The Jewel of Celibacy

by Dr. Jeff Mirus, October 23, 2009

Phil Lawler is undoubtedly correct that the rule of celibacy will not be relaxed for Catholics of the Roman Rite when married Anglican priests begin to appear under a new Catholic ordinariate. He may also be correct that Eastern Rite churches will gradually permit more of their married clergy to serve in the West as we become accustomed to married clergy through a growing familiarity with our Anglo-Catholic brethren. (See The Anglicans and the Eastern Churches.)

But the official policies of the Roman Rite and the Eastern Rite churches do not exhaust the issues raised by an increase in the number of married priests. The first issue is whether those who want the Church to change the law of celibacy will use the occasion to increase their pressure. This must be answered in the affirmative by any sane observer of the dissident Catholic scene.

The second issue is whether the Church’s “celibacy morale”, so painstakingly rebuilt over the past twenty years, will be lowered once again. Will the faithful become even more confused about celibacy? Will some Roman Rite priests think it “hard” that no special provision is made for them to marry? Will some potential future priests begin to hope once again for a relaxation of the celibacy requirement? Surely all of this is likely.

After all, it is hard to justify the imposition of celibacy by law purely on the basis of “how we do things here” while maintaining the position that it is perfectly acceptable to do things another way “there”, especially when here and there are in the same culture. This is nothing new, of course, but insofar as the proposed Anglican ordinariate utilizes married priests who become familiar to other Catholics, questions and even doubts will invariably arise.

Celibacy is Always Preferred

For this reason, it is important to state the plain truth that celibacy is the preferred state for a priest of any rite. This is eloquently attested even in the Eastern Catholic churches by the fact that a priest cannot marry after he has been ordained, and that bishops cannot be married at all. The Eastern Churches will often ordain a man who is already married, but they will not permit an unmarried priest to marry later, or a married priest to remarry after the death of his spouse. Further, the fullness of the priesthood—the episcopate—can be exercised only by unmarried men.

On this last point, it will be interesting to see how the Vatican handles the problem of married Anglican bishops. We find a full-fledged commitment to married clergy only in Anglicanism, which developed largely in direct rebellion against the Catholic Church and under the influence of both the Protestant Revolt and the English monarchy. The Eastern Churches did not develop so much in rebellion against Rome, although rebellion certainly existed on the political level, as on a separate path in which a common Tradition informed the changeable provisions of ecclesiastical discipline in slightly different ways.

Some in the Eastern Catholic Churches (though not many, I think) might contest my statement that celibacy is the preferred state for a priest of any rite. But many would contest my own pragmatic reading of the current situation, which leads me to suspect strongly that only a monumental historical accident—consisting chiefly of the need to heal the grave wounds of schism—has prevented celibacy from being the rule for all Catholics of whatever rite. But since all ecclesiastical discipline is human, and no ecclesiastical discipline infallibly produces what it aims at, this is a debatable proposition. One can argue about which disciplines are inspired by the Holy Spirit and which are permitted by men “because of the hardness of their hearts”. Indeed, one can be appalled by Eastern Rite seminarians who delay ordination until they have had a chance to find wives; but one can also look askance at the attraction of Western homosexual seminarians to a celibate priesthood.

While my historical perspective is eminently debatable, however, the proposition that celibacy is to be preferred even when it is not legislated was clearly and authoritatively taught in Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (The Celibacy of the Priest), issued on June 24, 1967. The encyclical was promulgated not just to the Roman Rite bishops but to “the bishops, priests and faithful of the whole Catholic world”. In his encyclical, the Pope points both to the Eastern practice of requiring celibacy for bishops and the strong witness of the Eastern Fathers of the Church as evidence that a preference for celibacy is enshrined everywhere throughout the whole Church.

The Reasons for Ecclesiastical Law

The question, then, is not whether celibacy is to be preferred but whether it should be prescribed by ecclesiastical law. While recognizing the respect due to the alternative approach taken by the Eastern Churches, and to those among their priests who happen to be married, Pope Paul stresses the immense value and intrinsic superiority of celibacy for priests. This superiority consists in a greater conformity to Christ, who was celibate; a greater sign of the supernatural Kingdom in which we will neither marry nor be given in marriage; a greater sign of total service to the Church and to the nurture of souls; a greater self-possession and self-discipline; and a greater charity which, properly developed, will bear more abundant fruit in ministry.

It is this superiority, both as a sign and as an incomparable means of being configured to Christ, that led Pope Paul VI, in direct response to the near-overwhelming agitation for the elimination of celibacy in the 1960’s—and after carefully reviewing the major objections to it in the first part of his encyclical—to reaffirm that celibacy is as valid and important to the Church now as it has been at any time in history. He therefore established that it was wholly right and good to continue to give this singular Catholic tradition the force of law in the West. All Catholics, of both East and West, were intended to benefit from a deeper exploration of his reasons.

A. Conformity to Christ

The Pope’s points in favor of celibacy are divided into two parts. The first centers on conformity to the priesthood of Christ. “The Christian priesthood,” Paul writes, “being of a new order, can be understood only in the light of the newness of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff and eternal priest, who instituted the priesthood of the ministry as a real participation in His own unique priesthood” (19). The human priest looks to Christ directly as his model, Christ who brought forth a new creation through his total consecration to the will of the Father.

While matrimony “continues the work of the first creation”, Christ is the mediator of “a superior covenant”. As such, He has “also opened a new way, in which the human creature adheres wholly and directly to the Lord, and is concerned only with Him and with His affairs; thus, he manifests in a clearer and more complete way the profoundly transforming reality of the New Testament” (20). The Pope's namesake, St. Paul, gives advice to all Christians along these same lines: “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” (1 Cor 7:32-34).

As Paul VI points out, it was “wholly in accord” with his mission that Christ remained celibate throughout His whole life, “which signified His total dedication to the service of God and men.” This deep connection between celibacy and the priesthood of Christ is reflected “in those whose fortune it is to share in the dignity and mission of the Mediator and eternal Priest” (21):

To them this is the mystery of the newness of Christ, of all that He is and stands for; it is the sum of the highest ideals of the Gospel and of the kingdom; it is a particular manifestation of grace, which springs from the Paschal mystery of the Savior. This is what makes the choice of celibacy desirable and worthwhile to those called by our Lord Jesus. Thus they intend not only to participate in His priestly office, but also to share with Him His very condition of living. (23)

B. Supernal Charity

The second part of the Pope's argument centers on charity. “The free choice of sacred celibacy,” Pope Paul states, “has always been considered by the Church ‘as a symbol of, and stimulus to, charity’: It signifies a love without reservations; it stimulates to a charity which is open to all” (24). Just as the priest is more perfectly conformed to Christ through celibacy, so too does he partake more fully in “the charity and sacrifice proper to Christ our Savior”. Thus the bond between the priesthood and celibacy should be seen “as the mark of a heroic soul and the imperative call to unique and total love for Christ and His Church” (25).

Here it is important to recall the mystery of the marriage relationship which St. Paul ascribes to Christ and the Church (see Ephesians 5, concluding with verse 32). Paul VI explains that through consecrated celibacy, priests manifest the “virginal and supernatural fecundity of this marriage, by which the children of God are born, ‘not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh’” (26). Owing to his own life of marriage to the Church, the priest is called to meditate daily on the prayer of the Church, to be nourished by the Word, to united himself totally with the Eucharistic sacrifice, and so to permit his life to acquire “a greater richness of meaning and sanctifying power” (29).

“Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone,” says the Pope, quoting the Eternal Priest, “but if it dies, it bears much fruit” (30). He goes on to explain also that the celibate priest is a richer sign of the heavenly kingdom, in which marriage between men and women passes away (e.g., Mt. 22:30). He also points briefly to all the practical considerations that make it both easier and more appropriate for an unmarried man to give himself totally to the service of his people.

A Brilliant Jewel

In the remainder of the encyclical, the Pope takes up and answers various questions regarding the potential negative impact of celibacy on those who are unsuited to it, or on human nature generally (as was often urged in the years following the sexual revolution), and he considers the importance of proper discernment and formation. These considerations need not detain us. What is most important in today’s context is that, by urging the value and importance of celibacy and by maintaining it in law, Pope Paul VI hoped celibacy would again become a sign and stimulus of a greater reliance on Divine grace, first on the part of the Church’s ministers, and consequently for the entire body of the faithful. Consider the following inspiring passage:

Supported by the power of faith, We express the Church's conviction on this matter. Of this she is certain: if she is prompter and more persevering in her response to grace, if she relies more openly and more fully on its secret but invincible power, if, in short, she bears more exemplary witness to the mystery of Christ, then she will never fall short in the performance of her salvific mission to the world—no matter how much opposition she faces from human ways of thinking or misrepresentations. We must all realize that we can do all things in Him who alone gives strength to souls and increase to His Church. (48)

In the context of the differences among Rites and ordinariates, which are likely to bring the question of celibacy to the fore again in ways that are not entirely welcome, it is vital that we try to capture the essence of the Pope’s argument in Sacerdotalis Caelibatus. Its essence is this: Celibacy in the Roman Rite is not to be tolerated as a dull burden but, in Paul VI's own words, to be “guarded as a brilliant jewel”.

The first issue is whether those who want the Church to change the law of celibacy will use the occasion to increase their pressure.

1 posted on 10/25/2009 4:31:30 PM PDT by Salvation

To: nickcarraway; Lady In Blue; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; Catholicguy; RobbyS; markomalley; ...

**it is important to state the plain truth that celibacy is the preferred state for a priest of any rite. This is eloquently attested even in the Eastern Catholic churches by the fact that a priest cannot marry after he has been ordained, and that bishops cannot be married at all. **

Food for discussion.

2 posted on 10/25/2009 4:32:31 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

To: Kolokotronis

3 posted on 10/25/2009 4:33:27 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

4 posted on 10/25/2009 4:35:47 PM PDT by wombtotomb

5 posted on 10/25/2009 4:36:11 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

To: Salvation; crazykatz; JosephW; lambo; MoJoWork_n; newberger; The_Reader_David; jb6; ...

Orthodox/Catholic ping.

Although mnastic celibacy is the crown jewel of The Church, celibates, in my opinion, belong in monasteries.

6 posted on 10/25/2009 4:39:10 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)

The solution would seem to be to abolish the formal hierarchical type priesthood and replace it with a more general priesthood of all believers that would include the married and unmarried.

That way the doctrine of celibacy is not disturbed and those who worship it may continue undistrubed.

In the meantime the Catholic church in America might well survive and thrive.

Guys, you can't make it doing little more than picking up a few Anglicans here and there. The people hunger.

Not that I'm proselytizing here ~ just giving advice ~

7 posted on 10/25/2009 4:43:38 PM PDT by muawiyah

An observation here, based on the matrimonial aspect in the article. I have posted an article I wrote on this topic below. I think one of the greatest issues in the modern day church on this issue is due to the fact that no one understands exactly WHAT matrimony IS, therefore they do not understand why it impedes a man in his vocation to the priesthood. The article attempts to explain the marriage covenant. My apologies if this post is long...

Falling in love. One of Gods most wonderful gifts, and lifes most incredible pleasures. That moment when you realize, this is THE one. Your heart skips a beat every time you see him, and you cannot believe he feels the same way as you. Wedding bells toll, and so begins the first day of your new life.

Marriage is an incredible gift. It is horrifying that over half of the people who enter into it, including Catholics, leave when it gets tough. While I know that there are cases where seperating or even divorcing may be necessary, it is absolutely and without question a very low number; the same kind of numbers we are talking about for getting an abortion in the case of the mothers life being in grave danger - extremely low.

The reason for this astronomical divorce rate is tied to the same mentality as the astronomical abortion rate - the lack of understanding the sacredness of life, and by extension, marriage. The change that occurs when a couple stands before God and declares their consent to be joined together is an unbreakable covenant, no matter the difficulty.

The change that occurs at the altar is no less profound than the one that occurs on the altar. There is a complete and total giving of self to the spouse. In Gods eyes, and the Churches, I am no longer me, but us. My husband is no longer him, but us. The two have become so completely one that we are indistiguishable as an individual.

The mystery of the covenant of marriage is mirrored in the mystery of Transubstantiation. The bread BECOMES the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. It is not a symbol. It is not a bunch of words the priest says and then we hope God accepts the gifts of bread and wine as His Son; it is the complete, total, and absolute change from bread and wine to the Eucharist that occurs, same as when 2 people stand at the altar. The accidents of bread and wine are still present after the consecration, same as our married bodies are. This does not, however, diminish that which took place; we are one flesh!

With this view, the very way God sees us after marriage, divorce becomes an absurdity. The only thing you get when you divide one is half of one. You cannot be complete outside your vows. You lack that which made you whole. You cannot unring this bell.

To drive home this point even further, God in His infinite wisdom, designed us to participate with Him in our married love to bring forth life. The married state can be looked upon in design as a model of our Triune God. Two become one, and from that union as one, the family grows to become 3, or more! God speaks to us about His love, through the joining of the 2 who became one. The love you feel for your spouse in your most intimate moments is about as close as our human hearts can get to Christs love for His Bride, the Fathers perfect love for the Son, and by extension, His adopted children - all of us. God wanted us to know life giving love, and what better way than to make love life giving!

Sadly - love, commitment, and marriage have been divorced from sex in our culture. We find all kinds of ways to remove the life-giving aspect from love, and therefore, remove God from marriage. The end is predictable; contraception, infidelity, divorce, abortion, spousal abuse, pornography, the list goes on and on. Each time we make love to our spouse, we are renewing the covenant we made on that day. By removing God and His Will , we are reduced to having sex steered only by our fallen nature, and our covenant is weakened and eventually destroyed. We “fall out of love” with our spouse and start seeking that which we think will fill us with happiness again.

Jesus had some specific things to say about divorce when He was questioned on it. He told us that divorce was never in Gods plan, but OUR hardness of heart made it necessary for Moses to allow. He said that whatever God joined together, man could not divide. He said that a man should leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife, as the two were now one flesh. That we have forgotten this is evidenced by all the divorce and “shacking up” going on today.

The Church is the Bride of Christ. He refers to our entrance into Heaven as coming to the marriage supper of the Lamb. He refers to Himself as the Bridegroom. We must, as a Church, begin to take our vows and marriage covenant deadly serious; it is apparent all through Scripture that Christ uses marriage as an analogy to our relationship with Him. I can only pray that His view of the marriage covenant is not what we have allowed ours to become.

8 posted on 10/25/2009 4:46:30 PM PDT by wombtotomb

How dare the Hierarchy create such an open Hypocracy and expect the morale of Catholic Priests to remain high.

In order to lead people in any work situation, the rules must be equal and fair through out the work environment or anger and Chaos will prevail.

I’ve spent my life leading men and such a prospect like this is intolerable.

These Guys in the Vatican are Nuts.

9 posted on 10/25/2009 4:50:40 PM PDT by chatham

To be honest, I have mixed feelings about this.

Unfortunately, we live in a sex saturated society and I think we have lost a lot of good people who have fallen prey to that culture. I am also afraid this attracts a lot of homosexuals and pedophiles to the priesthood as we have witnessed in the news lately.

I think celibacy is a virtue, but I really despair more and more every day that it is realistic anymore.

Just saying..please don’t stone me for being honest.

10 posted on 10/25/2009 5:04:23 PM PDT by Infidel Heather (In God I trust, not the Government.)

Since “celibate” really means “Not married” (not “doesn’t have sex”) this is a totally non-sensical thing.

In addition, it was my understanding that Anglicans who came to the RC church were allowed to stay married, and (presumably) fulfilled their vows of physical relations, a vow made very explicitly in the RC vows. What changed?

11 posted on 10/25/2009 5:24:13 PM PDT by TWohlford

To: Kolokotronis

celibates, in my opinion, belong in monasteries.

You won't mind if I remain at large, and celibate. I'm not even Catholic.

/johnny

12 posted on 10/25/2009 5:33:08 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)

I am not one to want to change my Church lightly. I still miss the Latin Mass and some other aspects of Church tradition but I'm wavering on how I feel about this. I don't know how many priests are at your parishes but at mine we have one. He is spread pretty thin and cannot as hard as he tries be in two places at once. Deacons and other laity now distribute communion something that I never saw as a child but is common today, they also give the marriage and baptism courses required. These are things the priests use to do. We have a real shortage of priests and if being allowed to marry might attract a man of faith to the priesthood than maybe it's not a bad idea.

13 posted on 10/25/2009 5:44:40 PM PDT by mimaw

I agree with you 100%.

I have also been told this is not a dogma of the Church and priests and popes were married up till sometime in the Middle Ages. (Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.)

14 posted on 10/25/2009 5:57:44 PM PDT by Infidel Heather (In God I trust, not the Government.)

To: Kolokotronis

Celibacy is a gift of neo-platonism, not Scripture.

15 posted on 10/25/2009 5:58:22 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (When do the impeachment proceedings begin?)

I do hear of parishes like yours, on occasion. I must be either very out of the loop or this is not the norm. I have attended churches in the following places as a parishoner

New Jersey
South Carolina
Florida
and as a visitor in
Delaware
Tennessee

In all of the parishes I have attended, there have been at the very least, 3 priests at each, with 2-5 deacons per church. The one I am at now, there is a Pastor, plus a full time priest, a retired priest who does Mass on occasion AND a priest who has no parish right now so our pastor is allowing him to stay at the rectory and do masses for a stipend. We also have a full time deacon. There are 5 other catholic churches in the area (within 30 minutes of my home) and all of them have at least 3 priests as well. Our seminary is graduating 17 more this spring, with full classes each year after (my son will be entering seminary next fall).

Fear not, vocations in traditional seminarys and convents are way up, many have waiting lists. My theory is that some of the more liberal orders, seminaries, and dioceses may be suffering a shortage, but as the old ones die off or are retired, there is a young, traditionalist, vibrant bunch just waiting to fufill their call.

16 posted on 10/25/2009 6:02:48 PM PDT by wombtotomb

To: JRandomFreeper

Even if I werent Catholic I would choose to remain celebate/single.

It is a liberating lifestyle choice. IMO.

I still enjoy the sight of handsome men. That will never change. ( I am female before anyone reading this gets the wrong idea)

17 posted on 10/25/2009 6:06:47 PM PDT by Global2010 (Strange We Can Believe In)

**The solution would seem to be to abolish the formal hierarchical type priesthood and replace it with a more general priesthood of all believers that would include the married and unmarried.**

This is already true for all of us at our baptism, ism’t it?

18 posted on 10/25/2009 6:08:13 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

I hope your right but when my father took a turn for the worse we were not able to get the last rites performed before he died as our priest was giving them at a nursing home. Some of our parishes have at least two priests and laity but there is not an over abundance of priests here.

19 posted on 10/25/2009 6:09:29 PM PDT by mimaw

**The Church is the Bride of Christ. He refers to our entrance into Heaven as coming to the marriage supper of the Lamb. He refers to Himself as the Bridegroom. **

Our icon is entitled St. Edward and the Heavenly Bridegroom.

20 posted on 10/25/2009 6:09:47 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

Celibacy does not cause or create hypocrisy, it is the homoesexuality that does that.

I don’t think the priests, Bishops and Pope are nuts, they are realists and believe that being married in a prophetic sense to the will of God is far preferable than anything early.

Do we think too much as men do and not as God does?

21 posted on 10/25/2009 6:12:39 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

To: Infidel Heather

Keep praying for holy vocations to the priesthood, religious life, marriage and single Catholic lives.

22 posted on 10/25/2009 6:13:58 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

Remaining single and celibate certainly puts a bunch of extra time at my disposal. And keeps things pretty calm around here.

/johnny

23 posted on 10/25/2009 6:14:37 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)

Exactly what Holy Scripture are you quoting?

24 posted on 10/25/2009 6:15:15 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

The gates of hell will NOT prevail. Unless scripture is wrong (which I do not believe!). It may get a bit rough, but they will not prevail.

I am so sorry to hear about your father :( , my prayers are with you. Jesus knows his heart, and your intention to get him last rites. Be at peace knowing that. May God hold you and your precious father in the palm of His hand, and grant him heavenly peace.

25 posted on 10/25/2009 6:16:50 PM PDT by wombtotomb

I met a brand new group of nuns in the Diocese of Spokane while I was at the Serra Club conference on supporting vocations together.
I may not have the name quite right, but they had beautiful havy and white habits — Sisters of Mercy of the Mother of God, I believe.

26 posted on 10/25/2009 6:17:35 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

Oops.
navy and white habits

27 posted on 10/25/2009 6:24:19 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

28 posted on 10/25/2009 6:25:58 PM PDT by mimaw

This is a topic of another article I am banging out. The revelation came to me as I was kneeling waiting to go to communion. I looked up at the altar and it was completely covered in women. There was a priest, and all females-the altar servers, eucharistic ministers, the organist and lector, every one of them was female.

I felt God speak to my heart letting me know that women have no visible role models in the church because it removed “His nuns”. When I grew up, there was a convent at my church. The nuns taught CCD, did the altar linens, made the altar bread, cleaned the church etc. I have not seen a nun in a church for all of the 10 years I have been a revert(unless it was a special occasion- just this 9/11 we had ONE in habit at a memorial mass. First one in 10 years), and it is disheartening. Young ladies today have no role models but male ones in the church. Is it any wonder they want to be altar servers and then priests? They don’t see the options out there, every day, watching women who devoted their lives to God. Thanks for the ping. I hope your nuns will be visible in the parishes! The young girls need to see them!!

29 posted on 10/25/2009 6:26:36 PM PDT by wombtotomb

To: JRandomFreeper

“You won’t mind if I remain at large, and celibate. I’m not even Catholic.”

Not in the least, unless you are a monk of some sort in which case, you belong in a monastery.

30 posted on 10/25/2009 6:29:15 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)

To: Kolokotronis

I'd rather spend a weekend in a convent.

/johnny

31 posted on 10/25/2009 6:33:52 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)

I’m a widow 2-1/2 years, and now living the celibate life after 36 years of a true, wonderful marriage.

I’m grateful for the celibate priesthood. Although it is not exactly the same as my life, I think my incredible loss is understood, with compassion not possible for those who still have their spouses.

Selfishly, I suppose, I’m grateful.

32 posted on 10/25/2009 6:48:11 PM PDT by Judith Anne (Drill in the USA and offshore USA!! Drill NOW and build more refineries!!!! Defund the EPA!)

To: JRandomFreeper

“I’d rather spend a weekend in a convent.”

We call them monasteries, johnny, whether they are filled with nuns or monks.

33 posted on 10/25/2009 6:49:07 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)

We now have a priesthood of about 42000 priests.
According to writings By Father Cozzens, Petersen and others, somewhere between 20% and 60% are admitted Homosexuals.
This alone is an Oxymoron since such priests practicing Homosexual Lifestyles are living in sin and it is against the teachings of the bible.
If you are not practicing such a lifestyle why announce you are Homosexual.
This problem is surely confusing and a burden for celibate, straight priests to be living among. in and of itself.

My point is celibacy did not cause the hypocracy, the decision by the Pope and the Vatican to accept thousands of Anglican Married priests to join the Roman Catholic Church, and keep their own structure and practices will cause it.

If I was a celibate Catholic Priest and chose to get married I would join the Anglican group aligned and part of the Catholic church and take a wife.

How can one group be married and another in the same church be refused. it doesn,t make sense.

Under these rules a man joining the priesthood should be able to choose to live Celibate or get married.

The church still needs a purge!!

34 posted on 10/25/2009 7:36:55 PM PDT by chatham

Marriages may end up half ending in divorce, including Catholics. But you do not go further. You should ask, “Who initiates most of these divorces?” The answer is the female.

A more interesting question is who initiates abortions, the slaughter of unborn? It isn’t the men. Men have no legal rights concerning unborn children. It is all done through women.

I am not pointing a finger of blame at women but on the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely. All the legal power of marriage is in woman’s hands. People in America are not married to one another, they are married to the State. All a woman has to do is sign some papers and the man becomes a slave to the government. And it is done all the time.

Yet, people like you did not *see* this or even want to see it. No one wants to take up the cross of enslaved men, or the millions of men put in jail based on bogus rape charges or child support statements. For some reason, abortion is blamed on the “culture” or on the “society”, yet one gender, men, have absolutely no power, no say, and really nothing to do with it. Yet, this gets *ignored as well*.

By failing to fight the injustice for these men, we are getting the injustice of socialism rained on us. We can’t fight for freedom in general unless we fight for it in specific.

I, myself, have never been divorced because I was too smart not to marry. Only an idiot man would do so in today’s legal climate. The Church hasn’t helped at all. The “Theology of the Body” nonsense is nothing more than trying to convince the man that the way how Nature made his body is wrong and he must submit to the wife’s will.

The Church used to be filled with manly men. They were necessary to drive back the invading Muslims. Today, the Church is filled with a bunch of pansies. If the Crusades happened today, the Church would just deliver a fruit basket.

Your story of women everywhere in the Church is the reason why I left. The Church is becoming feminized.

There is no reason for a man to be in the Church today. Men are, by law, put on a lesser plane than woman. But in the Church, it is to make the masculine be guilty. However, the “nurturing” and “caring” women get accolades. Being a “man” is no longer welcomed in the Church.

We should keep in mind that Jesus didn’t just tend the sick and hungry, he also whipped those blasphemed his temple. Can you imagine today’s priest whipping merchants like Jesus did? They would just get on their hands and knees to beg while the merchants would just walk on them.

Womb to Tomb, please stop hating men. And know that by driving men from the Church, you not only diminish the Church but liberty as well. John Locke pinned the Rights of Man based on Matrimony, so when Matrimony crumbles so do our rights.

35 posted on 10/25/2009 7:42:07 PM PDT by Aquabird

I’m unclear on whether new priests, under the Anglican arrangement, will be required to be celibate. Do you know?

36 posted on 10/25/2009 7:46:35 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)

celibate
–noun
1. a person who abstains from sexual relations.
2. a person who remains unmarried, esp. for religious reasons.

–adjective
3. observing or pertaining to sexual abstention or a religious vow not to marry.
4. not married.

---------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1605–15

celibate
n.
One who abstains from sexual intercourse, especially by reason of religious vows.

One who is unmarried.

adj.
Abstaining from sexual intercourse, especially by reason of religious vows.

Unmarried; unwed.

Usage Note: Historically, celibate means only "unmarried"; its use to mean "abstaining from sexual intercourse" is a 20th-century development. But the new sense of the word seems to have displaced the old, and the use of celibate to mean "unmarried" is now almost sure to invite misinterpretation in other than narrowly ecclesiastical contexts. Sixty-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejected the older use in the sentence He remained celibate [unmarried], although he engaged in sexual intercourse.

37 posted on 10/25/2009 7:50:16 PM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp (The Libs play dirty. The Libs ARE dirty.)

Celibacy is built on the concept that there is a level of living above the one where most of us live...one which denies the flesh, and seeks a spiritual plane. But that is not from Scripture. The presbyters (elders) of the church are to be the husbands of one woman, and lead their own households well that they might lead the church (1 Timothy 3). That is the highest level of leadership in the church. There is no additional level for those who have denied their own flesh. That concept comes from Plato, and especially, neo-platonism.

38 posted on 10/25/2009 7:52:40 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (When do the impeachment proceedings begin?)

Some of it did come from that. But remember also that there are plenty of non Catholic pastors who do not marry. I can think a few Lutheran pastors who never married, mainly because the felt they could not be a husband and a father at home and serve the congregation as it should be.

39 posted on 10/25/2009 8:13:07 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)

That is a personal choice, but it is not the biblical pattern. 1 Tim 3 makes that clear.

40 posted on 10/25/2009 8:38:06 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (When do the impeachment proceedings begin?)

To: JRandomFreeper

Peace/calm is it. : )

41 posted on 10/25/2009 9:54:59 PM PDT by Global2010 (Strange We Can Believe In)

Scripture and Celibacy

IV. Celibacy is Church Practice, Not Dogma

Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church's practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.

Matt. 19:29 - Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.

Matt. 22:30 - Jesus explains that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus' kingdom on earth, priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage). This also makes it easier for priests to be transferred to different parishes where they are most needed without having to worry about the impact of their transfer on wife and children.

1 Cor 7:1 – Paul teaches that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make.

1 Cor. 7:7 - Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is.

1 Cor. 7:27 – Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage. In Paul’s opinion, marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church.

1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 - Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”

1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church's celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.

1 Tim. 4:3 - in this verse, Paul refers to deceitful doctrines that forbid marriage. Many non-Catholics also use this verse to impugn the Church's practice of celibacy. This is entirely misguided because the Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant churches) exalts marriage to a sacrament. In fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving. Paul is referring to doctrines that forbid marriage and other goods when done outside the teaching of Christ and for a lessor good. Celibacy is an act of giving up one good (marriage and children) for a greater good (complete spiritual union with God).

1 Tim. 5:9-12 - Paul recommends that older widows take a pledge of celibacy. This was the beginning of women religious orders.

2 Tim. 2:3-4 - Paul instructs his bishop Timothy that no soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim his to satisfy the One who enlisted him. Paul is using an analogy to describe the role of the celibate priesthood in the Church.

Rev. 14:4 - unlike our sinful world of the flesh, in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.

Isaiah 56:3-7 - the eunuchs who keep God's covenant will have a special place in the kingdom of heaven.

Jer. 16:1-4 - Jeremiah is told by God not to take a wife or have children.

42 posted on 10/25/2009 10:13:53 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

this verse refers to bishops that were widowers

Where do you get "widowers"? It is not in the text, nor in the context.

43 posted on 10/25/2009 10:55:34 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (When do the impeachment proceedings begin?)

It said that St. Paul is referring to widowers, not me.

44 posted on 10/25/2009 11:01:45 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

Deacons and other laity

Deacons are ordained clergy, not laity.

45 posted on 10/26/2009 12:24:22 AM PDT by iowamark (certified by Michael Steele as "ugly and incendiary")

a more general priesthood of all believers

What about the sacrament of holy orders?

46 posted on 10/26/2009 1:07:18 AM PDT by x_plus_one (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell)

It’s not “hypocrisy.” It’s simply a way of dealing charitably with an existing situation...that is, many of these Anglican ministers who have served as priests and who will receive valid ordination to the priesthood are already married. It is very likely that new vocations even in the new Anglican Rite will not be permitted to marry.

And there are many other issues: for example, what about Anglican clergy who are divorced and remarried? And as for their current married bishops, they will not be consecrated as bishops and will merely be ordained and serve as priests. The bishop is considered to have the fullness of the priesthood and you will note that in the Orthodox Church as well, bishops may not be married.

This is a pragmatic solution. Interestingly, in the Anglo-Catholic movement of 19th century England, many of the young men who went into the priesthood voluntarily chose celibacy. I think you will actually see a deeper understanding of celibacy spreading into the Anglican rite, and that this in turn will reaffirm Latin Rite practice.

47 posted on 10/26/2009 3:24:41 AM PDT by livius

To: Infidel Heather

Celibacy for priests is a disciplinary decision and is not a matter of dogma. However, priests have not been allowed to marry in the Western Church since the very earliest centuries, and bishops have never been permitted to marry; doctrine and practice develop over time, based on precedent, and this was how it evolved in the Latin Rite. A rich theology of clerical celibacy has grown up around it.

There have, of course, often been corrupt clergy, including members of the heirarchy, who had their live-in girlfriends, illegitimate children, etc. But they are hardly a model to be followed, and much effort was expended trying to clean up practice in this area.

Another thing that affected it was the fact that forcing priests to marry was one of the first things that heretical groups or the Muslims did. When the Muslims captured parts of Spain, priests married (either in reality or in appearance) in order to be able to continue to secretly function as priests without attracting the attention of the Islamic authorities. The Protestants also forced priests to marry when they took over parts of Europe, and even evicted monks and nuns from their monasteries and forced them into “marriages.”

Clerical celibacy is an ancient sign of the Roman Catholic Church and it is usually one of the first targets of attackers.

48 posted on 10/26/2009 3:35:42 AM PDT by livius

You raise some interesting observations and look at my article in a unique way. Let me, right off the bat, say this; I do not hate men. I am in a traditional catholic marriage of 20 years. I am the barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and bedroom type. I homeschool my youngest son, my middle son is entering the priesthood next fall, and my oldest son is a devout catholic, preparing to enter the sacrament of matrimony in January, at the age of 22, to a wonderful young lady who plans to be barefoot and pregnant, stay home, raise a family, and respects my son as the head of their family.

I believe NO one has the right to abort a child. God is the author of life, he just allows us to participate.

It is not just the church that has become “pansified” as you put it, it is the culture itself. I am repulsed by the metrosexual man, who is worshipped today. My article pointed out nothing about making a man sensitive or pansylike, it sought to point out that marriage is a sacrament, and once entered into, unbreakable. To paint all women with this broad brush as you do, makes it seem as though there are none of us out here that value a man for being a man, knowing what a true man is, and submitting our authority to one.

Submission to our husbands is key to making a marriage work. Each week at Mass, when we both receive communion and return to our pew, we kneel and pray silently for a moment and then, we join hands and pray for OUR marriage and the strength to continue to endure in Gods will. When we are finished, I kiss his wedding ring as a sign of my fidelity and submission to his authority. He does not kiss mine. I do this publicly every week because I recognize his authority in the marriage and because I am so thankful for the gift of a real man who practices his faith without fear.

All this being said, the things you talk about ARE good material for an article. Prior to the 1960’s, the balance was as it ought to be within the church. The sexual revolution brought about alot of this change. The give peace a chance/make love not war mentality permeated the church, just as it did society, and the sexual revolution caused a paradigm shift in both. I do not know how it happened, but it was men who were in power in both the church and society, and women caused a coup in both and took over.

In fairness, your statement that absolute power corrupts absolutely goes both ways, or we would not have had treated women as property, men would not have been allowed to beat them as long as the stick width was not wider than their finger, and been denied the right to own property throughout history either. It is also very hard to submit to a man who takes longer in the mirror than you do, is abusive or devalues his wife, or worships football instead.

I absolutely see that real men today are given a bum rap. They are considered chauvanists,domineering, rednecks,and other derogatory terms designed to castrate them. They have had the right to have a say in their unborn childs life taken away, and that is tragic and must be changed (although I would be much happier if abortion was just against the law altogether since it is murder no matter who gets to “choose”). I also agree that women initiate more divorces, but, many of those are because men (at least until very recently) did most of the cheating, domestic abuse, leaving, becoming addicted to porn, substance abuse,etc. I think part of what happened was in the 60’s, men were confronted with the opportunities of sex and drug abuse in new ways and weren’t prepared to handle the pressure. If they had pushed back at that time, when they DID have the power, and squashed it, perhaps alot of these things would not be so prevelant today?

I have done the best I can to add 3 manly men to society by marrying one manly man. I am sad to see that instead of using your manliness to raise manly men, you have chosen instead to blame ALL women as well as marriage, for the failure of society. You have not helped to correct the situation by being fruitful and multiplying and training up a child the way he should go, you have left the task of doing to others. By withdrawing yourself from being eligible to marry and pass along the correct view to your children, you have weakened Gods army by the number of children you could have added to the fight. As to the Theology of the Body discussion, I have taken the course, and it is NOT in any way a teaching that a mans body is wrong and he has to submit to his wifes will, it merely teaches the couple to know when she is fertile and they can then CHOOSE to abstain from sex during that period to prevent pregnancy or to have sex and conceive. You know, God did create both sexes, and both are very different; complementary if you will. Neither is bad or wrong.

You are 100 percent correct in your last paragraph about matrimony. When it crumbles, so do our rights. It is precisely the reason I wrote the article in the first place, to explain WHY matrimony is UNBREAKABLE and to point out the importance God placed upon it and why. I am sorry you took away from it that I was a man hater from it, as nothing could be further from the truth.

49 posted on 10/26/2009 4:24:05 AM PDT by wombtotomb

Since “celibate” really means “Not married” (not “doesn’t have sex”) this is a totally non-sensical thing.

Incorrect. Invest in a dictionary.

50 posted on 10/26/2009 5:59:44 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794