Celibacy

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Myles' date='Nov 16 2005, 05:57 PM'][url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457a.htm"]Paphnutius [/url]
[right][snapback]791958[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Thank you for doing the footwork for me.

[dandy777]

[quote name='Myles' date='Nov 17 2005, 12:55 AM']In the Greek Church the canons governing episcopal consecration were formalised at the Eastern Council of Trullo in the 7th century. These canons form the basis for eastern thought on the issue be it Eastern Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Bishops are indeed not permitted to be married.
[right][snapback]791898[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes. That I know for sure. But you didn't tell me if what I said is true or not.

[dandy777]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 17 2005, 12:54 AM']The Church is reluctant to change because they feel it is more important that lay persons become more involved in the Church.  There is way too much stuff that non-ordained people can do that isn't being done.  More priests would be nice, a more involved laity would be better.
[right][snapback]791896[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes I definitley agree that lay people should give more of a helping hand to the priest's ministry. There are so many people with so many gifts to share and use for God's glory. However, I would be extremely cautious with the procedure applied to chose such people as there is a tendancy that such people try to almost take the priest's place and /or his role which is intolerable.

[Myles Domini]

Sorry Dandy I thought I'd addressed your query in a previous post when I spoke about Rome and Tradition. No priest can get married, no married priest can become a Bishop. Married men can be ordained but thats as far as it goes. If a priest's presybetera dies and he is widowed he is to be celibate thereafter.

Added to that I agree with what you said about the laity. The true spirit of Vatican II did not intend to set up parallel Church ministries for lay people but encouraged them to take up the charge of evangelisation in the midst of the world. Vatican II was supposed to throw open the windows of the Church to the world but instead the Church has merely become more insular in that instead of going out to the world we've let the world in. An active laity as envisioned by Vatican II was a well formed laity which could evangelise in those sectors of society where priests and friars were frowned on. The more parallel lay ministries we set up within the Church the further away we more from the authentic spirit of Vatican II. The layman's vocation is not in the sanctuary but in the streets, shops and skyscrapers.

[dandy777]

[quote name='Myles' date='Nov 17 2005, 07:23 PM']Sorry Dandy I thought I'd addressed your query in a previous post when I spoke about Rome and Tradition. No priest can get married, no married priest can become a Bishop. Married men can be ordained but thats as far as it goes. If a priest's presybetera dies and he is widowed he is to be celibate thereafter.[/quote]

Ah ok...excuse me... maybe I didn't understand your previous post.

[quote name='Myles' date='Nov 17 2005, 07:23 PM']Added to that I agree with what you said about the laity. The true spirit of Vatican II did not intend to set up parallel Church ministries for lay people but encouraged them to take up the charge of evangelisation in the midst of the world. Vatican II was supposed to throw open the windows of the Church to the world but instead the Church has merely become more insular in that instead of going out to the world we've let the world in. An active laity as envisioned by Vatican II was a well formed laity which could evangelise in those sectors of society where priests and friars were frowned on. The more parallel lay ministries we set up within the Church the further away we more from the authentic spirit of Vatican II. The layman's vocation is not in the sanctuary but in the streets, shops and skyscrapers.
[right][snapback]792850[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes I agree. I believe the role of lay people should be divided in two sections. One would be to help in parish affairs especially when there is lack of priests. However, this should be done in collaboration with proests and under their control. Secondly, I believe that the lay people's main call is to evangelise the Good News and not just with words like preaching or praying with people (who should also be trained and under clerical control/conformity) but also in deeds like doing voluntary work among the poor and needy etc. Unfortunately many frown upon such people too .

[scardella]

Does anyone want to get into the theological reasons?

[Myles Domini]

[quote]Does anyone want to get into the theological reasons?[/quote]

If we make out that there are real theological reasons why married men should not be ordained then one has to pose the question as to why the Eastern Catholics have consisently done this and why Rome herself has permitted this for convert Anglican and Lutheran clergy. If one wishes to say there are real reasons why ordination of married men should not take place you then face the problem of establishing why the Papacy sees it otherwise.

The Holy See has declared the Eastern Traditions as valid as our own and has allowed married Protestant clergy to be recieved into orders within the Latin Church. To hold as theological opinion that celibacy of the clergy is better is fine, to attempt to establish it as orthodoxy would run into difficulties. A) Because it would be saying at once that the Eastern Catholics are less Catholic than ourselves (which is errant) and b) that Rome has made a mistake in supporting the Easterners right to continue their own ancient disciplines most recently in the form of JP2's letter 'Light of the East' and the new Eastern code of canons promulgated under him.

This is an issue of discipline, underpinned by valid theologumenon perhaps, but an issue of discipline nonetheless. To try to establish otherwise would be to condemn the numerous Eastern rites of the Catholic Church each of which use married clergy whilst at the same time condemning Rome for keeping communio in sacris with them while they maintain a mistaken theological position.

Roma locuta est causa finita est

To speak otherwise would be to put ourselves on the otherside of the fence to the papacy and that just wont do. This is not a question of orthodoxy this is a question of canonical jurdistiction and Rome, without doubt, is well within her powers to alter the disipline. Hence, it is dangerous to question the validity of a move because it could imply that a notion contrary. Fundamentality this is not a question for theologians but canonists.

INXC
Myles

[scardella]

[quote name='Myles' date='Nov 17 2005, 03:22 PM']This is an issue of discipline, underpinned by valid theologumenon perhaps, but an issue of discipline nonetheless.[/quote]

Theologumenon? What's that? I certainly agree that it's discipline.

[quote]To try to establish otherwise would be to condemn the numerous Eastern rites of the Catholic Church each of which use married clergy whilst at the same time condemning Rome for keeping communio in sacris with them while they maintain a mistaken theological position.

Roma locuta est causa finita est

To speak otherwise would be to put ourselves on the otherside of the fence to the papacy and that just wont do. This is not a question of orthodoxy this is a question of canonical jurdistiction and Rome, without doubt, is well within her powers to alter the disipline. Hence, it is dangerous to question the validity of a move because it could imply that a notion contrary. Fundamentality this is not a question for theologians but canonists.
[right][snapback]793211[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The bishops of all rites are celibate. They alone have the fullness of the priesthood. I don't see why it is not orthodox, then, to speculate that a celibate priesthood fits the [i]persona Christi[/i] than a married priesthood. I'm not maintaining that it's wrong or inappropriate, just that one is more fitting. Perhaps there is misunderstanding on one of our parts? Perhaps that little nasty thing called language?

Might I mention these two passages?
[quote][Jesus'] disciples said to him, [b]"If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."[/b]
He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.  Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; [b]some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."[/b]
[i]-Mt 19:10-12[/i][/quote]
[quote]Now in regard to virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.  So this is what I think best because of the present distress: that it is a good thing for a person to remain as he is.  Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife.  If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that.

I tell you, brothers, the time is running out. From now on, let those having wives act as not having them, those weeping as not weeping, those rejoicing as not rejoicing, those buying as not owning, those using the world as not using it fully. For the world in its present form is passing away.

I should like you to be free of anxieties. [b]An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.  But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided.[/b] An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction.  If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.  The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well.  [b]So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.[/b]

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, provided that it be in the Lord.  She is more blessed, though, in my opinion, if she remains as she is, and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.
[i]-1 Corinthians 7: 25-40[/i][/quote]

Edited November 17, 2005 by scardella

[dspen2005]

the practice of the East is based upon their own understanding. THe early Church leaders, it has been argued, may have practiced celibacy w/in marriage in their capacity as bishop, priest, etc.... this being so, there is precident for having the discipline of celibacy in the priesthood, outside of marriage. Also, arguments have been made that the discipline was changed b/c the Church was no longer under persecution. In her capacity, the Church has thought it wise to allow Prot converts, who are being ordained to the priesthood, to be married -- because they already have wives and families. it wouldn't be a good thing for the Church to require the man to abandon his family -- for that would fly in the face of Her teaching regarding family life. Secondly, ordinations of these type and very, very, very, very, VERY rare and are subject to the approval of the Holy Father.

celibacy is a good discipline b/c it unites the priest with the sacrifice of Christ and better conforms to the theological underpinnings of the priest being married to the Church as his bride....

[dandy777]

Yes I understand that and I agree with it on a spiritual level.

So can anyone please help me out in this cos I came across it this week and found it quite confusing....

[b][i]The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. [u]They forbid people to marry[/u] and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. [u]For everything God created is good,[/u] and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, [u]because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.[/u][/b] (1 Timothy 4:1-5)[/i]

[Myles Domini]

The text cited is context dependent. The letter to timothy is condemning heretical teaching that became prevalent in some sectors of Christianity which was dualistic and regarded matter as innately evil. Hence, sex was regarded as a grave error since it involved the propagation of matter through procreation. For more info check out [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm"]Against Heresies by St Irenaeus[/url].

When one reads the Pauline Corpus one must take into full account the person/s to which the letters are addressed and the context in which the words were written. This is neccessary to avoid playing one text off against another e.g. 1 Cor 7:7-8 against the text you have produced instead of producing a unified reading.

My main problem with the 'theological' issues is that one cannot simply dismiss the issue of divergence between East and West by saying the East has its own understanding. You cannot objectively assert the merits of an all celibate priesthood without positing something is wrong with the Eastern way.

On the level of theologumenon ('theological opinion') I have no problem with the view that priestly celibacy better epitomises Christ to the people. However, if you try and make a [b]real[/b] argument for this and say it should be doctrine then you encounter the problems I have listed. If you say there is true theology behind your opinion then you condemn those who disagree with you. Pope John Paul the Great seemed keenly aware of this in his 1995 letter 'Orientale Lumen' wherein he stated:

[quote]Of course, in today's outlook it appears that true union is possible only in total respect for the other's dignity without claiming that the whole array of uses and customs in the Latin Church is more complete or better suited to showing the fullness of correct doctrine--Orientale Lumen para 20[/quote]

If you are saying that objectively priestly celibacy shows forth complete doctrine then Rome has been gravely compromised by entering into communion with Eastern Churches (and indeed maintaining unbroken communion with the Maronites) who do not profess the fullness of truth. A communion is built on a unity of faith and if we are disunified in what are truly matters of doctrinal theology and not theologumenon then we have violated our own principles. That was my point.

Priestly celibacy is a matter of practice there are no theological reasons why Rome cannot alter it to suit the ancient usages. Whatever we may feel or opine about our customs there is a line between objectivity and subjectivity and theologumenon remain in the realm of the latter.

INXC
Myles

PS) [url="http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0212/opinion/davies.html"]Celibacy in Context[/url] a good article on the Eastern view of celibacy from the First Things magazine online archives.