One of a few things I still can't get my head around... clerical celibacy.
I understand the reasoning behind it, in theory, but unlike the vast majority of doctrines, I can hear an explanation, but I just don't feel it. I don't understand all that well.
It seems to me, from one way of looking at it, that enforced clerical celibacy excludes a great many people who (like myself) would seriously consider the priesthood otherwise.
Personally, I like to think that I could make it all right down that path... except for this one part.
It's not that I'm against this, not at all... I support the Magisterium 100%. I just think it seems like a bit of a shame that it has to be this way.
I would really appreciate other perspectives, so that I can finally entirely understand why things are the way they have to be.

Sorry, I somehow managed to duplicate this topic.
I suppose one of them will be deleted.
Whichever one has the least replies would be appreciated.

This is the only issue that I go back and forth on. I completely support the Magisterium on all their decisions, and am grateful I'm not the one making them, but I wish we had more priests. I don't know if a married priesthood would drastically increase the number of vocations. I'm sure it would drastically increase as many problems as it solved. We don't deal with a bunch of priests divorcing and having nasty custody or property fights right now for example. I just pray and trust.

Besides the practical positives from celibacy, there is also very much a spiritual beauty to celibacy.

Celibacy for the kingdom of God is one of the highest gifts a man or a woman can give to God. I don't think there is anything that is more natural for man than to be espoused, to have sex, and to procreate. In choosing a celibate life, man is giving up that which is most natural to him. He is choosing to give up sex and spouse for something higher, for God alone. He is giving himself to God alone. He is seeking after that marital bond which we all will be in in Heaven; he is seeking out union with God: in this life. God has called him to a higher state of life (not to say that celibacy is better than marriage) in which all things are considered on the spiritual level. In the priesthood or in the religious life, men and women live out the heavenly calling here on earth.

Such a beautiful sacrifice is what allows our priests to be entrusted with our spiritual well-being. It really does go hand in hand with the priesthood.

That's a good way to say it. Thank you.
...and CatherineM, I agree entirely with everything you said. Definitely glad the decisions aren't up to us.
I suppose, like with a lot of things, at the end of the day we trust that things are working out better than we realize.

The celibate priesthood is a tradition of the Latin Church alone; in the Byzantine Churches married men are ordained to both the deaconate and the presbyterate.

Do you happen to know the percentage of married priests in the Eastern Churches? Just curious.

Very few in the United States at the present time, because the Latin Church in America requested the suppression of our tradition of married priests and their request was granted by the Vatican in the late 1920s.

Nevertheless, beginning in the 1990s the Ukrainian and Melkite Churches in North America started ordaining married priests, and since that time the number of married priests in all of the Eastern Churches within the United States and Canada has been slowly rising.

Hopefully over the next twenty years the idea of a celibate parish clergy in Eastern Catholic Churches wil be a thing of the past.

Interesting; okay, thanks!

Judging by your last comment, I take it that you're against clerical celibacy altogether? May I ask why? *Just curious, not intending any sort of argument or debate*

It is not a part of our tradition for parish clergy to be celibate.

Celibacy is connected to monasticism.

I learned about the Eastern Catholic tradition only recently.
I wonder though... they're in full communion with Rome, meaning they are 'as correct' as the Roman tradition... but that raises interesting questions about the transferring of traditions from one division to another, such as the option to waive celibacy applied in the Latin tradition, perhaps?

I doubt that it is looked on favorably for a man to transfer from the Latin Church to an Eastern Church simply to be allowed to get married and then be ordained.

Oh yes, of course.
I meant more about the translation of practices from one particular church to another.
Along the lines of "since they do it, why can't we as well?"

I doubt that will happen any time soon.

In fact, it has only been within the last decade that the Eastern Catholic Churches in the U.S. and Canada have reasserted our own distinctive tradition on this issue, after having it forcefully suppressed for more than sixty years, so I doubt our present day practices will have any effect on the Latin Church.

Well all I know is, like I said before, if priests could marry, I'd definitely be looking into the seminary right now.
As it stands... I really hope to get married someday in the next ten years or less, and I feel more pulled towards that.

Although I understand your feelings, I do not think a change in the discipline of the Latin Church is likely to happen. Frankly, as an Eastern Catholic I simply hope that my Church's actions will be ignored by the hierarchy of the Latin Church, so that they will leave us alone and not force their disciplline in this area on us once again.

Just ignore you?
I'll be honest, before about two months ago, I thought that all the 'Eastern' churches were Orthodox. When I found out that there were Eastern Catholic particular churches, I felt this weird sense of pride.
If it were up to me, I'd try to forget about anything that might have gone wrong in the past (which I have no inkling about), remember that we're all Catholic, and have a big EastAndWest party! ()
That's just my take on it.

We are in communion with each other, but the past forms part of who we are today, and so it cannot be forgotten. Certainly past wrongs should be forgiven, but never forgotten.

A post that explains some of the history of the Ruthenian Church in America


Below is some information on the experience of Eastern Catholics in America that can be found in a book entitled: "Making the Irish American: History and Heritage of the Irish in the United States," by Joseph Lee and Marion R. Casey.

Perhaps the single biggest failure of the American Catholic Church in responding to the successive waves of Catholic immigrants involved the Ukrainian and Carpatho-Rusyn members. As Byzantine-rite Catholics (or Greek-rite Catholics, as they were commonly called), for centuries in Eastern Europe they had enjoyed their own hierarchy, liturgy, canon law, and the longstanding custom of a married clergy. In the United States, however, the latter practice aroused fierce hostility from the American bishops, who refused to permit it. "The possible loss of a few souls of the Greek rite," the U.S. archbishops declared in 1893, "bears no proportion to the blessings resulting from uniformity of discipline." As a result of this episcopal obtuseness, which deprived Byzantine-rite Catholics of the services of their own clergy, some 225,000 eventually left the Catholic Church and joined the hitherto numerically insignificant Russian Orthodox Church. The situation began to improve only after 1907 with the appointment of Stephen Ortynsky as the first Byzantine-rite bishop in the United States. (pages 577-578)

Yes. I hope the Latin hierarchy ignores us.


I'm all for a big party. I just think the party will be more fun if the Latin bishops ignore my Church.

Of course I meant forgive rather than forget. Sorry.
Still though... wouldn't you find it healthier in general if everyone were to be able to unequivocally leave these wrongs in the past (where they are, remain, and belong)?
I'm sure that there were a lot of misunderstandings and problems from both sides, God knows, it happens all the time, but in the end, we're still all Catholic. Wouldn't you prefer to have the Eastern traditions to be as fully accepted and widely known as their Latin counterparts, rather than just 'tolerated'?

Perhaps you are called to the permanent diaconate? Married, but serving still as a deacon?

That is a good suggestion. At least he should look into it.

I prefer to fly under the radar. Seriously though, some Latins respond very poorly to the idea that there can be theological differences among the 23 sui juris Catholic Churches.

I actually have looked into that.
In my diocese and archdiocese the permanent diaconate is taken on in addition to a current career, and prospective permanent deacons should be at least thirty five.
Got a ways to go before that's feasible.

Hm... Well that's not an ideal situation.
Of course... the theological differences must not be that great, and obviously are outweighed by the similarities. That's why we have full communion.
I should probably find out more about the Eastern Catholic tradition in general, because as you can tell, I really don't know that much.

East and West, Latin and Byzantine

Wow, that was really really detailed!
Probably a little bit over my head, at least some of it. Luckily I have an excuse; high school. Plenty of time to learn.
It seems, to one as uneducated as myself, that some of those main differences were really differences in emphasis rather than radically seperate beliefs. Some of them were even closer to semantic differences, at least from my perspective.
Would I be incorrect in thinking this?

Yes, in some cases that is true, but the Byzantine doctrine of divine simplicity is radically different from that held by the West, and the Eastern patristic understanding of predestination has nothing in common with the Augustinian view of that doctrine. So it does depend upon the doctrine under consideration.

Ok, that makes sense.
That part of the post was the biggest portion that I just had a tough time understanding. I'm sure it means a lot more to the serious theologians... rather than ameteur net 'theologians' like myself.

Some of the differences are complex.

Excuse my ignorance, but I always get confused with the different Catholic... umm... groups?

What makes an Irish Catholic different from a Roman Catholic? Or is there no difference? Is it like saying American Catholic?

And everything falls under Roman Catholic? Or no?

(Sorry for not knowing this, this is probably something I should know.)

Generally speaking "Irish" Catholics are Roman Catholics, although there may be a few Eastern Cahtolics in Ireland. In fact, almost every Catholic in Western Europe would be a Roman Catholic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only officially 'different' Catholics (different, for lack of a better term at the moment) are the Eastern Catholics, distinct from Orthodox.
So the majority of us are "Roman Catholic", which generally includes the Irish, the American, and most of Western Europe, and the official distinctions only come in when we refer to the particular churches in the East.
Of course I don't want to step on Apotheon's toes here, because he knows way better than me.

...I didn't know any of this until just a couple months ago, and these sorts of things are the facts that I live on. I'm not at all surprised when anyone tells me they've never heard of it.

If one accepts the common religious statistical information found in almanacs and the like: there are about 1 billion Roman Catholics in the world, and about 18 million Eastern Catholics.

No wonder no one knows. You need to yell louder, be that vocal minority.
hahaha

Most Eastern Catholics would prefer to live quietly in their dust speck.

I believe that celibacy is necessary for the priesthood because all priest are alter-Christus, and should be in imitation of Jesus Christ, who lived his life in perfect celibacy.

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, priesthood isn't a right, it's a privilege, and it is only given to those who are called and who can accept it. It is wise to discern heavily on this, NO, since you have a desire for marriage...

That is the general view held in the Latin Church, but Eastern Catholics don't agree.

The majority of the original Apostles were married men.

Oooh... harsh.
...and extremely clear.
It doesn't change the fact, however, that I feel drawn to some form of priesthood, albeit not as much as the married life.
In the end though, it comes right down to the choice between marriage and Holy Orders, and at this point in my life (however young I am) I would choose marriage.

I am very happy the Latin Rite priest don't marry, and I hope and pray they never get any ideas to stray from this...

I myself am discerning religious life. No one ever mentions anything about the ladies remaining celibate. I wonder why? But we do it in example of the Blessed Mother. As Jesus says whoever can accept it should.

Celibacy in no way is a negative. It is extremely positive. I've never viewed it as "giving up" anything. It isn't an "absence" in my self...it's actually making me whole. Celibacy is completing me. In a sense, it is contributing to my giving my total self entirely to God...giving my total mind, soul and body. I have no one else to be in love with but God. And in the process, God blesses me with more than I could ever imagine. I will be a spiritual mother to hundreds of children...I will love to the faith as many people as comes into my path...I will love as God wishes me to love...

It's exactly as He says...not everyone can accept it. You have to be called. And I truly hope and pray that the Latin Church never loses this gift of the celibate priesthood and the celibate religious life. It is a beautiful tradition, and I know it is divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit...because there is no way it could be possible if it weren't for God.

In no way was I trying to be harsh...just stating why we believe the way we believe...

It sounded harsh.
In any case, I know what we believe, and I'll never say anything against what we believe. The right path is often not the easiest one, but that doesn't mean we can't wish it was just a bit easier.
After all, I'd love to have it both ways. That's not to say that I want to be able to sin or anything, but it would be easier if it were different.
I'm sure you understand what I'm trying to say.
Almost my bedtime, mind isn't as sharp as I want.

I am surprised this hasn't been mentioned but there are married priests in the Catholic Church - those who for various reasons were clergy in other christian denominations that have converted. Many of these also have children - some of school age - and are now fully fledged Roman Catholic Priests. These men have to give up a lot to convert so it is a serious choice - many have no other skills/way of making a living so the Barmabas society tries to support some of them financially/spiritually/mentally.
They are no less priests than those who are celibate and have not converted and their ministry is invaluable - it may not be the answer to our shortage of priests and it is certainly not the way for everyone but we do have them, they do have value and should be remembered - they are too easily forgotten. There are still converts in our seminaries too who need support, please pray for them. Celibacy is not the essential element of priesthood - St Peter was married and Jesus chose him to lead his church! Pax.

It's not really our choice though; it's God's choice. It's what vocation you are called to. Celibacy is a gift given by God to him who is called to the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church. I am sure many men who are priests today had always imagined they would someday be married, but when they experienced the call from God who is Love, everything changed, and the heart became set on giving itself totally to God alone, to that union with God, which marriage in this world is but a sign of. Again, celibacy is a gift given by God. As Fr. Corapi says, why throw the gift back at Him?

An Encyclical of Pope Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas

Also, I would recommend reading or listening to anything by Fr. Thomas Loya, a Byzantine Catholic priest, like this, The Theology of the Body & Celibacy He is celibate himself, although he is not against married men being ordained in the Eastern Catholic Churches of course. He often gives talks on the Theology of the Body.

http://www.byzantinecatholic.com/
http://www.byzantinecatholic.com/radio.htm

Also, just a thought - although the apostles, besides St. John, were married, they were so before they left everything to follow Jesus, and be ordained to the priesthood. I'm pretty sure in the Eastern Churches, while married men can be ordained, ordained men cannot marry. It seems that the apostles, after leaving everything for Our Lord, were also asked to sacrifice even the great good of marriage for the sake of the Kingdom.

Celibate priesthood is merely a discipline, and not a divinely inspired tradition.

Not me!!! I'm Chaldean Rite Catholic and proud of it!!!

I did use the word most, not all.

Fair enough.

The Ruthenian Church in the U.S. has been badly burned by the Latin Church several times since the end of the 19th century, and even suffered two major schisms because of interference by the Latin hierarchy, so many Ruthenians would prefer to be left quietly alone.

That said, the Ukrainians and the in particular the Melkites are more willing to make waves and push the process of de-Latinization, even if it offends Latin Catholic sensibilities, and I tend to support the Ukrainian / Melkite approach.

indeed. i think there is a connection between celibacy and fasting of the body, which increases discipline and heightens spirituality. Latin Catholics are hardcore and we go for the gusto, all or nothing, all for God, to the maximum.

now this is something i have thought about and if you're a girl it may be harder to understand. if you're a guy and can avoid mortal sin for more than a month or two at a time, you may know what i'm talking about (guys, lookup Deuteronomy 23:10-11 or msg me). chastity is one of the most difficult things for a man, and i believe the discipline of which enables you to go to new heights of spirituality, discipline, and sacrifice. all these make for a better priest, imo.