Contrary to the ancient discipline known to the East, the popes slowly imposed mandatory celibacy on the priesthood, beginning in Italy, then Spain and Gaul, finally in the 11th century throughout Western Europe. In the beginning, they sought to forbid married priests from sleeping with their wives (which seems to me to attempt to undo a Sacrament). Siricius even left his wife to become pope! Finally the popes ended up ordaining only unmarried men. Pope Urban II even put the wives and children of priests into slavery, which I find unbelievably painful to contemplate.

Yet I note in 1 Corinthians 9 that St. Paul argues it was his "right" to take along a believing wife with him on his journeys, as did St. Peter and the Brethren of the Lord.

We all know how insistent St. Paul was on Christian liberty in the Gospel as regards foods, sabbaths, circumcision, days, etc.

The fact that he calls having a believing wife a "right" is therefore significant, I think.

So I ask, if this was a "right", how did it become a "wrong" (to use a pun)?

I know this is "only" a discipline, but it is a discipline that binds many men who are perhaps not even suited for it, as St. Paul also reminds us this is not a gift shared by all.

I guess I wonder, if the great majority of priests among the Orthodox are married, and this is the ancient and apostolic custom of the churches of God, how does the pope simply annul that? At the very least, it seems the Catholic Church is losing out on a lot of fine potential priests.

I will not deny I have a personal interest in this question -- but perhaps others do as well. I do not regard my wife as an abberation or as an "exception", but as a helpmate in every way, including ministry....

Then take up the ministry, with her, of the diaconate. Do not let this be a reason you do not become Catholic. There are many ministries needed in the Catholic Church.

Celibacy is NOT contrary to the East. They demand celibacy of all bishops. What is the difference? Nothing except they decide the discipline of which priests are not allowed to be married.

Please provide proof here. This sounds like Chiniquy and Chick.

St. Paul was saying he had the right but notice the context of it. He stated he would not use his rights so as to show he is more concerned with reaching folks for the Gospel. So are priests today. The whole reason why a man spends so long in seminary is to form and to discern the calling. Will they, as Jesus said, become a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom?

"I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she is divorced commits adultery. His disciples said to him, 'If this is the case of the man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry' . But he said to them, 'Not all men can receive this saying, but those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake. He who is able to receive it, let him receive it.'" Matt. 19

St Paul also said, "It is good for man not to touch a woman." Clearly in the context he was talking about sex and marriage. He also said, "I wish you would all be as I am" clearly he meant celibate.

St Paul arguing the Apostle's right to take along a wife as they minister has nothing to do with being married or not. It is rather insignificant to the argument of celibacy. The context is about money and discipline.

As far as the historical reasons for celibacy, what do I care and why should you?

Besides there are married priests in the Catholic Church today. It is a matter of obedience. Catholicism isn't for cowards.

Post has been removed by author.

The best evidence supports that St Paul was not married at the time of the Letters to the Corinthians. There may be some argument that he was married previously or after but not at the time of the writings. Also, he was talking about wives but the issue was financial responsibility concerning the right/ ability to take along a believing spouse. It is impossible to build a logical premise on this verse to support that he was married. If so it would contradict what he had written previously to the Corinthians.

I will read Pope St. Siricius' letter. If you can get the quote I would appreciate it. I will read up on Pope Urban II as well and, again, sources will be helpful.

Here is a link to the letter:
http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20...iusDecretal.htm

It was St Paul's opinion that "he who marries his virgin does well, and he who refrains from marriage does better."

This is why your statement reminded me of Chick and Chiniquy. Please read the context. I am a bit disappointed in your quoting a saint out of context. I think of you to be of a higher caliber. It is not those clergy who beget children but those who engaged in illicit sexual intercourse that are "obsessed with obscenities". Where did you get your information?

The Letter from St Siricius

5. You also asked about marriage, whether someone can marry a girl who was betrothed to another. We forbid by all means that this be done because that blessing which a priest imposes to a girl who is to be married is, if it is violated by any transgression, a kind of sacrilege among the faithful.

6. Not improperly, beloved, you believed that the apostolic see should be consulted about those who, having performed penance, again hungered, just as dogs and swine returning to old vomit and wallowing ponds, for the military belt, pleasures of the theater, new marriages, and forbidden liaisons whose manifest incontinence was shown by children born after absolution. Concerning them, because now they do not have the option of doing penance, we decided that this ought to be decreed. Inside church they can be united with the faithful only in prayer; they can be present for the sacred celebration of the mysteries, although they are unworthy, but should be excluded from the banquet of the Lord's table, so that reproached at least by this stricture they can castigate their faults within themselves and give an example to others that they may be drawn back from obscene desires. But since they fell by weakness of the flesh, we wish them to be supported by the gift of a viaticum through the grace of communion when they are about to depart to the Lord. We are of the opinion that this procedure should be observed also for women who, after penance, devoted themselves to such pollutions.

7. You indicate, furthermore, that certain monks and nuns, having thrown off the life of sanctity, plunged into so much wantonness that they tangled themselves up in illicit and sacrilegious intercourse, first in secret, as it were under cover of the monasteries, but afterward, led on precipitously by abandonment of conscience they freely produced children with illicit partners, which both civil laws and ecclesiastical regulations condemn. We command, therefore, that these shameless and detestable persons should be banished from the community of monasteries and the congregations of churches, so that having been thrust away in personal imprisonment, bewailing with constant lamentation so great an outrage, they can roast in the purifying fire of repentance so that at least at death, out of consideration of mercy alone, forgiveness through the grace of communion can assist even them.

8. Let us come now to the most sacred orders of clerics, which we learn from your report, beloved, are thus so scorned and disordered throughout your provinces, to the injury of religion which should be venerated, that we should be speaking with the voice of Jeremiah, <"Who will give water to my head, or a fountain of tears to my eyes? And I shall weep for this people day and night." If, therefore, the blessed prophet says that tears are insufficient for him in lamenting the sins of the people, by how much grief can we be smitten when compelled to deplore the iniquities of those who are in our body, [we] to whom especially, according to blessed Paul, ceaselessly falls the daily concern and solicitude of all churches? <"For who is weak and I am not weak? Who is offended and I do not burn?" For we learned that many priests and deacons of Christ, long after their ordination, have produced offspring both from their own wives and even through filthy liaisons, and defend their sin with this excuse, that it is read in the Old Testament that the opportunity to procreate was given to priests and ministers.

9. Let him speak to me now, whoever is an addict of obscenities and a teacher of vices. If he thinks that here and there in the law of Moses the restraints of indulgence are relaxed by the Lord for sacred orders, why does He admonish those to whom the Holy of Holies was committed saying: <"Be holy, because I, the Lord your God, am holy"? Why indeed were priests ordered to live in the temple, far from their homes, in the year of their service? Just for this reason: so that they could not engage in physical contact even with wives, and that shining in integrity of conscience they might offer acceptable service to God. The period of service having been completed, use of wives was permitted to them for reason of succession alone, because no one from a tribe other than of Levi was directed to be admitted to the ministry of God.

10. Whence the Lord Jesus, when he enlightened us by his advent, testified in the Gospel that he had come to fulfill the law not to destroy it. And he wished thus that the figure of the Church, whose bridegroom he is, radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment when he comes again he can find her without stain and blemish, just as he taught through his Apostle. All we priests and deacons are bound by the unbreakable law of those sanctions, so that from the day of our ordination we subject our hearts and bodies to moderation and modesty in order that in every respect we might please our God in these sacrifices which daily we offer. <"They who are in the flesh," says the chosen vessel, <"are unable to please God. But you are not now in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you." And where can the Spirit of God dwell except, as we read, in holy bodies?

11. And because a considerable number of those of whom we speak, as your holiness reported, lament that they lapsed in ignorance, we declare that mercy should not be denied to them, with this condition: if henceforth they strive to conduct themselves continently, they should continue as long as they live in that office which they held when they were caught, without any advancement in rank. But those who lean on the excuse of an illicit privilege by asserting that this was conceded to them in the old law, let them know that they have been expelled by the authority of the apostolic see from every ecclesiastical office, which they used unworthily, nor can they ever touch the mysteries which ought to be venerated, of which they deprived themselves when they were obsessed with obscene desires. And because present examples forewarn us to be vigilant in the future, any bishop, priest, and deacon henceforth found in this situation--which we hope will not happen--should understand right now that every avenue of forgiveness from us for himself is blocked, because it is necessary that wounds which do not respond to the medication of a soothing compress should be excised with a knife.

12. We learned, furthermore, that men of unexamined life, who even had many wives, boldly and freely aspire just as they please to the aforementioned ranks. We place blame for this not so much on those who reach for these things with immoderate ambition as on the metropolitan bishops specifically, who, when they close their eyes to forbidden strivings, disdain as far as is possible the precepts of our God. Let us be silent about what we suspect more deeply; but what of that which our God constituted in the law given through Moses, saying, <"Let my priests marry once," and in another place, <"Let a priest take a virgin as a wife, not a widow, not a divorced woman, not a prostitute"? Guided by this the Apostle, a persecutor turned preacher, commanded that both a priest and a deacon should be made <"the husband of one wife." All of these things are thus despised by the bishops of your regions, as if they were decreed more in the opposite sense. And because we should not ignore presumptions of this sort, lest the just voice of an indignant Lord reproach us when he says, <"You saw a thief and you ran with him, and you cast your lot with adulterers," what henceforth should be followed by all churches, what should be avoided, we decree by general pronouncement.

13. Whoever, therefore, vows himself to the services of the Church from his infancy ought to be baptized before the years of puberty and attached to the ministry of readers. From the beginning of adolescence up to thirty years of age he ought to be an acolyte and subdeacon, if he lives properly, content with only one wife whom he received as a virgin with a public benediction by a priest. Subsequently he should advance to the grade of deacon, if first, with continence leading the way, he proves himself worthy. If he performs this ministry laudably for more than five years he should attain the priesthood. From there, after a decade, he is able to reach the episcopal office, provided that during these times the integrity of his life and faith was demonstrated.

14. But he who, having been called to the conversion of a better way of life already advanced in years, is in a hurry to move from the laity to the sacred militia, will not otherwise obtain the fruit of his desire unless when baptized he is attached at once to the rank of readers or exorcists, if, that is, it is clear that he had or has one wife and that he received her as a virgin. Two years after his initiation having elapsed, he can be made an acolyte and subdeacon for five more, and thus can be advanced to the diaconate, if during these times he was judged worthy. Then subsequently, with the passage of time, if election of the clergy and people designates him, he justly can obtain the priesthood and the episcopate.

15. Any cleric indeed who marries a widow or a second wife should thereupon be stripped of all privilege of ecclesiastical rank, with communion as only a layman conceded to him, which he can then have provided that he does nothing henceforth for which he should lose it.

16. We certainly do not allow women in the houses of clerics, other than those alone whom the synod of Nicaea, for reasons only of necessities, permitted to live with them.

17. We also desire and wish that monks who are commended by depth of character and a holy pattern of life and faith be added to the ranks of clerics in this way. Those under thirty years of age should be promoted in minor orders over time through the individual ranks and thus reach the honors of the diaconate and the priesthood with the dedication of maturity. They should not ascend in a jump to the height of the episcopate, but only after having served the same periods of time which we established above for the individual ranks.

18. It is proper also for us to ensure that just as it is not conceded to any member of the clergy to do penance, thus after repentance and reconciliation it is not permitted to any layman to attain the honor of clerical office. For although they have been cleansed of the contamination of all sins, nevertheless those who formerly were vessels of iniquities ought not to take up any of the instruments of the sacraments.

19. And because for all these things which come under censure the singular excuse of ignorance is pleaded, for the moment, out of consideration of piety alone, it is necessary that we indulgently make allowances for it. Any penitent, any twice married man, any husband of a widow who improperly and unsuitably slipped into the sacred militia should understand that pardon has been bestowed on them by us with this condition, that it should be counted as a great benefit if, having removed from himself all hope of promotion, he remains with perpetual steadfastness in that order where he is. Hereafter the bishops of all provinces will know that if they believe that anyone of this sort should in the future be taken into sacred orders, an appropriate judgment is to be given by the apostolic see concerning both their own status and that of those whom they promoted contrary to the canons and to our prohibitions.

20. We explicated, I believe, dearest brother, all the things which were set forth as being at issue, and we provided adequate replies, in my opinion, to the individual cases which you referred to the Roman Church, just as to the head of your body, through our son the priest Bassianus. Now, brother, we incite your spirit more and more for observing the canons and adhering to the constituted decretals, so that you make known to all our fellow bishops, and not only those situated in your region, what we wrote back in response to your questions. But these things which were set forth by us in salubrious fashion should even be sent by escort of your letter to all the Carthaginians, Baeticians, Lusitanians, and Gallicians, and those who border you in neighboring provinces on either side. And although there is freedom for no priest of the Lord to be ignorant of the statutes of the apostolic see and the venerable decrees of the canons, it can, nevertheless, be helpful, and because of the antiquity of your see, beloved, exceedingly glorious for you, if those things of a general sort which were written to you by name are brought to the attention of all our brothers through your cooperative solicitude, so that the things which were salubriously established by us, not haphazardly, but prudently, with very great care and deliberation, might remain inviolate, and that in the future access to all excuses should be blocked, which according to us cannot be available now to anyone. Issued on February 11, in the consulship of Arcadius and Bauto.

God cannot "be boxed in" rather it is He who boxes us in. If a man or woman wishes to be priest in the Catholic Church they must be willing to obey the Bishop over them. Heb. 13 The Bishop is the box!

You can't have Catholicism your way. Take it for all it is or be a proud Protestant. It takes courage to be Catholic!

God calls some to celibacy and to the priesthood. Some are called just to celibacy. If you hear a calling to minister but want to be married, then be a deacon. The role of a deacon is very similar to the priest but is understood by the Church to allow for folks to be bivocational where they can work outside the Church for the purpose of providing for the home. A priest is generally too busy with the Church family to be mainly concerned with his own.

Even in Protestantism many PK's were holy terrors. Look at the requirements of clergy. One is that they can rule their children well. Amazingly my Catholic priest is married and his children are well behaved. So it can certainly be done but based on 36 years of observance it is the exception not the rule. (No offense intended for you PK's out there.) Do you agree?

I would also mention, former Catholic priest Francis MacNutt. He left the priesthood and got married but he accepted his discipline and remained in the Church of the Blessed Mother of our Lord. That takes real courage also.

[QUOTE=kenfollis@juno.com,Sep 27 2006, 12:58 PM] [QUOTE]"

I would also mention, former Catholic priest Francis MacNutt. He left the priesthood and got married but he accepted his discipline and remained in the Church of the Blessed Mother of our Lord. That takes real courage also. [/QUOTE]
Hi Ken,

Thought you had left us! Maybe that was another discussion... I just wanted to say that I have been Blessed to have been trained by Francis & Judith McNutt. It is important to know, he NEVER left Our Lord! He heard a calling and followed and through that he has blessed so very many.... so it is not only courage but a strength of belief so strong that he could "hear & follow" when God spoke to him. How many of us are able to do that in today's society? Blessings

Roy

ps any comment on "way long ago" Rosary questions??

Post has been removed by author.

Dear Roy Edw,

I did leave the CEC discussion, was exhausted by it. I have been waiting, however, to replies for other questions, and am still interested.

Seraph,

Good to hear from you. #8 mentions sin but certainly having children whether they from your wives or from another is never a sin. Children are always a blessing. Siricius is talking about extra-marital sex (fornication) which is always sinful.

What do you think the ignorant lapsing was, a described in the context of the letter?

His letter was in regards to those priests and religious who had gone after "the military belt, pleasures of the theater, new marriages, and forbidden liaisons whose manifest incontinence was shown by children born after absolution."

V/r,
Ken

Okay Ken--

I retract my earlier post!!!! That is something Jack Chick would never do... ;)

The Original Seraph

Post deleted by author.

The Byzantine Catholics are hiring!

They could use a few good men and their wives to minsister as priests, and according to the new canons of the Eastern church, married men in North America in fact MAY be ordained to the priesthood.

Simple Sinner,

Thanks for enlightening us to the Byzantine Catholic canons. I had understood that Eastern Catholics in the US were getting around the rules (which, in my opinion, were set in place for bad reasons), but it is nice to know the Eastern Catholics now can follow the customs and canons of the rest of the world.

I think Eastern Catholics are an under-appreciated bunch. Most Western Catholics I know, traditional or not, act like they don't even exist. I try to always bring up the Eastern understanding of something in class, so the kids have an idea that the Western way isn't the only legitimate way. Also, I have visited a few Eastern Catholic Churches, one in central Ohio and one near Lake Erie. They have been very simple, nothing as beautiful as the Orthodox cathedral I go to for Greek festivals, but they have been simple and beautiful in their own way.

David

post removed by author

Aren't bishops in the Orthodox Church celibate because they are monks, chosen from the monastery?

Fr Steve Anderson is a former married CEC priest who is now a Roman Catholic priest. Are you saying he won't be a parish priest? I do not think that is the case. Anyone know?

Regardless of any previous orders-valid or illicit, a CEC man may pursue the diaconate in the Roman Catholic Church.

I can't speak to the issue of Orthodox priests.

However, as regards Steve Anderson...He is an assistant at a parish. My understanding is that most bishops in the Roman Catholic Church will not put a married priest in the position of "pastor" of a church. Only in support capacities. I could be wrong, but that is what I have been told.

Our priest told my husband that he can NOT go back to being a deacon, unless the Church says his orders with the CEC weren't valid (or was it licit? I'm not clear on all that). So, on this point, I'd have to agree with New Catholic. But, my information didn't come from a bishop. That's my 2-cents' worth.

As usual, I typed before I knew all the facts. Please forgive this "new Catholic" for speaking out of turn.

I did find this interesting article on the Catholicity website, though.

Thanks for your patience.

Celibacy for Clergy

Good insights, TS and NC! Thank you. :)

I know reading long quotes can become cumbersome. However, I checked out the Catholicity website, too. I found this article. I thought it might answer the questions of some others as well. I hope it is helpful!
____________________________________
How to Refute Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy

by Deal Hudson

5 Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy and How to Refute Them

1. Allowing priests to marry would end pedophilia.

It is completely untrue that celibate priests are more likely to be pedophiles than any other group of men, married or not. Pedophilia affects only 0.3 percent of the population of Catholic clergy, and sexual abusers in general account for less than 2 percent of Catholic priests. These figures are comparable to rates among married men, as non-Catholic scholar Philip Jenkins points out in his book Pedophiles and Priests. Other Protestant denominations have admitted to having similar problems among their own married clergy, so clearly the problem is not with celibacy.

2. A married clergy would create a larger pool of healthy priestly candidates, solving the current priest shortage.

There are actually plenty of vocations today in faithful dioceses: Denver, Northern Virginia, and Lincoln, Nebraska, have great numbers of men entering the priesthood. If other dioceses, such as Milwaukee, want to answer the question of why they have so few vocations, the answer is simple: Challenge young men to a religious life that is demanding, countercultural, sacrificial, and loyal to the Holy Father and Catholic teaching. This is the surest way to guarantee a greater number of vocations.

3. Married priests relate better to issues concerning marriage and the family.

To put it bluntly, one doesn,t need to be an adulterer to counsel other adulterers. Priests understand the sacrificial nature and sanctity of marriage in a way that few others do. Who better to counsel a person in the ways of keeping the marital vow of fidelity than one who keeps the vow of celibacy?

4. It's unnatural for men to be celibate.

This idea reduces men to animals, creatures who can't live without their sexual urges being gratified. But humans are not animals. Humans make choices about the gratification of their appetites. We can control and channel our desires in a way that sets us apart from the rest of the animal world. And again, most sexual abusers are not celibate. It's sexual license that breeds sexual abuse, not celibacy!

5. Celibacy in the Latin rite is unfair. Since the Eastern rite allows married priests and the Latin rite allows married priests who have converted from Episcopalianism and Lutheranism, why can't all priests be married?

The discipline of celibacy among priests is one of the distinctive marks of the Roman Catholic tradition. Anyone who chooses to become a priest accepts the discipline. The Eastern rite, Lutheranism, and Episcopalianism, on the other hand, have a long tradition of married priests and the infrastructure and experience to handle it. However, Eastern rite priests and married priests who have converted from Lutheranism or Episcopalianism are NOT allowed to marry after their ordination or remarry after the death of their wife. In addition, the Eastern Church only chooses bishops from among their celibate, unmarried priests, clearly demonstrating that they see an inherent value in the nature of celibacy.

5 Arguments for Priestly Celibacy

1. Celibacy reaffirms marriage.

In a society that is completely saturated with sex, celibate priests are living proof that sexual urges can be controlled and channeled in a positive way. Far from denigrating the sexual act, celibacy acknowledges the goodness of sex within marriage by offering it up as a sacrifice to God. The sanctity of marriage is dishonored if it is treated merely as an outlet for sexual impulses. Rather, we as Christians are called to understand marriage as the inviolable commitment of a husband and wife to love and honor one another. A priest offers up a similar commitment of love to the Church, a bond that cannot be broken and that is treated with the same gravity and respect as in marriage.

2. Celibacy is scriptural.

Fundamentalists will tell you that celibacy has no basis in the Bible whatsoever, saying that Christians are called to "Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). This mandate speaks to humanity in general, however, and overlooks numerous passages in the Bible that support the celibate life. In 1 Corinthians, for example, Paul actually seems to prefer the celibate life: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage... Those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that... The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided" (7:27-34). This is not to say that all men should be celibate, however; Paul explains that celibacy is a calling for some and not for others by saying, "Each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:7).

Jesus Himself speaks of celibacy in Matthew 19:11-12: "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." Again, the emphasis is on the special nature of celibacy, one for which not all men are suited, but one that nevertheless gives glory to "the kingdom of God."

Perhaps the best evidence for the scriptural support of celibacy is that Jesus Himself practiced it!

3. Celibacy is historical.

Most people assume that the celibate priesthood is a convention introduced by the Church fairly late in history. On the contrary, there is evidence that even the earliest Church fathers, such as St. Augustine, St. Cyril, and St. Jerome, fully supported the celibate priesthood. The Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) and the First Council of Aries (314), a kind of general council of the West, both enacted legislation forbidding all bishops, priests, and deacons to have conjugal relations with their wives on penalty of exclusion from the clergy. Even the wording of these documents suggests that the councils were not introducing a new rule but rather maintaining a previously established tradition. In 385, Pope Siricius issued the first papal decree on the subject, saying that "clerical continence" was a tradition reaching as far back as apostolic times.

While later councils and popes would pass similar edicts, the definitive promulgation of the celibate, unmarried priesthood came at the Second Lateran Council in 1139 under Pope Gregory VII. Far from being a law forced upon the medieval priesthood, it was the acceptance of celibacy by priests centuries earlier that eventually led to its universal promulgation in the twelfth century.

4. Celibacy emphasizes the unique role of the priest.

The priest is a representative of Christ, an alter Christus. In this respect, the priest understands his identity by following the example of Jesus, a man who lived His life in perfect chastity and dedication to God. As Archbishop Crescenzio Sepe of Grado explains, "[A priest's] being and his acting must be like Christ's: undivided" (The Relevance of Priestly Celibacy Today, 1993). As such, the sacramental priesthood is holy, something set apart from the rest of the world. Just as Christ sacrificed His life for His bride, the Church, so too must a priest offer up his life for the good of Christ's people.

5. Celibacy allows the priest's first priority to be the Church.

The image used to describe the role of the priest is one of marriage to the Church. Just as marriage is the total gift of self to another, the priesthood requires the total gift of self to the Church. A priest,s first duty is to his flock, while a husband's first duty is to his wife. Obviously, these two roles will often conflict, as St. Paul noted and as many married priests will tell you. A celibate priest is able to give his undivided attention to his parishioners without the added responsibility of caring for his own family. They are able to pick up and go whenever necessary, whether this involves moving to a new parish or responding to a late-night crisis. Celibate priests are better able to respond to these frequent changes and demands on their time and attention.

Deal Hudson Deal W. Hudson is the director of the Morley Institute, and is the former publisher of CRISIS Magazine, a Catholic monthly published in Washington, DC. His articles and comments have been published in The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, National Review, Richmond Times-Dispatch, The Village Voice, Roll Call, National Journal, The Economist, and by the Associated Press. He appears regularly on television shows such as NBC Nightly News, One-on One with John McLaughlin, C-Span's Washington Journal, News Talk, NET's Capitol Watch, The Beltway Boys, The Religion and Ethics Newsweekly on PBS, and radio programs such as "All Things Considered" on National Public Radio. He was associate professor of Philosophy at Fordham University from 1989 to 1995 and was a visiting professor at New York University for five years. He taught for nine years at Mercer University in Atlanta, where he was chair of the philosophy department. He has published many reviews and articles as well as four books: Understanding Maritain: Philosopher and Friend (Mercer, 1988); The Future of Thomism (Notre Dame, 1992); Sigrid Undset On Saints and Sinners (Ignatius, 1994); and Happiness and the Limits of Satisfaction (Rowman & Littlefield, 1996). His autobiography, An American Conversion (Crossroad, 2003), is available from Amazon.com.
_________________________________

Any thoughts on this?

TS- I am the only one allowed by the Vatican to make long posts! Didn't you get the Pope's encyclical? :lol:

BTW Deal Hudson, a convert, is the real deal. Crisis Magazine is wonderful.

:D :D :D

So does that mean I get a gold star??? :lol:

It might be the case for him in particular that inhis diocese he will not be named a pastor but rather attached to a parish while working in another apostolate.


OR he might be a pastor. depending on what the bishop allows. I believe it varies, case by case.

http://chnetwork.org/forums/forum47/2571.html

I can't, off the top of my head, quote the canon law involved, but with regard to the Pastoral Provision (and presumably to those who have been accepted as married priests) it is clearly stated that such a priest would not have the "ordinary care of souls" -- in other words, would not be a pastor in charge of a congregation. Such a person might be an associate pastor; might be a curate; might be assigned to a Newman Center; might work for the Diocese, etc., but in most cases, would not be assigned in a lead role as pastor of a parish.

Blessings,

David,
I have read that too, somewhere. However, look at Fr. Phillips and Fr. Bergman who have their own parishes. If you find the PP quote you reference, please post it. Do you think it is only the non-ECUSA folks who do not get the primary pastor-ship, etc.?
Ken

Sorry Johnny come lately to the discussion.
Yes We have celibate Bishop's in the Orthodox Church.
They are primarily monks but are also widowers. A ordained clergy's (Priest or Deacon) marriage status must be determined before ordination. (Can't date the sheep :) ) If that wife goes to meet the Lord, then their is no remarriage for their is to be no remarriage before or after ordination. Remember a man of one wife.... So a widower is eligible for the Bishopric if his affairs concerning Children have been put in order.
Both monks and widowers are encouraged and elevated since it gives a understanding and a reminder for them concerning their married priests and what they go through. Better well rounded thought process. I have no problem with mandatory celibacy but think I like our way better. Both have ups and downs. At minimum I believe all Bishop's to be celibate do to the nature and oversight of their charges. Plus a long established walk of prayer and church disciplines is mandatory no matter the background for the office of Bishop and Priest. How can you be a physician with no formal (formational) training.

We do have a strong emphasis that the CEC was lacking concerning married clergy. Your marriage and wife must come before your ministry and flow from it. To many times in the CEC I saw or knew where wives were told to submit when a Father was needed at home or needed to get a new job. But the rector or Bishop had not heard the same thing from the Lord so the clergy in questioned had to submit and piss of his wife rather than his elder. This shepherding is/was one of the most troubling things to me. What God has joined together let no man put asunder.

In general in the OC the bishop knows that if his Priest's marriage falls apart he loses a Priest. So careful painstaking process of determining calls is put in place during ordination process. When my personal priest received the call, his wife told him ,if she knew he had been called to the priesthood, she would have never married him. He laid it it down and prayed. Ten years later God did a work in her and she encouraged the call. He started back down the process again and now he is my Priest. God has blessed him and us for his willingness to wait for God's timing. A lot of damage could have been done. Damage I have seen first hand when men called were openly ordained while their wives were not onboard with or even attending a CEC Church. Remember Malcom Smith's divorce was not the problem only his remarriage. Funny I wonder what the case for ++Adler's remarriage would have been had his pocket pictured wife had indeed become his next wife.

As to the RCC allowing married laity/priest forsake their wives and children, if and big if it did happen they were in violation of Ecumenical Council mandates that those who committed such were to be anathematized.

Just some thoughts

Sorry for any typos, punctuation, grammer, etc. mistakes.

It is hard! I interpret Saint Paul's words to the Corinthians to be advising them of the fact that an unmarried person, irrespective of their choosing a religious vocation, can concentrate more on the things of God.

The sad thing is that Malcolm is in his third marriage and Adler in his second.

This would be a problem for me, if the Vatican approved of such cases.

Similarily, I have read how some married couples separated and would join monastic orders. There seems to be some doctrinal justification for these cases. (e.g. St Paul stating that the married should, due to the persecution of his day, live as if they were not married) However I do not recall the fate of the children, if there were any in these cases. If there were, I do not see them automatically being neglected. Even today, some children can be well attended to by two loving but divorced parents. The children's ideal of marriage is skewed but their understanding of parenting, although not ideal, is a bit more clear. These are certainly the exceptions and not the rule but it beats having them witness and/or receive abuse when their parents endlessly fought. A separation is the lesser of two evils. It is further compounded if the divorced parent's remarry. Jesus, knowing the heart of children, said remarriage is yet another sin.

If two loving parents separated to spend their time loving and serving God while still loving and serving their children, I see nothing wrong in these cases. In the eyes of God, they are still married unless, of course, their marriage was illicit to begin with. In this case, an annulment is needed.

However, this subject is so complex, that I am content to just attend to my own situation and pray for everyone else. Of all the sacraments, Marriage is the most complicated to me. Parenting is an even more complex art.