek solace in sharing their stories with other women who have lived the same “suffering, silence, sacrifice,” said the group’s director, Dominique Venturini.”

From:  here.

Truth Unites and divides..GET the message straight..I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH BENEDICT..The mistresses are wrong in their appeal. I disagree with the mistresses. Do not abuse what I say, and twist it for your own purposes..What would you live with a man who would not give up his profession for you..?
Perversion..That’s all. Handy sex for nit-wits..!

Mia Archer, I know you didn’t disagree with Pope BXVI.  You said that if you did not agree with him (on whatever issue), you would not hesitate to openly disagree with him.  That’s what the Italian priests’ mistresses did.  That’s all.

Like you, I disagree with the mistresses too.  But the priests know better.  And they are to be held to a higher standard.  And I also said that the “elephant in the room” that really needs to be addressed and discussed is the lack of ecclesial discipline upon priests who don’t model obedience to Church teaching for the benefit of themselves and their flock.

No. Loud and clear. The mistresses want something for themselves..for the good of no one. The have a LOT of nerve to even try go open up any discussion with the pope. Their behavior does not merit disagreement. YOU better believe that IF I were to disagree with ANY pope..it would merit the discussion.

And by the way..BOTH the priests and the women know better..both are equally responsible. Their open flaunting of their indecent and immodest behaviors, plus their presumptuous pretense is disgusting. And is nothing more than that. Will they all be married at one Nuptial Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica..? Have you heard.? Of course, the Holy Father himself will Be the celebrant….But..don’t hold your breath..!
Aside from that..what did they want..? Maybe the Pope could ask pigs to fly..just for them..?

“The have a LOT of nerve to even try go open up any discussion with the pope.”

Sure they did.  At least they have the nerve.  But what about the nerve, or the lack of a nerve, by the non-celibate priests who are skulking around in the dark?  What about their vows and priestly obligations?  What about any of the superiors of these priests who knew about their priest’s dalliances with their mistresses and didn’t do anything about it?  What about them?

The “elephant in the room” that really needs to be addressed and discussed is the lack of ecclesial discipline upon priests who don’t model obedience to Church teaching (in egregious and grievious ways) for the benefit of themselves and their flock.

The majesterium WIll NEVER ..I hope..move in sudden angry retaliation.
Because every peasant does not grasp what they do, does not indicate that nothing is being done. here has already been far too much assinine psychological projection leveled at the Church.
Maybe you would like to be Pope. Of course, YOU could solve all of these things quite easily…and immediately..!

And it isn’t the priests, you notice, who are asking for the change in marital status…

What Do Italian Priests’ Mistresses Want You To Know?

Maybe what this American mistress wants people to know:

“With three small children and her marriage in trouble, Pat Bond attended a spirituality retreat for Roman Catholic women in Illinois 26 years ago in hopes of finding support and comfort.

What Ms. Bond found was a priest — a dynamic, handsome Franciscan friar in a brown robe — who was serving as the spiritual director for the retreat and agreed to begin counseling her on her marriage. One day, she said, as she was leaving the priest’s parlor, he pulled her aside for a passionate kiss.

Ms. Bond separated from her husband, and for the next five years she and the priest, the Rev. Henry Willenborg, carried on an intimate relationship, according to interviews and court documents. In public, they were both leaders in their Catholic community in Quincy, Ill. In private they functioned like a married couple, sharing a bed, meals, movie nights and vacations with the children.

Eventually they had a son, setting off a series of legal battles as Ms. Bond repeatedly petitioned the church for child support. The Franciscans acquiesced, with the stipulation that she sign a confidentiality agreement. It is now an agreement she is willing to break as both she and her child, Nathan Halbach, 22, are battling cancer.

With little to lose, they are eager to tell their stories: the mother, a once-faithful Catholic who says the church protected a philandering priest and treated her as a legal adversary, and the son, about what it was like to grow up knowing his absentee father was a priest.”

The story can be read at “A Mother, a Sick Son and His Father, the Priest.”

It is certainly ashame and good that in this Year of the Priest that so much has come to the Vatican’s attention and the laity.  Do any of you believe that this is also the work of Satan looking to destroy the priesthood?  Yes, both priest and female parishioner/mistress certainly know better.  It would be better for the priest to ask to be laicized than to continue to sin and to cause scandal.  It is a surprise to me that the priests are not following their Italian mistresses with a followup letter to Pope Benedict XVI.  Satan uses pornography and sexual infidelity as wonderful tools to destroy marriages and even the priesthood.  I have not read any comments in regards to praying for priests but so many saying that they would welcome a married priest.  Really?!  If your priest was married do think you would be as close to him as you are now or continue to have him over for dinner if he were married?  Do the women who have responded, do you think that you are going to be friends with the priest’s wife if they were allowed to get married?  Try speaking to the wife of a Protestant minister and asking her about her life.  Many are told not to even be step inside their husbands church or be active due to much criticism.  Do any of you know how high the divorce rate is among Protestant clergy who are married?  Do you know what percentage of the wives of Protestant clergy who divorce end up in psychological counseling due to feelings of inadequacy and withdrawn attention?  Do any of you know how many protestant ministers in your own town have had sexual affairs with their own congregation?  The topic at hand is about priests and mistresses. . .grown adults who look to live sinful lives and cause scandal.  If I knew a priest who was having an affair I would advise him to go stop it immediately, speak with his spiritual director, and ask for a new assignment and some time away for some spirtual refreshment to see if he really wishes to remain a priest.

Truth Unites.Well..How sad for the boy. It sounds like dad got a good deal out of it. I wonder what that order was thinking that they protected him the way they did..? He got another young and foolish gal to victimize . And mom had 2 or 3 more husbands..so she made a little geetus..But remember..It isn’t “the Church”..it’s the behavior of individuals. Is Satan responsible..? Do they face Hell.? Well..Gd probably would not like to deal with all of the letters he would get from them..and requests to change the rules..and the wheel tat turns the cosmos is prbably too big for them to manage. I doubt that they would like it in Heaven anyway…AND Hell ain’t half full…..

Your article showed compassion for these foolish creatures and wisdom in identifying the elephant in the room that no one seems to ackonwledge any more and that is the reality of sin and the necessity of recognising one’s own sinful state rather than trying to rationalise it.
Every mistress betrays another person.In the case of a normal marriage she betrays another woman. In the case of a relationship with a priest she betrays the Bride of Christ. It is all adultery which as I recall Jesus did acknowledge as a sin when He told the woman caught in adultery and dragged before Him to go and sin no more.
In adultery two people sin and hurt a third party.I know it can be heart breakingly difficult for some souls but giving in to temptation is never the answer.When tempted they need to flee to the arms of Our Blessed Mother and if possible move to a different job or location to help avoid the occasion of sin.

Jimmy,
Melanee and I are astounded.  Did you notice that this mistress is a dead ringer for St. Therese?  I put their photos side by side.
I cannot paste it in this email but you should look.
Perhaps someone already told you.
Blessings,
Lonnie (was sorensen)

Truth Unites:”(d) Permit priests to periodically masturbate without feeling or knowing that they are committing a grave sin. The flexing of Catholic dogma on this issue is done with the purpose that such flexibility might douse the sexual fire of some/many priests who might otherwise commit pedophilia, gay sex, or fornicate.”

This option WILL NEVER HAPPEN because masturbation is a clearly defined sin and God Himself killed Onan for committing it in the Bible. It is not permissible for ANYONE to masturbate. Catholic Dogmas ARE NOT FLEXIBLE AND ARE UNCHANGEABLE. That’s what a dogma is!!! You have a poor understanding of this concept.

Anyone who masturbates, even a priest, will feel guilty and must go to confession. They will feel better after confessing their sin and receiving God’s forgiveness and receiving Christ in the Eucharist and His grace to fight temptations. This is the only cure. People seem to have a hard time believing that sexual urges can be overcome. As someone who once looked at pornography very frequently I can attest that it is possible to change and control yourself and avoid temptations and be a far better person than you ever were before! There are many living today that are proof of that! Your suggestions are led by a deception that committing lesser sins is better than committing greater sins and will help avoid greater sins. But this is never the case. Frequently committing lesser sins puts you more at risk of giving into larger sins. Pornography and masturbation habits are found in great abundance in sexual offenders and rapists.

The devil always presents a choice between two sins. Commit a greater one or a lesser one. Most think that committing a lesser one is a moral obligation, but the devil doesn’t care if you don’t commit a graver sin, he’s already got you with just a smaller one. What people need to do is look past the deception and recognize the third choice, to not commit either and stay on the straight path following God’s will.

And with that said there is another option that you ignore Truth Unites…

And that’s :

F) None of the Above. Any priest caught doing anything will have their fate left up to the proper judgment of their superiors based on the severity of their actions. Options open to them are the possibility that they can repent and reform themselves and become better priests, or that the situation or crimes are so dire with too much risk to continue letting them remain priests and thus they leave the priesthood.

The Apostles were not perfect either. Even St. Paul complained that God left a ‘thorn in his side’ that plagued him throughout his life, but this helped him become stronger and find strength in his weaknesses because it constantly helped him realize how much he needed God’s graces poured out for him.

Johnno:  “It is not permissible for ANYONE to masturbate.”

Okay.  Let’s eliminate that one.  Here are some other options:

(a) Do nothing. The current Church teaching on priest practice and discipline is sufficient.

(b) Scrap the celibacy rule. Allow priests to get married. Majority of Catholic laity approve of this.  So do a number of priests.

(c) Keep the celibacy rule. Have a near zero-tolerance policy on priests who engage in pedophilia, who engage in homosexual sex, who fornicate, and/or who can’t or won’t stop masturbating. Remove them from office. The expected standard of celibacy and no masturbation has to be upheld and enforced. 

(d)  Allow women to become priests to alleviate the anticipated shortage of priests.  A significant number of laity and clergy approve of this.

Any other suggestions?

Johnno:  “Any priest caught doing anything will have their fate left up to the proper judgment of their superiors based on the severity of their actions. Options open to them are the possibility that they can repent and reform themselves and become better priests, or that the situation or crimes are so dire with too much risk to continue letting them remain priests and thus they leave the priesthood.”

With respect to the “proper judgment of their superiors” Mia Archer wrote:  “I wonder what that order was thinking that they protected him the way they did..?” with regards to Rev. Henry Willenborg in A Mother, a Sick Son and His Father, the Priest.  The point being that a priest’s superiors don’t always exercise “proper judgment”, and in fact they sometimes actually become complicit and morally culpable for the ongoing sexual misconduct of an unrepentant priest. 

What you’ve really suggested is option (a): Do nothing. The current Church teaching and enforcement on priest practice and discipline is sufficient.

Johnno:  “Any priest caught doing anything will have their fate left up to the proper judgment of their superiors based on the severity of their actions.”

The unspoken assumption in Johnno’s statement is that the priest’s superiors will exercise “proper judgment.”  This assumption is all too frequently faulty.  Far too often, the priest’s superiors have actually exercised improper judgment on what to do with a rogue priest.  (Look at how many millions of dollars have been paid out in legal lawsuits because of the many victims who wouldn’t have been victims if those priests were removed from office as soon as their grave sexual misconduct was discovered and established.)

As I wrote above:  The “elephant in the room” that really needs to be addressed and discussed is the lack of ecclesial discipline upon priests who don’t model obedience to Church teaching (in egregious and grievious ways) for the benefit of themselves and their flock.

I.e., is the Catholic hierarchy committing the sin of omission by failing to discipline unrepentant priests in a timely and effective manner?

Well said, particularly your closing paragraphs. Life is all about choices and too many of us want everything and think we are entitled to everything.

Johnno..frieno..as I have said before..Screw your head on straight..and STOP misquoting me..! Period. I am doing what no one else is doing.I guess..I AM CALLING AND CONFRONTING..THE PRIEST..HIS SUPERIOR..AND..then and only then ..I may make a statement. BUT..The responsibility is on the priest and his girl friend. I don’t know, yet, who he lied to or who really knew. I intend to know more in a few days..Of course I believe SOMEONE knew…and someone should have stirred.. BIG TIME..THAT is all I have said..PERIOD..Loud and clear, nows..? I don’t especially like people who talk a lot and don’t DO..!

Well said, Mr. Akin

Sometimes people makes unfortunate choices. Even if we consider the celibacy rules should be relaxed, there is no justification for claiming to be a victim of the Church while cheating the said rules. But then again: those without sin should throw the first stone.

Truth Unites…

(a) Do nothing. The current Church teaching on priest practice and discipline is sufficient.

- The current Church teaching and practice and discipline for priests is sufficient and has been so for the past 200 years. The problem is that in this particular time and age a few men have failed and people like you make blanket statements about all priests and their superiors. My position earlier was NOT to ‘do nothing.’ You are illogically putting words in my mouth. My position is that the superiors of priests continue to DO SOMETHING. The reason we are in this debacle is because they DID NOTHING as you suggest. You have warped my point to mean something it did not. Throughout Church Histoy there are plenty of examples of superiors who did do their jobs and upheld the Church’s discipline. I’m supposed to ignore 99% of these for a few cases like this? You do a great injustice by making blanket statements of all priests and superiors. Your points below also reflect this.

(b) Scrap the celibacy rule. Allow priests to get married. Majority of Catholic laity approve of this.  So do a number of priests.
- The majority of Catholic laity do not approve of this. You are lying. The majority of priests according to polls are also quite happy with their vocation. The celibacy rule has great applications that I have already explained earlier. By depriving the body of natural inclinations helps t discipline oneself, be an example for others by showing that you can indeed live celibately and encourage them to treat sexuality with care and not be ruled by instincts proper to those of an animal. And also to suffer with Christ and be a part of the work of salvation.

(c) Keep the celibacy rule. Have a near zero-tolerance policy on priests who engage in pedophilia, who engage in homosexual sex, who fornicate, and/or who can’t or won’t stop masturbating. Remove them from office. The expected standard of celibacy and no masturbation has to be upheld and enforced. 
- This I agree with to an extent. But we as the Church must also keep in mind that we are called to forgive and also to hope for the reform of priests who have fallen. In cases of pedophilia, it is a crime and they should be in jail. Others must either reform or if their situation is so dire that they cannot be reformed or at a great risk of collapsing and causing further scandal, then they must be laicised. Of course other disciplinary punishments of removing them from certain positions is also part of that. It is a difficult thing to discern, mistakes and errors in judgment will happen, as they’ve always happened throughout history. This is unavoidable. But the Church’s record is the best in the world for an institution of its size for dealing with this. Most other institutions get away with far worse and nobody bats an eyelid. In terms of masturbation, which does not hurt anyone else but the priest who indulges in it, this is remedied by the Sacrament of Confession. It is unreasonable to suggest that a priest be removed from office because of masturbation. No human being is perfect. Masturbation would only be a problem if the priest does not believe it is a sin and advocates it.

(d)  Allow women to become priests to alleviate the anticipated shortage of priests.  A significant number of laity and clergy approve of this.
- This is impossible. God has only allowed the supernatural role of the priesthood for men and it can only be passed on to men. This cannot be changed except by God Himself who wants strict roles between men and women and their particular gifts to be observed and respected. To ask for a woman to become a priest is like asking for a man to become pregnant. And no, the number of laity and clergy who agree with this is an exceedingly small but vocal minority which includes those who are ignorant about their faith. The remainder are those who are outside the faith or who do not practice their faith but see it as some issue of women’s equality that can be changed democratically, when the priesthood is a divine institution given by God that cannot be changed from what He has defined it to be.

Mia Archer ...
When did I misqoute you? I tihnk you mixed me up with someone else…

Johnno:  “The reason we are in this debacle is because they DID NOTHING as you suggest.”

This independent Catholic news source agrees with you in their article “Abuse crisis is actually a hierarchy crisis.”

Excerpts:

The sex abuse crisis is not fundamentally about sex. The phrase is a convenient tag that has been applied to a deeper, ongoing problem that, at its core, has to do with power and authority and how it is used in the church.

The sex abuse crisis is actually a hierarchy crisis, it is a crisis of a culture that can no longer maintain its superiority by dint of office or by claim of some ontological difference from the rest of humankind. The overwhelming evidence shows that from parish priest to pope, those charged with protecting the community, on hearing that children were being sexually abused, acted first to protect the institutional church.

One need not look outside the confines of the community for causes. It is beyond dispute now, as reporting of the crisis spreads worldwide, that the bishops used the secrecy of their privileged culture, the trust that those within the church and even the wider society conferred on them, as well as the labyrinthine and hidden protocols of their culture to shuffle offending priests and to avoid scrutiny by civil authorities.

The bishops’ strategy grew out of a model of governance owing more to the concept of royalty and to court behavior than to the demands of the Gospel. The royal model admits no wrong, requires absolute loyalty and is accountable to no one. Compassion has little place in the prince’s world.”

Johnno:  “The majority of Catholic laity do not approve of this. You are lying.”

No, I’m not.  Look at this recent poll in Germany:

“Yet a massive 81 percent believed celibacy for priests should be abolished, compared with just 12 percent who believed it should be kept.”

The poll of more than 1,000 Catholics by the Forsa Institute published by daily Bild, found 23 percent of Church members said they were thinking of leaving.

Even among those who described themselves as devout, 19 percent were considering walking away, the poll found.

The findings come as the Church faces its gravest crisis of modern times, with decades-old claims of child sexual abuse by priests surfacing in Germany and around the world. The scandal has this week forced the resignation of Augsburg Bishop Walter Mixa, who was accused of beating children at an orphanage, though not of sexual abuse.

At the heart of the anger is the belief that the Church is not handling the child abuse affair openly. Just 16 percent of Catholics polled said they believed Church leaders were dealing with the abuse crisis transparently, compared with 77 percent who said it was not transparent.”

Great commentary!

I’m sick of hearing things like “It’s a manmade rule so priests should be allowed to marry.”  Such a statement is so worldly and faithless. It totally forgets Christ’s example, exhortation, and St. Paul’s.

And this present case totally glosses over the fact that the priest has made a public promise of celibacy before his sacrilegious fornications.  A married man might find a nice girl at work, but he has to be faithful to his public promise to his wife.
These priests are wrong because they knew they did not belong to themselves and so could not offer these women the legitimacy of a public commitment because of their prior one.  These women are wrong to blame the Church rather than themselves and the priests whose concubines they willingly became. 

It may be that the Church can change the law whereby a priest must make a public promise of celibacy before ordination, but can it annul his sacred promise after it has already been made?  This is a serious issue with large ramifications.  It is trite and shows the mind of the flesh to be so dismissive about the sacredness of celibacy.  If sacred commitments can be annulled on a whim, what about non-sacred ones.  I mean, I don’t like stopping for red lights so, even though I’ve made a contract to do so when I got my driver’s license, perhaps I should be exempt.

To Deacon Daniel

You are mistaken in you evaluation of Latin parish finances, especially when the parish has the responsibility for a parochial school.

Moreover, having one family in the rectory of a large parish would give the one priest no time.  Either he’d have to reduce parish liturgies and programs or live in an unhealthy relational way by not spending time with his family.  St. Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 7 is dead on accurate.
Latin parishes have Masses EVERY DAY - usually more than one.  That does not include funerals and devotions.  And during the week there are also wedding preparation interviews, baptismal prep interviews, nursing home and hospital visits, catechism classes, etc. 
No offense, but Eastern clergy just don’t have the number of faithful to take care of to understand the business of a large Latin parish. 

And just having extra rooms in a rectory won’t mean more families can live there.  Individual families need private space.  And if priests can fall for unmarried women, won’t there be temptation with regard to the other priest’s wife living under the same roof?  And how will two wives of two priests get along in one house?

Finally, priests having families does hamper the missionary nature of the priesthood.  It is no surprise that historically missionaries have been celibate.  One of the reasons the Latin Church is so widespread is the freedom that comes with celibacy.  I always marvel that Czarist Russia had Siberia for so long, but made such a little dent in evangelizing the people who still cling to animism.  Perhaps caesaropapism is part of the problem.  But, certainly the other issue was that priests with families were understandably reluctant to venture out for the Gospel.

I believe that all of the Catholics who do not like what the church does, need to exit. Right now. Today. They can’t get their rear ends out of the pews fast enough as far as I am concerned. Goodbye, all of you…Don’t let the door hit you in the rear end..!

Bruce,

My conclusions are not false, but perhaps not universally applicable to every Latin parish. I have some familiarity with the working of some Latin parish finances…in quite a few cases, the total comp package (housing, utilities, groceries, stipends, etc etc) for some celibates I know is between $75-100K. Again, not in every case, but it can work in many places financially.

I am not advocating for a single, married priest serving alone at a large parish. Inevitably by opening up the priesthood to married deacons, you would increase - not decrease - the number of available ministers. (More hands and feet…)

St. Paul’s exhortation to St. Timothy in 1 Timothy 3:1-12 is also dead on accurate - a man’s family is a good indicator of his worthiness for service in the Family of God. We cannot pick and choose passages that are inspired by the holy Spirit and authoritative.

Smaller Eastern Catholic parishes have suffered from the unfortunate piracy of their faithful by the Latin clergy through their Catholic school programs over generations, not to mention the injustices Rome and the Latin hierarchy perpetrated on our churches in the early and mid-20th centuries by imposing priestly celibacy, which caused the faithful to leave for Orthodoxy.

I never suggested two women should share a kitchen… :-)

Your conclusion about hampering is false. I know married priests who are more missionary in their spirit than some celibates. Pampering probably does more damage to the missionary spirit of a priest, and I know of no married priest who is pampered. No Pani worth her salt would tolerate such a thing along with other behaviors wher instant feedback would be a gurantee.

If you want to read the life of a missionary Russian priest who was married, read St. john of Kronstadt. Many worthy, heroic noble priests were also missionaries. The recent martyr, Fr. Daniel in Moscow at the hands of Muslim, also a married guy. Historically the examples do abound…

I think ultimately the issue is you don’t want married priests and that’s ok. I certainly would never attack celibacy, since I believe it is a noble vocation. I do think ordaining deacons of mature age with mature families would cause no harm to anything financial or pastoral in any Latin parish, with or without a school. Heck - you wouldn’t even need to pay him! I do think it would make some celibate priests - not all - uncomfortable.

“I believe that all of the Catholics who do not like what the church does, need to exit. Right now. Today. They can’t get their rear ends out of the pews fast enough as far as I am concerned. Goodbye, all of you…Don’t let the door hit you in the rear end..! “

Mia,

Do you mean to say that a faithful, devout Catholic who believes in every dogmatic teaching the Church affirms in faith and morals and yet disagree with whether or not married men should be considered for the priesthood universally (as it is done in the other 21 other Churches in the Catholic Church but not in the Latin Church) that such a person should leave?

What amazes me is when people elevate particular law of a single Church to the level of dogma.

If you intend to say that those who actively oppose Church dogmatic teaching on specific issues should leave, I might be more sympathetic to your point…

It’s the old “Coulda woulda, Shoulda” game..If they want to leave because they don’t like it..they need to do it..PERIOD..! Dogma, schmogma..They are just schlepping along. anyway. Who do they think the Holy Father is…Santa Claus…?

The issue should not be clouded by arguments re celibacy etcetera. If Jesus wants the Church to change its rules re celibacy it will eventually happen in God’s own time if not it will never happen
Celibacy has nothing to do with the plight of this young woman. Adultery is being sexually intimate with someone outside the bonds of sacramental marriage. There have been couples who have found themselves drawn together and one or both have applied to be dispensed from their religious vows and then later been married They were patient and chaste and let the Holy Spirit work in their lives. However to knowingly become sexually involved with a priest is akin to adultery and is never right no matter what “story” that priest spins to the foolish woman involved.
I will be praying for these foolish women and the weak selfish men they have become involved with .It is a source of such bad example to all.

What these ladies do not seem to understand is that celibacy is an incredible gift to these men and to the Church. Why? Because if frees their hearts and minds and bodies to serve and love God’s people. It expands their capacity to love because now these men can have a heart for everyone because they are not attached to one person. These women would do the Church a great favor to remove themselves from the presence of these men and instead of fostering a romantic relationship, they should pray for these priests. If these women *really* loved their priests, they would let these men go and pray that they be holy and dedicated priests. Fostering a romantic relationship with them is a selfish desire, even if well intended. And it is sinful. These men are called by Christ, to give themselves fully to love and serve his people. If they are called to be other Christs, which they are, then they have to live like Christ did, in a celibate state, giving himself to all. And if it the priest pursuing the relationship they these women have the obligation to deny the priest this relationship, and once again, pray for them. Celibacy is a treasure for all of us. It really does prove that God’s LOVE is real, because only something so great can lead a person to give their entire lives in response to it. Celibacy shows that our true happiness is in Heaven, in that union with God, a union that goes above and beyond any earthly relationships.

”Celibacy is a problem for the pope because it is a fundamental means of controlling a homo-social clergy and also in practice it is not a well-observed discipline.

Celibacy is the requirement that a man promise or vow “perfect and perpetual chastity” before he can be ordained a priest. The subject has been in dispute and disrepute for centuries. Mandated celibacy of clerics has vital connections with the problem of sexual abuse of minors within the clerical system. It is not a neutral psychosexual element.

Clerical culture provides fertile ground for the abuse of power and privilege. Celibate practice lags far behind the ideal of perfect and perpetual chastity.

At any one time no more than fifty percent of priests are practicing celibacy. Some men within this circle of influence and atmosphere will inevitably become abusers. History has proven it.

Studies, usually self-survey, protest that “priests are the happiest men” in America. Huge proportions respond that they are “satisfied” with celibacy and would seek ordination again. But these attempts to prove that priests keep celibacy ask and say nothing about sexual behavior. Certainly some priests are happy because they have “ministry with privileges.”

Secrecy (the scarlet bond) within the Catholic clerical system is the cornerstone of the social construct of clerical celibacy and its violation. The reverence accorded sacramental confession is stretched beyond all reason to cover and justify known clerical sexual violations and liaisons.

Mandated celibacy is the capstone of clerical power. The power structure of the Catholic clerical elite has done all it could to keep the abuse of minors a secret and to deflect blame outward. The fight to protect the power system persists in the church’s violent and irrational opposition against the dissolution of statute of limitations for crimes of abuse.

Pope Benedict invoked the name of St. Peter Damian, patron of church reform, when dedicated 2009 as the “Year of the Priest.” Yet he failed to acknowledge in any way that Peter Damian pointed out in no uncertain terms the violations of celibacy by clergy: concubinage, but even more strikingly the sexual plague of priests abusing boys and young clerics.

Damian recommended zero tolerance for any cleric who abused a minor. This was in 1049. He also invoked the sanctions violators recommended by the council of Ancyra (314) namely: “Any cleric or monk who seduces young men or boys, or who is apprehended in kissing or in any shameful situation, shall be publicly flogged and shall lose his clerical tonsure. Thus shorn, he shall be disgraced by spitting in his face, bound in iron chains, wasted by six months of close confinement, and for three days each week put on barley bread given him toward evening. Following this period, he shall spend a further six months living in a small segregated courtyard in custody of a spiritual elder, kept busy with manual labor and prayer, subjected to vigils and prayers, forced to walk at all times in the company of two spiritual brothers, never again allowed to associate with young men.”

Clergy simply are not taught celibacy. The religious system is deficient and inadequate to meet the demands of celibate/sexual knowledge and practice today. The seminary system established at Trent (1543-65) wherein the monastic-like daily schedule and the mentorship of a spiritual director were intended to form the man in celibate commitment is no longer serviceable.

The faculties are not psychosexually mature enough, and at times even lax and seductive. The demands of modern ministry are beyond the scope of anything offered in any seminary. Jesuit John L. Thomas said that a priest should know everything there is to know about sexuality short of experience.

Beyond those deficiencies are the crippling effects of sexual doctrine and discipline that are not credible. The seminary system sets men up to lead double lives or worse to develop sociopathic personalities that adapt and operate well in the clerical power structure.”

It all comes down to fidelity.

These priests took VOWS to remain celibate, yet they have taken the opportunity to break those vows.

I really think that allowing them to marry would make no difference. If they cheated on the Lord and any vow they made to him and his Church, they will certainly cheat on a woman they marry.

This is OLD news…. sadly.

If all these priests had been married Catholic priests, I really think that we would just be seeing Jimmy write a blog about how even the married priests are CHEATING ON THEIR WIVES.

If these scoundrels can cheat on God, they will certainly cheat on women they marry.

What a sad tale of fallen humans who have been given SO MUCH!

Much is expected from them, and they need conversion and repentance.

Truth Unites, your points do not hold water, because the married Protestant clergy experience infidelity on a grand scale.

If marriage was the answer, then 50% of Americans would be divorced right now,and many of them because of infidelity.

I thought that this was interesting, and quite relevant:

Feature - Ukrainian priests’ unique status

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=21627

Published: June 01, 2010

There’s one nation where the Catholic Church has so far avoided scandal. It’s in Ukraine, where millions follow the Greek Catholic Church, a unique branch of Catholicism, which is loyal to Rome and the Pope but with one major difference.

Its priests are allowed to marry and have families and its followers say that makes all the difference, reports the ABC’S Moscow correspondent Norman Hermant.

It’s a scene that plays out all over Ukraine every afternoon. The kids are rounded up for tea and the family gathers around the kitchen table. All part of everyday life here. It’s also not unusual that the father is a priest, a Catholic priest.

Oleg Panchinyak is ordained in the Greek Catholic Church. It has never mandated celibacy for its clergy and, says Father Oleg, that makes him a better priest.

“Certainly it’s easier for our congregation to deal with me. I can give replies to their questions. I understand what it means to serve in the family and what it means to serve in the Church.”

Father Oleg’s tiny church has been built amidst the sprawling apartment blocks outside Kiev. He leads traditional Greek Catholic services in a church loyal to the Pope in Rome but with many similarities to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Priests have the choice to marry and the congregation thinks that’s the way it should be.

A female congregation member says: “A family is a continuation of human procreation if one follows the dogma of the Roman Catholic religion there is, in general, no continuation of humanity, the key of everything alive on the earth.”

Despite the apparent conflict over celibacy, the Vatican has allowed this church to follow its own practices. Father Oleg’s congregation may be small but as this Cathedral, under construction, shows this is not a small church.

Greek Catholicism is the dominant religion in the far west of Ukraine and its followers can be found all over the world. In this country alone it’s believed about six million people are Greek Catholics.

And, as a church spokesman explains, the sexual abuse scandals that have rocked Catholic churches elsewhere have been absent here.

FULL STORY in the link below “Unique Ukrainian priests escape scandal” (ABC Lateline)
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2911577.htm

Michelle: How on earth do you prove that not having sexual intercourse allows one to love more fully? (which is what you are implicitly saying in your argument.) There is nothing in your argument that proves that, and matter of fact, I’d argue a lot of the time the opposite is true. In any phenomenological love, there is an attachment to one person which grows and spreads to others, because love by definition needs an other. Without this attachment, there is no love. Now you’ll respond something like, well loving God wholeheartedly allows the priest to love others because the priest is married to God, but the problem with that argument is that God does not function as the same kind of limited 1 person level. Love can be fostered with God in 1’s, 2’s and groups, and as we see it, it’s all the same, though manifested differently, it’s still love. A priest does not have more love for God than a lay person by nature of being a priest, (phenomenologically we don’t see that, and God would not be God if we thought because then he’s favoring certain people by giving more love to someone because of a status (which many argue is something other than human with the ontological change of the priest.)

Truth Unites… I like what you’re doing with your post. Your response about Damien is extremely informative and something I learned today. Also, you’re feeling things (which in any intellectual argument is essential because we feel), but you’re also applying the Tradition, teaching and experience to your argument, so well argued. I don’t know enough survey information to cite the problems in seminaries or enough about Damien to really comment, but it would not surprise me if this is at least partially true, though I’d like to reserve judgment until I would see a good study on this issue put forth. (because we all know there are a lot of biased surveys out there which use bad methods in order to accomplish their agendas.) My only real challenge to you is asking, what does really mean when we observe all these problems, and where do we go from here at this discussion? I don’t agree with Damien’s recommendation (I think we can find a more humane way to deal with priests who have chosen to rape, act in paedophilia, etc. though to be honest, I also need to study more psychology to really understand this problem deeper.)

One last comment as a whole, we all feel a lot of things, especially because this is a hot-button issue, but we have to engage these topics on something other than base feeling. Base feeling is what people in power want. When we think about base feelings then we don’t react to deeper problems which might present themselves because we’re stuck at emotion and defending the Church at all costs, but as I’ve learned, sometimes defending the Church means asking the hard questions and looking for what’s really there.

Adam

As you said He did ... exactly WHERE in the Scriptures did ...: “Jesus himself recommended it in the Gospels, though he noted that it was not a gift given to everyone.”

Adam, thanks for your comment and for the opportunity to respond.

In our cynical and sexually saturated culture it is almost impossible for our limited human minds to imagine that one can fully love without giving oneself to another sexually. And it is even more impossible to believe that you can find greater fulfillment in celibate love than in sexual love. How can that be possible? But the truth is that you can give yourself fully to another, out of love, without doing it in a sexual manner, and experience a greater union with that person as a result. It is a love that transcends the human plane, and reaches the spiritual plane. Is that not what Christ did on the cross?

Celibacy is a gift and a grace. Therefore being a grace means that the strength to live it comes solely from Christ himself. Celibacy is the way God loves, and it is the way Christ loved us as well. Did Christ prove his deep intense and passionate love by having intercourse with each and every human being? No. He did it by offering himself on the cross, all of himself. And this is what a priest, an alter Christus, is called to do: give his life, all of it - mind, body and faculties - for his people. In doing so, he will experience great fulfilment and love for his people

Yes, you are right, love by definition needs another, God created us to love. But there are many ways to love. Sexually is one way, and serving is another way. That is why we cannot live in a vacuum. But some he calls to love in the married state, some he calls to love in a celibate state. So, depending on your vocation, you will receive the grace to live out that love in a different way. And in order to receive the grace you have to remain close to Christ. God is all one needs for those called to live in the celibate state.

You are right again: A priest does not have more love for God than a lay person by nature of being a priest. However, a priest (and any consecrated religious, male or female) does have a closer union with God by the nature of his call, therefore he will experience greater and closer union with Christ and will then experience greater love in his soul. And in turn, he will find ways to share that love with his people, in a nonsexual way, by giving himself fully to his people, in a non-sexual way.  God is all one needs for those called to live in the celibate state.

You ask me how can I prove it. Read the lives of the saints. Read Theology of the Body. Sit down and talk to a priest who is beaming with love for his people a passionate about serving them (I know more than a few). You have to see it to know it. I have seen it, so I know it.

Sex is one of the most beautiful expressions of love God created. I am sure we are in total agreement on that. However, being a expression, it will always fall short of the true real source. The real true fulfilment will come from loving God face to face, in grater union with him (through prayer, sacraments, and a life of service). And those that have been called to the priesthood or the religious life, by the grace of their call, have the privilege to experience that deeper union with Christ. The more the priest serves his people and gives of himself, the greater union and love of God he will experience.

I pray you receive the light to understand this beautiful truth of our faith.

PS: the priesthood is about service, not about power. Those who enter to have power are in the wrong place.

Daniel,

I don’t believe for a second that the rosy picture you painted about the Ukrainian Catholics is ALL there is to tell.

If marriage is so great for the ministers, then why are the Lutherans in America having a difficult time with vocations?

Also, please explain why Jesus was not married, and he said that some will give up sexual relations for the kingdom of heaven, which is a higher calling (Matthew 19:12).

At last the mistresse association !  The celibacy is not a question of argument. We believe in Catholic Church and the leadership. Celibacy has been in existence for thae last 1500 years The deviations now projected may always be there as the world does not have all saints but sinners also. If one finds it impossible to be celibate, he should not go for priesthood. After becoming priest if one cannot control his desires for married life he may need counselling If he fails there also he should not continue as priest. There is no compulsion at all.  Only responsible behaviour is required. Better to leave than bringing in bad name for self and Church.

Dear Fr. Deacon Daniel,

I wanted to thank you for your comments on this article.  I am the Director of Worship for a fairly large (Latin) Catholic Church in the Midwest.  I found your comments to be very informative, and it was wonderful to hear things from your perspective.  The Catholic tradition is so complex throughout the many different Rites in the world.  I think most of us in the Latin Rite are largely ignorant of the many other Rites that exist.  I was frustrated by some of the responses that amounted to little more than personal attacks or insults on this site, and I am glad you continued to provide a good argument that we can all learn from.  Thanks again for your comments!

@ Melissa - Thank you for your kind remarks. I hope that I and others in the Eastern Churches can help to inform our Latin brothers and sisters on the great diversity that is embodied in our communion of Catholic Churches. Your words are encouraging. God bless you holy labors in the Midwest!

@ Lisieux - I cannot help what you believe or do not believe. That is your affair. I am certainly not lying, but nor am I attempting to paint a “rosy” picture. There should be no doubt that the vocation to be a married priest or the wife of a priest (or deacon) is not the easiest path. Every vocation has its challenges.

Regarding what is wrong with the Lutherans in America, where do I begin, God bless them! :-) As was observed, our churches are smaller in size, which also has its positive and negative points. Perhaps it makes it easier to maintain a balance. But again, I am only suggesting that Rome should consider allowing some of its Latin Deacons who are of mature age and are trained and worthy candidates to be consider as viable for ordination to the presbyterate. What precisely does that have to do with Lutherans in America?

As to Jesus not being married, why should that require explanation from me? What about the myriad of Popes and bishops and priests who were married and had children for the first 1000 years in the West (and beyond) in the Church’s history? Perhaps you could provide an explanation for that?

And Jesus said being a eunuch for the kingdom was not for everyone. He never said that it was a prerequisite for ordination to the priesthood.

And (of course) there is that pesky verse of St. Paul to St. Timothy on candidates for sacerdotal and diaconal ministry…perhaps you can explain why the Latin Church rejects a divinely revealed, inspired by the Holy Spirit and apostolic method of discernment for vocations?

I’m just askin’...

Hello FDD,

I saw the report on ABC, which is another attempt by the media to discredit the Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry you fell for this as well.

Yes, Jesus was not married, nor was Paul (1 Cor. 7:8). They BOTH explained that the higher calling was to celibacy. That is why the Latin Church holds to this, but does not rule out married clergy as an absolute. Hence, we have married Anglicans and Lutherans who join.

Also, we have married deacons in the Latin Church. They serve the Church quite well.

Thankfully, the ones I have heard don’t try to come in and soil the Latin Church as your comments have.

An even peskier verse for you would be the celibate Paul RECOMMENDING celibacy for full-time ministers in 1 Cor. 7:32-35.

Also, FDD, according to the readings today, there is no marriage as we know it in heaven.

My priest told us today that his celibacy pointed to the fact that he has left worldly things behind so that he looks to the heavenly kingdom being united with Christ.

Here on Earth, we’re married until DEATH do US PART.

He’s on the higher path.

I have to say that his state of celibacy does reflect more the Kingdom of God here on Earth than does my marriage or anyone else’s.

Two questions, why do you call yourself “Father Deacon”?

Also, do you think women should be ordained to the priesthood as well as openly homosexual men?

So many questions, lisieux! Ok, I’ll do my best…

1. A story reports facts…are there facts in the story you dispute?  Ukrainian Greek Catholics have married priests and no scandals. We also have 800 seminarians, many of whom will be married priests and will serve our parishes faithfully. God bless them for their sacrifice and service.

2. You and I do agree on the value of celibacy and that it is not an absolute value and nor is it (nor should it be) an absolute requirement for the priesthood. That said, it should be held in high esteem, honored and praised.

3. I never “soiled” the Latin Church, nor would I ever do such a thing. But my question pertains to a factual matter regarding Divine Revelation. Do you have an answer yet?

4. You have no argument from me (and neither does St. Paul) on his recommendation of celibacy. Actually the Eastern discipline has no problem reconciling any of the verses you or I have provided. Why? Because the decision is purely voluntary and not demanded for all candidates for the priesthood, unless they receive permission coming in from a Protestant denomination. The change in the discipline comes from the West, not the East. Those are the facts of history, and as I said, facts are stubborn things.

5. Yes, no marriage in heaven. And?

6. Your priest is entirely correct. The ascetical discipline of celibacy is certainly virtuous and good and, certainly on the angelic path. I am glad that you as a laywoman have so much admiration for your priest and his ascetical and priestly vocation. I cannot believe that you would feel otherwise were he not worthy of your admiration. (You do not strike me as someone who would fawn over fakery and you support your priest. Keep it up!) But there is nothing (except Western Church Law) that says it should be a mandatory requirement for service in the Office of Presbyter. And bear in mind that vocation does not necessarily equate to personal holiness. There are celibate bishops and priests and deacons and monks and nuns in hell and married people in heaven…and the reverse is true.

7. “Fr. Deacon” is the title that is traditional to the Christian East (Catholic and Orthodox). It reflects the fact that we as ordained ministers in the Church are called to reflect the spiritual fatherhood of our bishops in its kenotic or “servant” dimension, whereas priests reflect the bishop’s fatherhood in its shepherding dimension. Interestingly enough, there was a discussion among the bishops in the US whether to adopt across the Latin Church the title of “Fr. Deacon” as is done in the East. Instead they just went with “Deacon Bob” or “Deacon Tom.” Some people think we are making a pretense at being priests, but that is simply not the case, but it is an understandable confusion.

8. Finally, I think we come to the heart of the issue. It is this frustrating association made in part by heterodox folks between married priesthood and whole slew of heterodox pet issues, such as the ones you mention. It is like an unholy trinity of “married priesthood, women priests and ________ fill in the blank.” This despite all the wonderful things the Catholic magisterium has affirmed regarding the married priesthood as exercised in the East.

Let me only say that you and I are probably far more aligned then you realize. I am a (Ratzingerian) Byzantine Catholic Christian who signs off on all Catholic teaching in the CCC regarding faith and morals. I study the Church Fathers and reject the Imperial Ecclesiology that has defined so much of Orthodox Church polity. The Church I belong to is a martyr Church that suffered tremendously for its tenacious communion with Rome. IN addition to suffering persecution and/or the hatred of some of our brethren in the Orthodox East, we also suffer with the misunderstanding of sometimes persecution of our Latin brethren who act more like sectarians at times than Christians. That is not a universal experience of course, but there have been quite a few occasions…

Our liturgies are traditional as is our theology. I hope you are able to visit one in the near future, if you have never been. Our disciplines are different than those in the West, even our liturgical year begins in September.

Legitimate diversity in the Church is never a thing to be feared, since it never denies what is essential to the Gospel or to orthodox belief and praxis. The “celibacy mandate” (not celibacy itself) is not essential to serving in the office of presbyter/priest. I venerate the latter, not the former.

The Church is very much like a mosaic icon made up of different colors and pieces that when brought together reveal the one Face of Christ.

To Deacon Daniel,
I appreciate your response, but am still not convinced that the practical problems concerning finances cannot be superseded without the laity giving much more in the collection.  Moreover, there may be a couple of married priests martyrs, but there is still the fact that the Russian Church did not win Siberia and central Asia for Christ nor did the Ethiopian win Africa nor the Malabar win India.  The Roman Church’s celibate missionaries did so.  After the treaty of Nerchynsk (1689), Russians could have spread the Christianity into China, but did not.  I’ll point out that the Assyrian Church spread to China in the 7th c., but also that it did so through celibate missionaries!  A married clergy works only in a state supported Church when the priest is meant to be a caretaker. 

As to practical issues, I can only imagine the pressure put on the children of a priest!  Moreover, isn’t it true that in Ukraine there are families which specially raise their daughters to be the wives of priests.  He certainly can’t have the freedom to marry just any woman.
And I believe the East agrees with the West that once ordained, subsequent marriage is not possible nor part of the Tradition. What happens to widowed priests or those whose wives divorce them? 

2. It was suggested that permanent deacons be considered for ordination as priests.  Does this not mock their call to the diaconate? 
I’m just asking if we respect the diaconate as the diaconate if we suggest that permanent deacons might be a pool of vocations to the priesthood.

3. On the other hand, with all do respect to the diaconate and acknowledging it as a sacred order, is there anything a deacon can do that a layperson cannot in extraordinary circumstances.  In fact, the Eastern discipline is less generous in assigning duties to deacons than the Western.  But, even those things the deacon can do as an ordinary minister (baptize, preach, distribute Holy Communion, lead prayers, distribute ashes on ash Wednesday, bless with candles on St. Blaise) in the West, a layman can do as an extraordinary minister.  Put in this perspective, having married deacons does not seem such an abberation.  But, married priests…that’s another story.

4. Isn’t it true that the Eastern canons required (and perhaps still do) that a married priest refrain from sexual activity for a time before offering the Eucharist?  I believe this is the reason that there is no tradition of a daily Mass in the East, except perhaps in among the monks.

Bruce,

Thanks for your response and questions.

1. I understand your point, but again I think in many cases it will not be a real issue, especially if we are talking about older mature deacons who are willing and trained to serve as priests. My sense is that there will be barely a dent in any parish’s budget.

2. You are correct that the lack of responses to the missions is a tragic of Byzantine and Byz-Slavic history. I have not seen it anywhere written that the underlying cause was a married presbyetrate, not to mention the fact that there were a large number of monastics and cleibate sin addition to married priests in these various churches. One can, of course, be missionary without leaving home. I think certainly there is something to be said for choosing a celibate man to travel to aforeign country to set up a mission. But we are also called - clergy and laity - to set up our missions and apostolic efforts in our own towns and cities. That is where I have seen the missionary spirit of great married priests that rival some celibates (not ALL to be sure).

3. The pressure on the children? How? Among the clergy where I am there are at least 13 kids whose fathers are ordained and serving. I cannot tell you the blessing these children are to our communities and how natural and organic the interation of the families are into our common life. If you have not seen it, it is only speculation on your part. I see it and live with it and know the fears are often exaggerated. That said, there are cases where fathers can be neglectful, as I alluded to above, and it need not involve church. At that point, we are dealing with others issues pertaining to psychological makeup and the sense of fatherhood. This is where paul’s exhortation to Timothy makes the most sense. If a man generally neglects his kids, don’t ordain him.

4. No mocking at all intended or actual. As a deacon you may understand I have an opinion on this matter. A vocation to serve is yes, a call by Christ, but it is also a call of the Church often dictated by need and the willingnesss, ability to serve. The whole mandatory celibacy thing I think has colored the thinking around vocations to such an extent that what was simply a desire to serve Christ in an office of apostolic ministry in the Church becomes a much “larger deal” because this ascetical ideal of celibacy and being a eunuch for the kingdom has been forced on the office. This union with confusion of what is actually being discerned neglects the idea that often service is dictated by need as well as call. The Coptic Orthodox, for instance have a very interesting way of discerning vocations to the priesthood. The bishop visits the Church and if there is a need for a new or additional priest, he will ask the community to pray and to nominate several men (almost all deacons) to serve as priests. The congregation votes and the men then meet with the bishop to be scrutinized and then he chooses the man to be ordained priest and then he is ordained. This is the way it was done in the early Church in many parts of the Church. Now, certainly one could argue about draw backs to this model, but what you have in every congregation is an organic pipeline of vocations for service, which is stressed very early on with the boys all through their life and they are mentored by priests and deacons as they go. THe expectation is that you will serve, and minor orders are given to all boys beginning at age 6. But you see how individualized the whole vocation process in the West has become, and honestly I think it has to do with the forced choice of a state in life that is added on to the discernment of the vocation. I know many men who would make wonderful priests in the Latin church and even went to seminary, but they did not believe that they could live as celibates. It is great that everybody wants spiritual athletes as enuchs for the kingdom, but there are people out there who are unable to receive the sacraments because of a shortage of priests. What is the priority? Celibacy should serve the vocation, not the other way around. Returning to the diaconate, there is absolutely no disrespect to a deacon if someone approaches him and asks him if he would like to serve as a priest. That is just simply ridiculous, and I say that as one who believes in the value of the diaconate as a permanent office in the sense that it is not simply a transitional state.

5. Yes, there are things that a layperson cannot do that a deacon can do in the East. We offer the litanies, handle the vessels, preach the Gospels, distribute communion, direct the congregation, petition the priests, etc etc. Do we consecrate? No, but so what. We are ordained to serve a specific role in the Liturgy that no one else can or does…period. Now in the West, the absolute confusion and mess that has resulted from the laity taking over the deacon’s proper role has made him in certain places simply an exalted layman. The permission to bless marriages and baptize is part of this whole confusion on what a deacon is. A deacon does not have the charism to preside. It is not his office or role, it is part of the priestly or sacerdotal office. These other responsibilities were added on to the diaconate, but were not really part of the tradition of the deacon, with rare exception. The situation you describe is because the West has lost a sense of the distinction between the Ordos and their meaning in the liturgy. Thank God Pope Benedict is restoring some of that, but it is a long road back to tradition and away from a “sectarian spirit” in most liturgies which divides East and West since it has no corresponding praxis in any of the Eastern rites or other 21 Churches in the Catholic communion. There is a great common tradition in worship, but a diminished diaconate and laity exercising clerical roles is not one of them, even though I know that many laity do serve with the greatest and noblest intentions.

6. Married priests are not aberrations nor are they simply accomodations. They are part of the patrimony of the whole Church. You need to read the official teachings of the Catholic Church (including the Ecumenical Councils of the Church)  and the history on this matter. When I read things like that, it is nothing short deeply offensive to true Catholic unity. The West changed the discipline of the Church and now some such as yourself claim the unchanging practice of the East is now the aberration! I suppose next you will say that because we do not delay confirming or communioning our infants after Holy Baptism that is an aberration as well, despite the fact that the West changed its practice, not the East? It is the common tale of raising later particularisms to the level of universalisms and reading them back into the history as though it was always done this way.

And please do not get me started on “Lay Eucharistic Ministers” in any discussion on historical aberrations…

Finally, yes some of the canons differ, but in general all clerics (including subdeacons and deacons and priests) are to abstain from sexual relations with their wives in general 24 hours before celebrating Divine Liturgy. Of course, in general the East does not have a strong tradition of daily Divine Liturgy. We do however emphasize the the Divine Office (Horologion) throughout the week. If daily liturgy was offered, there would more than likely be a rotation of clergy serving in the event that all were married. Priests in the East traditionally have the largest families…

Periods of Strict Fasting (of which there are four in the Byzantine tradition)are also traditional times of abstaining, not just for the clergy, but also for the laity….that is if they observe the strict fast, which many do not.

Michelle: I’m glad you’ve had such a good experience with priests, but to be honest, I’ve had a very negative experience. And to be honest, I’ve also read Love and Responsibility and am working on Theology of the Body and to be honest I don’t see how celibacy can be deeply favored when we examine the power abuses behind celibacy. Celibacy is used as a separator which divides people and creates classes of people. The lives of the saints tend to be very specific examples of certain types of holiness (while ignoring others), (e.g. we see this in the saints Pope Benedict XVI has picked, most of them have started religious orders and most married people are put to the wayside.) (with the exception of Franz Jaggerstater I’m not sure if there are any other married saints in the last 4 years of canonizations.)
Also, in reading Rahner and Congar’s theologies, their notions of grace and spirit are much more inclusive than your vision of God (noted in your comment when you mention how priests by nature of their call have a closer relationship to God.) because grace is seen in more experiences than just sacramental signs. See I don’t see the necessity of exclusivity between sexual and serving, because sexuality should be a sign of service (which is a sign of efficacious holiness as well.)
I think the main difference we have is just what we’ve experienced and what we’re sensitive to Michelle. Because you seem to have a positive experience with priests and thus you’re more in favor of the current system, whereas I’ve seen the problems in clericalism and I’ve had negative experiences, thus I don’t like what I see and am sensitive to the deep problems which sadly many people aren’t discussing in a constructive manner. (And I note this because of your p.s. because it’s not necessarily that people get drawn to power to join the priesthood, but there is a clerical culture and the philosophies of the previous two popes on priesthood have been problematic in accentuating this clerical culture, and in fact create temptations for power. (whether or not people abuse this depends on cultural context and personal temptation.) This personal bias is affecting our discussion and I also don’t like your attitude of praying for me that I find your interpretation of the Truth. That’s a bit disrespectful in my own opinion; though at the same time I don’t want to be too harsh because I realize most people don’t think that out loud. (and I also don’t think you’re being that mean either, I just wanted to throw that out there so you’re aware of that possibility and how phrases like that can affect people.)

Peace,
Adam

Hello FDD,

As one of the baptized faithful with the full-time vocation as a mother and wife, my time is limited, so I will get to your points as time allows. How you have the time to post here as both a deacon and a family man is amazing.

1) Your ABC article posts some facts. You and ABC present the Ukrainian Catholic priest/dads as all happy men, sitting around the table with their families after serving the Lord all day.

I’m sure that is the case at times. However, I also know that the majority of celibate preists are well-adjusted, sacrificing men as well.

You and ABC act as if original sin and concupiscence never affects the Ukrainian Catholic priests.

You don’t speak about their divorces, their mistresses, and their family problems.

That’s why I am highly offended that someone who tries to come on here as a brother Catholic has the audacity to suggest that his allowed way of life will prevent SIN.

Do you really think that a man who is attracted to young boys will stop from molesting them when he marries?

That’s not the case.  You might be familiar with the Oakland CA priest, Fr. Kiesle, that the press you like to quote tried to use to nail Cardinal Ratzinger for not defrocking enough.

Even after being laicized and marrying, the wonderful married man went on the molest more children, with fifteen counts being brought before him.

So please, save your superiority-laden stories for other venues.

Most sexual abuse (40-60%) takes place in FAMILIES, according to George Wiegel.

That should be defrocking “soon enough.”

2) I disagree that you value celibacy, or you would not come on here attacking your fellow Catholics and throwing the sex abuse scandal in our faces. How dare you.

3)Yes, I gave you and answer, with an even “peskier” verse from you. Apparently, you don’t read my posts.

4)Yes, facts are stubborn, but I think wonderful. Why you attack those who follow the FACT that Latin rite celibacy is the norm is amazing.

Do you not respect obedience?

5) You MOCK the celibate priesthood which mirrors here on Earth the relationship that we will have with Christ in heaven. I’m sure an intelligent man like you can understand that you will not have a heavenly female wife in heaven and the implication that celibate priests more closely live NOW what they will have in heaven.

With much sacrifice that leads to building up the Kingdom of Heaven.

6) I love my priest, and that is why I do not like someone who comes on as a fellow believer throwing the sex abuse scandal in our faces to DEMEAN his celibate life and the sacrifice he makes.

7) Thanks for explaining.  If you are a deacon, great.

We have a married deacon who helps our priest here. I am glad that he doesn’t go around telling everyone how married deacons don’t molest children and how being married is so grand as to being celibate.

Even if he was a Ukrainian Catholic deacon, I would hope that he would respect our rite enough to refrain from throwing the sex abuse scandal in our faces, like the athiests, pagans, and people of ill will do.

I would hope that he would try to work with us instead of against us.

8) Great you follow the CCC.

I was wondering, because people who usually go on with the drum beat of MARRIED CLERGY in the Latin Rite also bring along with them women priests and homosexual bishops.

You go on doing what you do best. Tell the stories of the married priests and deacons all sitting at the table so happy with their families.

Please leave the Latin rite celibate, self-sacrifcing priest alone.

We have enough enemies without the Church and don’t need enemies within.

Afitz211:  ”...to be honest I don’t see how celibacy can be deeply favored when we examine the power abuses behind celibacy. Celibacy is used as a separator which divides people and creates classes of people.”

I can see your point, Adam.

As the sister of a priest who left the church to marry and is now divorced - I say this.  I agree with you that many people are living celibate lives either by choice or by having it imposed upon them, which occurs for many different reasons.  I agree that there are many married couples living celibate lives due to illness etc.  So, that having been said - sex is important but in a marriage it is not the central point in day to day living.  What happens when the “married” priest is caught having an affair with one of his parishioners (oh - I forgot - the only reason priests have sex with anyone is because they are celibate! That is one messed up argument!) What happens when the priest’s wife decides she wants a divorce and is leaving him and their 3 children.  He is now a single Dad raising a family and oh - by the way - still available for Confessions - Masses all weekend - counseling - running the Parish and his entire congregation. What happens when the priest’s daughter gets pregnant out of wedlock and his son is on drugs - yet he must preach on morality and advise and counsel others - will his credibility be compromised??  Oh - during the week there is the RCIA, the Finance Meeting, the Parish Council Meeting etc.  The parishioners always feel free to walk away if they get burned out or fed up - the priest remains and it is up to him to keep it all together.  Oh - yes and then there is the homily that he must prepare every day for daily Mass not to mention the weekend Mass homily which we all expect to be inspiring and faith-filled!!  Then there is his family - they have baseball, soccer, swimming and hockey - school meetings - PTA - Dad’s Day - Boy Scouts plus family committments - birthdays, anniversaries, weddings, baptisms, First Communions, and these are for the family - not the ones for the parishioners at which he absolutely must officiate because that is his job - to administer the Sacraments!! We expect much from our Priests and women expect much from their husbands - I have a feeling that the Eastern Rite Bishops advised the Roman Rite Bishops to table the celibacy issue because a married priesthood is not all that we would like to idealize it to be. Oh - and then there is the Divine Office which our priests pray throughout the day (about 5x) How much time do you spend in prayer while raising your family??  From a practical standpoint I would say Jesus is right - you cannot serve two masters.  Our priests deserve our prayers, our admiration and our constant support for the vocation to which they have been called. I think it is time we all stopped undermining it by acting like sexual intimacy is the only intimacy - that misconception has messed up our world and it is the world that is longing to see our priesthood destroyed by that fallacy.  I know priests who have very intimate relationships that do not include the sex act - and I will tell you - those relationships are much more fulfilling,loving and lasting than those that are being experienced by many who think that just by having sex with someone they must love you!!
May God continue to bless those priests who love their vocation and have embraced their vow of celibacy and see it for the wonderful gift that it is!!

Well stated Sue.

It’s amazing to me with all that FDD has to do, he can post such length comments on here…..

lisieux,

I am sorry, but I never attacked celibacy (nor my fellow Catholics) nor would I ever associate celibacy with child molestation. That is an association some may make, but I do not.

The scandal to which I was referring was the one of priests having mistresses (as well as homosexuality, which is more likely the issue with the adolescent pederast cases), but I can see why you think in quoting the article I was talking primarily about the child sex abuse scandal. I have never believed that celibacy is a cause of pedophilia. Period.

I certainly respect the need to be obedient, and I would never advocate rogue ordinations of married men by a Latin hierarch. The distinction I am making here is vital for you to grasp: I value and honor celibacy, but I do not value the absolute requirement of celibacy for canidates for the priesthood as mandated by the Latin Church. Anyone who would agree with that position can still be a faithful, devout Catholic and still voice their disagreement on this discipline.

I think you are letting the heat of your emotions color your reading of my statements as “attacks” and so forth. If you go back and read what I said, I never “attacked” anything but I have expressed my disagreement with the canonical requirement. Celibate priests (or any celibate for that matter) are living a foretaste of the heavenly kingdom, so long as their spiritual life mirrors the holiness of their vocation in Christ.

As for the rest of your comments, you are simply being snarky and rude and patronizing to a clergyman, albeit of a different tradition, but nevertheless a Catholic clergyman, which is neither virtuous nor a substitue for reasoned discussion. I know you find it difficult to think of happily married priests with their families at the dinner table being simultaneously faithful to their wives and to their congregations. You would much rather that they be celibate, and I get that. But the topic of this thread was a discussion on a priestly scandal involving mistresses, so it was not I who was throwing any scandal in any one’s face.

No one should think that any state of life is a sure and impenatrable guard against sin, whether celibacy or marriage. They both have their opportunities for virtue and vice.

Now I am not an enemy of the Church nor of celibate priests, some of whom I serve, nor of celibacy as a vocation and how dare you say such a thing. For whatever reason you seem incapable of extracting this particular issue from a general polemic against Cathloicism, of which I am neither a participant, nor even mildly sympathetic but rather am nothing short of an ardent opponent. And the members of my particular Church died for their communion with the Catholic Church, many of whom were married priests. I support and pray for the Holy Father (some 7 times during the Liturgy and on my own personally) and I have good relationships with celibate Latin clergy whom I show the greatest honor and respect. There is no throwing family in the face of priests and denigrating the sacrifice these celibate men have heroically embraced for the sake of the Gospel which you seem to accuse me of.

But in the interest of peace, I offer prayers for you and your family today and for continued blessings upon you in your vocation as a good Catholic mother.

Well stated Fr. Deacon Daniel.

I appreciate your comments on this thread.

Thanks, Truth.

Sue,

ONCE AGAIN, I have only offered the idea that some married deacons of mature age that are properly trained could be considered as candidates for the priesthood, even to serve along with celibates.

And priesthood is not intended to be a solo ministry, as it has become because of a shortage of priests. The picture you paint if of a celibate priest on his own running the parish. What I am saying is add more priests and ordain some married deacons. If necessary, keep the celibates as the pastor of a parish. Not sure why this is so difficult a concept…

lisieux,

My time is my time, my dear. I am a fast typist and spend most of my time on the computer during the day running my two businesses…

I do not like to argue for or against the rule of celibacy. Whatever the Church decides it should be the rule and should be followed.  The lay people should know that there is a limit for criticisms.  Chastity is an extremely difficult state But it is possible for those who decide to follow who lead a simple life style, who fast who pray . The present day concept of futility of fsst prayer counselling etc should change as far as a believer is concerned. God does not want millioners or experts but sincere workers for the kingdom of God.

I’ve been informed that the discipline or rule of clerical celibacy is reversible.

It’s not out of the realm of possibility that a future Pope will make celibacy optional in the Latin Rite.  This future pope, if he does so, will certainly cement his legacy in history.  Many will cheer this decision, many will express dismay, but it will certainly be an epochal decision.  If it should ever happen, that is.

FDD,

You have exploited the sins of these Roman priests to self-promote your married clerical state.

Also, instead of respecting obedience to a priestly Latin-rite vow, you, innocently, of course, provide a link from ABC which says that the Ukrainian Catholic Church, with married priests has somehow escaped the world-wide Catholic Church sex scandal. 

Kick a man when he’s down, ay?

Would it be fair play for a Latin-rite celibate priest to suggest to Ukrainian Catholics when sad events happen for their priests, such as divorce, having a mistress, molesting their own children, that they should have been celibate to begin with and things would go fine?

Instead, I believe we both should be insisting on FIDELITY within the clerical state, both married and unmarried. 

Finally, I have never seen or heard a married Catholic clergyman take advantage of the sins of a few to promote marriage within the ranks of Catholic priesthood. To me this is shameful exploitation. I have only heard them build up the ranks until I read your posts.

I am through with this discussion at least for now, as it is time consuming. Thank you for your prayers. I shall pray for you as well.

“FDD, You have exploited the sins of these Roman priests to self-promote your married clerical state. ... Finally, I have never seen or heard a married Catholic clergyman take advantage of the sins of a few to promote marriage within the ranks of Catholic priesthood. To me this is shameful exploitation.”

IMHO, I think you’ve misread and misinterpreted Fr. Deacon Daniel’s comments.  I did not see him do what you’ve accused him of.  Your remarks are unkind and unnecessarily inflammatory.

“Instead, I believe we both should be insisting on FIDELITY within the clerical state, both married and unmarried.”

I believe Fr. Deacon Daniels has said as much in his own comments.  I’m sure that he agrees with you there, as much as I’m sure that everyone else on this thread agrees with you.  It’s a rather trite and obvious statement.

lisieux,

Now you have moved from simple nonsense mixed with some good points delivered in a tone of general snarkiness to calumny. I have not exploited anyone or anything. As I recall this exists as an open forum to discuss particular points or issues related to the article. I have every right to state an opinion on the matter, and may I say that my opinion here mirrors a suggestion made by Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn some time back when he suggested that ordaining older, married men of virtue (presumably deacons) would be worth exploring.

Regarding the posting of the interview, if you look at my actual comments I said that I thought it might relate to the discussion about the priests with mistresses. That it does not play to your own biases in favor of a purely celibate model of priesthood is apparent. But I was doing no “kicking” of anybody so please spare me your defensive dramatics.

Latin priests have been suggesting that we drop the married priesthood thing (and certain Latin hierarchs have been demanding that) for centuries, so why should they wait for any traumatic event to occur, although so far we have not seen it, as you say. I think your expectation of a fall belies a certain unjust cynicism regarding men and the married state (especially clergy) which is altogether unhealthy.

“Instead, I believe we both should be insisting on FIDELITY within the clerical state, both married and unmarried.”

I agree. I’ve never said otherwise. But nor did I post this article on the three philandering priests. I’ve never suggested that a priest should somehow dodge his obligations and commitments, just that the obligation and commitment to celibacy is not an absolute requirement intrinsic to the nature of the presbyterate.

“Finally, I have never seen or heard a married Catholic clergyman take advantage of the sins of a few to promote marriage within the ranks of Catholic priesthood.”

Nor have I, lisieux. When you find a clergy “taking advantage” as you say, and exploiting a situation, please let me know. I have only offered my perspective here and made an argument that I heard made by Cardinal Schoenborn, the editor of the Catholic Catechism, a former student of Pope Benedict and a Latin Catholic hierarch. I fail to see any personal advantage to myself in putting forward these ideas. And I never said that celibacy is the cause of the sexual scandal, although there are certainly men who would and could serve the Church as priests but are not called to celibacy, yet they are excluded by the discipline of the Latin Church which suffers from a lack of priests.

“I am through with this discussion at least for now, as it is time consuming.

I’m glad to hear it.

“Thank you for your prayers. I shall pray for you as well.”

Prayer is probably the best recource right now for each other and for all involved. In the end, all we can do is pray for the Holy Father, for these priests (and all priests), for these poor misguided women/concubines and for the whole Church.

Thank you for your comments, Truth. I agree with your assessment of lisieux’s misreading and general deportment.

Back to Adam: Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I was not being mean or cynical by saying I would pray for you.  It is unfortunate that you have seen the negative side of those abusing their position. To God alone are they accountable. It took an encounter with a holy priest that embraces his celibacy and his priesthood with much gratitude and love to help me understand what a gift it is to those that live it right. Fortunately, for the Church and us, the new seminarians entering formation and the new priests being ordained are the ones that are joyfully embracing and living this truth. There are many holy and very dedicated priests that serve us, give their lives for us, and do so in a very humble and unnoticeable way. They are the ones we do not hear about in the news, the ones that do not make the headlines, but are in the trenches, doing their jobs, giving their all, and unfortunately having also to take the hit for those brother priests that have fallen form grace. I humbly ask you (and all whom happen to read these posts) to pray for your priests, specially those that have fallen from grace and are not being faithful to their ministry and are looking for fulfillment in earthy things (like these mistresses). Our priests give their human lives so we can have eternal life. We need them to bring the Eucharist - Christ himself - to us. Without priests there would be no Eucharist. Their life of service (and gift of self thorough celibacy) is a treasure, and a daily reminder that Heaven is real and that all the sacrifices made are worth it, because true fulfilling happiness will be found once we reach our place in our Eternal Home. God bless, Michelle

Michelle: The problem in priestly formation now is that because of celibacy and because of how people act toward priests (and to be honest it’s a combination of expectation and willing people), priests feel entitled to whatever they want (or if they don’t they are tempted to). This creates attitudes of triumphalism which are contrary to the teaching in Vatican II. (for more see Lumen Gentium and Gadium et Spes). Priests don’t and shouldn’t get a special status just for being a priest but we should care about them as they are people who have needs and need love like everyone else. In doing ritual studies, one becomes more aware of how power is carried on through ritual, which is scary for the future of the Church and its laity.
I also disagree with your point that there would be no Eucharist without priests because ordination has not always looked like it does now. There were community leaders but they did not have ordination like ours (and it wasn’t so focused on ontological change either, it was respected people of the community who were raised up to leadership (e.g. Augustine, etc.) And I still think there can be a gift of self even while not being celibate. Heaven is a good thing, but sex can be a precursor of heaven and as much of a physical sign, if not more than a celibate example. God bless you as well, Adam.

Christians should first believe in Jesus Christ. If they want only sexual pleasures and all worldly possessions we have to look at Jesus who possessed nothing, led a celibate life and above all died after he was humiliated and crucified to save us offering himself as a ransome for our sins.  Under these circumstances, are we to discuss the ways of pleasures ? THe christians should become more christian and all ills will disappear

From today’s Wall Street Journal:  More Emphasis on Confessing Might Have Helped.

Excerpt:  “The Rev. Gerald Fitzgerald, who founded a Roman Catholic religious order that helped troubled priests, began warning American bishops in the early 1950s that pedophile priests couldn’t be cured. So sure was he that he made a $5,000 down payment on a Caribbean island to quarantine the worst offenders.

Yet it wasn’t until 2002 that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops adopted a zero-tolerance policy requiring that any priest who has engaged in sexual abuse of a minor be reported to authorities and permanently removed from ministry. The crisis has cost American dioceses more than $2.6 billion in settlements and fees since 1950.

Some reform-minded Catholics have suggested that required celibacy contributed to the problem, causing priests to exploit minors for sexual gratification. Some traditional Catholics say the Second Vatican Council’s window-opening reforms led to relaxed enforcement of old church rules that would have kept priests in line.

But church leaders on both sides have agreed on at least one of reasons that clergymen known to be offenders were able to continue their pattern of abuse: an over-reliance on psychologists who advised bishops that perpetrators could be treated and returned to parish ministry.

The report also blames bishops for withholding damaging information about troubled priests from psychiatrists and seeking out lenient treatment centers.

Media coverage of the sex-abuse scandals has focused on those bishops who protected offenders from criminal prosecution, shuffling them around from parish to parish. But in replacing theology with psychiatry, these church leaders also lost sight of the pastoral tools that could have encouraged abusers to confront the harm they’ve caused their victims.

At a Mass in Rome April 15, Pope Benedict XVI preached on the Book of Acts, chapter 5, which discusses repentance and forgiveness of sins.

“I have to say that we Christians, even in recent times, have often avoided the word repentance, which seems too harsh,” he explained. “Now, under the attacks of the world, which speaks to us of our sins, we see that the ability to repent is a grace, and we see how it is necessary to repent, that is, to recognize what is wrong in our life.”“

It’s good that Pope Benedict XVI acknowledges and confesses the Roman Catholic Church’s sin in this terrible scandal and is repenting of the institutional and corporate sin of the Catholic Church that has caused so much grief and pain and suffering for the victims and their families.

As the Year of the Priest comes to a close, faithful Catholics and people of good will remember the Catholic priests in our lives who bring Christ to us in the Eucharist. We must remember that the vast majority of Catholic priests have been faithful to their vows, and they deserve our support.

We have to remember, no priests no Eucharist.

From LifeSite News: “WEBSITE LAUNCHED TO THANK PRIESTS FAITHFUL TO VOWS”

LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY (LifeSiteNews.com) - Two former Kentucky television news workers responded to a sermon about the impact the sex abuse crisis was having on good priests by setting up a web site where people could thank the many priests who have been faithful to their vows.
The National Catholic Register reports that Joe Lilly and Rick Redman decided to set up thankyoufather.com one morning during coffee. Redman says that “The vast majority of priests are good men and true to Christ and their vows”. Lilly adds that “Priests we knew told us they were afraid to go out in public with their collars on”. The two men felt that the media hammering of everything negative was unfair to the good priests” and that they wanted to do something to counter it.
The site went live on August 1 and has had 25,000 visitors so far reports the Register.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/nov/02112203.html

the website is www.thankyoufather.com

1) in English, the technical term is concubine not mistress

2) my high school class just had its 50th year reunion.  at it we leared that 4 of us entered the seminary after high school.  one left in a few years while in Europe - he discovered women/fell in love.  the other 3 were ordained and served low these many years.  talking to one who is still a pastor, i found out one of the others (who had not come to the reunion) had quite a story.  along the way he became part of another diocese.  when he turned 60-something he let the bishop know he was retiring—he had put in his 40 yrs—and that he wanted to be laicized.  in any case he was getting married!

My maternal Italian grandfather studied with priests as a young man in the late nineteenth century. He seriously wanted to become a priest but was alienated by the hypocrisy concerning priests and their mistresses. Now, I’m eternally grateful for his decision. :) But on a more serious note, how is the Church served by maintaining a practice that encourages such hypocrisy? Yes, Church leaders should enforce discipline. But how many of those Church leaders’ lives would survive close scrutiny on this issue? Besides, the Church (including the current Pope) has problems disciplining any fellow cleric on anything! (In Benedict’s case, I’m thinking about the president of the German bishops’ conference who denied the doctrine of Christ’s death as divine propitiation for human sin).

Besides, the Church has failed to understand that not everybody receives celibacy as a divine gift. Instead, it has tried to put round pegs into square holes, causing much personal misery.

I understand that financial issues that a married clergy would generate. Nevertheless, married Protestant ministers who convert and become priests aren’t encouraged to “put their wives aside.” Of course, no sane person would expect the Church to make such an unreasonable demand. Then again, the existance of such converts nullifies the whole rationale for celibacy, doesn’t it?

“The spirit says expressly that in after times some will desert from the faith and give their minds to subversive doctrines inspired by devils, through the specious falsehoods of men whose own conscience is branded with the devil’s sign.  They forbid marriage and inculcate abstinence from certain foods, though God created them to be enjoyed with thanksgiving by believers who have inward knowledge of the truth.”  I Timothy 4:1-3

The Catholic Church instituted the first mass divorce around 1100 when they started the practice of priest celibacy.  They also have the attitude that their opinion takes precedence over God.

Look at biblesanswers2.com to see other ways men have messed up the truth.

The mix of ephedrine and caffeine intake enhances your metabolic process can result in the whole process of lipolysis within you - the process in which excess fat is used and converted into gas. Sadly, ephedrine and the level of caffeine also take with these intense dangers on your coronary heart, particularly if in addition to intense exercise. Excessive usage of coffee may result in tremors as well as a considerably higher high blood pressure. It is really bad to gamble with your overall health you dont want to suffer from heatstroke or stroke when attemping to transform to living. Quite a few athletes use caffeine intake, ephedrine, and aspirin with each other when combined when attempting to lose weight.  http://capsiplexfaq.jigsy.com/  Hoodia gordonii Gordonii And also is usually a powerful metabolic increaser and fat burner. This nutritional supplement functions by managing the satiety core inside your neural and allows you believe you will be 100 % and you have plenty of strength. Efficient, saving money Green tea aspect with this product or service helps get rid of fat and enhances the energy. For that reason, you quick weight loss and safely and securely with no negative effects. Hoodia gordonii Gordonii As well as has a ninety day return policy for not opened containers only. DecaSlim is regarded as essentially the most efficient weight loss supplements now.

One of the biggest challenges for setting up business on the internet today is not only to construct an eye-catching website or offer online trading, but to ultimately find synergy between products, services, traditional business systems and a value-added online experience for your customers.I currently am in the process of doing taxes.You need to study the market before you plan your entry or else you may not be able to withstand the competition. , http://amadeusthestampede.com/node/324
http://commingsdevelopment.com/drupal/?q=node/120945
http://onedeepent.com/members/chautintiz/
http://forum.guitin.vn/entry.php?4339-Marques-Sportswear-puma-running-chaussure-drift-cat
http://yaholost.net/content/jeans-bootcutjean-onlinejeans-diesel-enfantjean-teddy-smith
,  Today Coke remains a powerful brand with over a century of history behind it.Job offerings at outsourcing sites range from the serious, such as software design or copy writing to the silly, like.And if you are active on social networks like Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, or any of numerous other sites, with every post you make you are defining your image for the public.

Thank you for the excellent posts!