Posted on 10/25/2009 2:48:17 PM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY, OCT. 23, 2009 (Zenit.org).- When priests are given the choice between marriage and celibacy, the tendency is to choose celibacy, at least according to the experience of the bishop of Cairo of the Chaldeans.Bishop Youssef Ibrahim Sarraf said this today in response to a question concerning married priests at a press conference to present the final message of the synod on Africa.
The question was asked in light of the announcement this week that Benedict XVI will publish an apostolic constitution that will allow groups of Anglicans seeking communion with the Church to do so through personal ordinariates.
Within it, Anglican married priests will be allowed to be ordained as priests in the Catholic Church and to exercise their ministry maintaining their married family life.
The journalist asked if the introduction of former Anglican, married priests to the Church would cause celibate Catholic priests to stray.
The bishop of Cairo noted in his response that in Egypt, married Catholic priests belonging to the Eastern Catholic Churches and celibate priests coexist without problems.
He also said that even where the ordination of married priests is allowed, there is a tendency to celibacy that many priests embrace voluntarily.
"This doesn't create problems," the bishop clarified. "It's something that is absolutely normal.
"The tendency is rather to celibacy, but not the contrary, at least according to the experience in Egypt."
Archbishop John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria, president of the commission given the responsibility to write the synod's final message, said that the dispensation of celibacy to former Anglican priests would "not have a fundamental impact" on the clergy in Africa.
Nevertheless, the Orthodox do like to dip their toes in the water of sexual continence for married clergy for they prescribe abstinence from sexual relations for a certain period before celebration of the Eucharist, do they not?
A ruling which effectively kills a daily celebration of the Eucharist such as that to which Catholics have access.
That's a shame.
Having a foot in both camps is tough.
“Nevertheless, the Orthodox do like to dip their toes in the water of sexual continence for married clergy for they prescribe abstinence from sexual relations for a certain period before celebration of the Eucharist, do they not?”
M, its the same rule for me and all other Orthodox lay people. Its not the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, per se, its the reception of communion. Its a fasting discipline.
“A ruling which effectively kills a daily celebration of the Eucharist such as that to which Catholics have access.”
And which they receive without fasting, priests included, from food or marital relations, as I understand it. I also understand that there is no requirement of confession prior to reception and that people who are “living in sin” are welcome to receive. Its what we would call receiving unworthily. Some Fathers have said that unworthy reception is the drinking and eating of one’s own condemnation. Now that, M, is a shame at least.
I suppose in place where there are multiple priests, a daily Divine Liturgy could be chanted, but it isn’t. Its not the custom, M.
Yeah, but it's easy and it's a "feel-good" thing... :)
As regards someone's comment about not being able to serve two masters, then all married people, not just priests, must hate God too. But, then, even loving yourself does that.
Well, those weren’t my words...and I think it’s perhaps an excessively strong way of putting it! However, I will say that my experience with Catholic priests and Orthodox priests does lead me to say that Catholic priests are more focused on serving the Church and have far less to worry about in terms of the effect of their decisions on the lives of their immediate families.
Orthodox priests, while obviously having as much of a range of good and bad as another other group of people, do have to worry about the adequacy of the salary, whether their wives will have to work, what the schools are like, etc. Also I will say I have seen some very dysfunctional families among the Orthodox clergy simply because there are enormous pressures on the wives and children (mostly to be “perfect”).
So I would argue that it’s not a matter of serving Mammon, that is, serving something that is arguably not that good in itself, but simply of undivided service to the Church.
Seeing as a priest cannot celebrate the Divine Liturgy without taking Communion, that is a distinction without a difference. It's a Divine Liturgy killer. Either the priest has sex or he celebrates the Liturgy but not both.
Happily Catholic priests are not faced with that choice. There is no divide. There is no wife to compete for the priest's attentions (in the Latin Rite).
Just as St. Paul recommends.
As for having the same abstinence rule for the laity, that is indeed a lofty and exalted discipline. There is no doubt that Catholic rules on fasting before Communion need some work, although I'm not sure whether they should go to that extreme. BTW, at communion time in the Orthodox Church, is a quick scan of those refraining from presenting themselves essentially the same as asking for a show of hands for who had sex last night?
And which they receive without fasting, priests included, from food or marital relations, as I understand it.
As priests are celibate, the issue is moot. You are correct that there is no abstinence requirement for laity.
I also understand that there is no requirement of confession prior to reception and that people who are “living in sin” are welcome to receive.
"Living in sin"?? What does that mean? We're all living in sin, unless we're no longer sinners.
The rule is that nobody in the state of mortal sin may approach Communion. Anyone who does so commits sacrilege.
Its what we would call receiving unworthily.
In one sense, no one is "worthy".
"Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof but only say the word and my soul will be healed".
Some Fathers have said that unworthy reception is the drinking and eating of one’s own condemnation. Now that, M, is a shame at least.
St. Paul says it. It's in ..........um...........is it 2nd Corinthians? Can't remember off the top of my head. It used to be the reading for the feast of Corpus Christi in the old missal before they changed it. Too scary, apparently. They ought to bring it back.
1 Corinthians 11:27
Thanks!!
“As priests are celibate, the issue is moot. You are correct that there is no abstinence requirement for laity.”
Is it? I take it then that your priests may commune without prior fasting, or rather, only suffering through the 1 hour “fast” presently prescribed?
“Happily Catholic priests are not faced with that choice.”
In light of the rapidly multiplying diocesan bankruptcies, I’d say your priests, at least some of them, were indeed making that choice, in a manner of speaking.
“BTW, at communion time in the Orthodox Church, is a quick scan of those refraining from presenting themselves essentially the same as asking for a show of hands for who had sex last night?”
No, it usually means that someone didn’t fast or hasn’t been to confession. It also sometimes means that the life style of the person prevents him or her from receiving; active homosexuals, individuals of the opposite sex living together in a sexual relationship, that sort of thing. But it certainly could me that an individual had marital relations the night before. I suppose it goes without saying that ANY sexual activity outside of marriage without subsequent confession and absolution bars one from communion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.