Posted on 06/28/2003 2:21:40 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
VATICAN CITY — The Vatican reaffirmed celibacy for priests Saturday, rejecting arguments that the Roman Catholic Church (search) could resolve the "crisis" of decreasing numbers of clergy by opening the priesthood to married men.
Instead, the Vatican (search) said, current priests should dedicate themselves to attracting more candidates by better explaining the priesthood to lay Catholics and encouraging families and children to consider religious vocations.
The reaffirmation was contained in a wide-ranging document issued Saturday as the final conclusions to a meeting, or synod, of European bishops held in 1999. Pope John Paul (search) II held back on issuing the final document until now, because he wanted the timing to be right in Europe, Vatican officials said Saturday.
In fact, one of the major thrusts of the document is a reiteration of Christianity's heritage in Europe, and an exhortation by the pope that European leaders drafting the first EU constitution make reference to the role Christianity has played in shaping the continent.
Earlier this month, EU negotiators finalized a draft of the constitution that made no reference to God or Christianity, despite lobbying from the Vatican. Opponents argued such a reference could undermine the secular nature of the bloc.
Italy, which takes over the EU presidency starting Tuesday, has said it plans to reopen the debate over including the reference when governments begin a final review of the text in October.
"This is a constitution that does not yet exist," Cardinal Jan Schotte, head of the synod, told a press conference launching the document. "For me, nothing is definite."
Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham, England, a secretary of the synod, said omitting a mention of Christianity was "unworthy" of the constitution's authors because "no presentation of Europe can be honest if it fails to recognize the part already played, and still played, by Christianity in the shaping of Europe."
The document touched on a host of other issues, including a call for Europe to be more welcoming to immigrants, for the Catholic Church in Europe to engage in a "profound and perceptive" dialogue with Islam and Judaism, and for the "full participation" of women in the life of the church.
Schotte said that didn't mean women could at present be heads of Vatican congregations, since that would require they be ordained. The Vatican reserves the priesthood for men.
The document acknowledged there were fewer and fewer men signing up for the priesthood, but said removing the celibacy requirement wasn't the answer.
"A revision of the present discipline in this regard would not help to resolve the crisis of vocations to the priesthood being felt in many parts of Europe," the document said. "A commitment to the service of the Gospel of hope also demands that the Church make every effort to propose celibacy in its full biblical, theological and spiritual richness."
There has been a steep decline in the ratio of Catholics to priests worldwide over the past 20 years. In 1978, there were 1,797 Catholics for every priest. In 2001, the number was 2,619, according to Vatican statistics cited by Catholic News Service.
The Vatican gives no evidence, of course, hoping that by fiat its declaration reflects reality.
It may or may not be true that married priests would relieve the shortage of priests, but the Vatican will never know, since it refuses to discuss the issue, or even commission a study of it.
"A commitment to the service of the Gospel of hope also demands that the Church make every effort to propose celibacy in its full biblical, theological and spiritual richness."
The only thing Catholics see in a celibate priesthood is a predominance of homosexuals. One thing's for sure: a married priesthood may or may not bring more men into the priesthood, but it will bring heterosexual men into the priesthood, which might be a good place to begin discussing celibacy in its full biblical and spiritual richness for those who choose to accept it.
Catholics also see married Protestants being accepted into the priesthood, and many are scratching their heads trying to understand why married life-long Catholic men aren't deserving of the priesthood, too.
I've noticed the Vatican seems to issue one of these "celibacy forever" documents on a yearly basis, almost as if it is trying to convince itself that, yep, we're right on this one.
On a second reading of the article, I'm wondering if the Vatican's statements are nothing but the usual boilerplate on celibacy. The timing of this document and its major theme seems to be a slap at the EU for not highlighting the role of Christianity in its constitution.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921200/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/935709/posts
And once more you cave in.Just curious,exactly what will it take for you to take a stand in favour of the Catholic Church,and her proclamations?
I stand in favor of the Catholic Church, and her doctrinal proclamations. Celibacy is neither doctrine nor universal discipline, anymore, with the Anglican dispensation.
What's your point?
Maybe the Vatican learned its lesson about the futility of commissioning studies after the Birth Control Commission?
If the Church were to backed down here,then I suspect the flood gates would be open to even more drastic changes,yes?
It's not causal, certainly.
There's no reason why a Church of 62 million members is served by an ever-dwindling number of priests. The Church ought to find out why.
The Vatican, however, is not interested, and asks us to "pray" for more priests.
How many Catholic parents do you think are actively encouraging their young male children to consider the priesthood, with what has happened over the last 18 months, and continues to happen?
This is John Paul II's decision. He's a stubborn Pole, who can reach out to the Orthodox, to Protestants, hell, to Muslims, AND he can welcome Protestant ministers into the Catholic priesthood at an ever-increasing clip.
But, he cannot let the thought cross his mind that married Catholic men could be called to the priesthood.
I think it's because he knows that the whole celibacy canard could collapse, in a heap. So, better to continue the begging and pleading than to actually get at the root causes, to listen to local bishops, and to face the facts honestly.
Yes. Maybe the Vatican shouldn't put doctrine to the whims of a commission.
A discipline like celibacy,however, is ripe for a study. Why are men in the West not responding to calls to the priesthood, whereas men in Latin America, Africa, and Asia seem to be?
Let Andrew Greeley run it. He did a sociological study in the 70s, which the bishops ignored.
And Greeley would be perfect, since he's all for maintaining the discipline of celibacy.
Yes. The Vatican fears that the Roman Catholic priesthood would tilt toward a majority of married priests, over time.
And the guys for whom marriage is no longer a possibility grit their teeth over that.
You're not going to agree with my answers, but what the heck...
Because they are surrounded by a culture of dissent to a much greater degree than the Latin American, African and Asian clergy. Because many, if not most, Western seminaries are essentially homosexual bawdyhouses. Because lay psychologists are rejecting candidates that show any tendency to actually be Catholic.
Etc., etc., etc.
Not many parents encourage their sons to enter the priesthood because: 1. They probably only have one son; and 2. They want grandchildren; and 3. a "good" job in the secular world, after and expensive college education is or can be financially rewarding; and 4. more importantly, imo, about 30% of Catholics attend Mass on Sunday. That leaves about 70% of Catholics not even encouraging their kids to attend Mass except maybe on Easter or Christmas, never mind encouraging them to enter the priesthood.
I was just at a cookout with five other Catholic families. Four of us have two kids each and one has one kid. My kids and I are the only ones who attend Mass at least once a week. Two attend sporadically and two families never attend at all.
The past eighteen months have no bearing on any of our religious habits... they were the same before and they are the same now. But now there is a handy excuse not to attend.
If Africa, and Asia priests evangelized here would you have a problem with that? If the west can't get it done,then let it be done by any means available.
Lookit that though. An AmChurch family with a son who thinks he has a vocation! God works in mysterious ways.
Just finished "What went wrong with Vatican II - The Catholic Crisis explained" by Ralph M. McInerny. Basically this book outlines how the theologians set themselves up as an alternative teaching magisterium. After Humanae Vitae was published, a bunch of them took out a full page ad in the NY Times and stated that the HV teaching was in error. If I had the time or the inclination to type, I'd type out the content of the ad. It is astonishing in its presumption. And it confused the laity. And here we are.
Regarding the priesthood. My parish priest (aged 68) has addressed it several times. Tells us to prepare for a desolate priesthood in the future unless the Church admits a married clergy as it did before it invented celibacy in the 11th century (I purchased and read Cardinal Stickler's book on the celibate clergy, but decided not to give it to this priest although I probably should - don't think history matters much to him unless it fits in with his fuzzy agenda). God help him, he is so uninspiring anyway, I can't imagine any boy or man looking hopefully and prayerfully at a priestly vocation.
I don't support women priests.
I also think it's rude as hell not to ping someone to a thread in which you're not only disparaging them, but you can't get their name right, either.
The Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church has had married priests for a thousand years. And no women priests.
How far down the slippery slope of heterodoxy you going to roll?
Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine, so there's no heterodoxy involved.
You are right in what you say, of course, celibacy is a discipline and not dogma.
And there are pros and cons to both sides of celibacy. But it has served the Latin Church well... I think of Padre Pio and wonder if he could have lived the life he did while married and raising a family.
The thing is, it seems that *most* supporters of a married clergy also support a female clergy as well. Plus a more democratic form of Catholic Church. So usually, all of these issues are intertwined to some degree. And it's kind of like the Texas sodomy case of last week... knock down one thing and then another and where does it stop? I also believe the reason celibacy has evolved the way it has is that Jesus Christ is indeed at the helm. But it is doctrine and not dogma because we have had some holy and pious married converts over the years who have made the leap from minister to priest - the doctrine of celibacy permits that. Celibacy as a dogma would not.
The celibate priest who is the head of my parish is always asking for money for this and that, as is each and every priest and bishop. Right now our regular parish account stands at $750.00 after all the bills for the month have been paid. Thank God the priest doesn't need money for dancing lessons, piano lessons, groceries for a family, an addition for all the kids, lunch money, and money to clothe a family. And I left out all the small sundry expenses we all have when we have kids and a wife.
I dunno. Did you feel that all the precepts of the Church would come tumbling down when Paul VI suddenly decreed that we wouldn't be doing time in hell for eating meat on Friday?
? I also believe the reason celibacy has evolved the way it has is that Jesus Christ is indeed at the helm.
Well, where's He been for the last 30 years, when priests have been bailing out of the priesthood to marry while the seminaries have filled with homosexuals?
I agree with you. I think Christ is at the helm, and I think He intends to preserve celibacy for those who are called to it.
There are pros and cons to celibacy, like everything else, but the biggest con is the very real probability that some American Catholics who've become accustomed to attending Mass weekly will now have to settle for attending Mass monthly. I don't think that's a good thing, especially when these Protestant converts are PROVING that married men can serve the Church well as priests. And Catholics who are served by these men really don't understand why Catholic married men can't serve just as well as these guys.
There's no logical explanation as to why they can't, because, in fact, they can, but John Paul II doesn't want to be the Pope who compromises on celibacy.
Instead, the Vatican is reduced to exhorting priests to talk about the benefits of celibacy as a way of attracting young men to priesthood, when young Catholic men see the priesthood as a haven for homosexuals.
What young man with his life ahead of him would want to be a part of that?
If celibacy is more important than being served by native priests, then that's what will happen.
I shudder, though. Our parish is already served by a young Hispanic man, who struggles with English in conversation, and who has to read every word of his homilies.
Do you think Humanae Vitae is reformable?
That doesn't make rejection of the Pope's writings any less grave an error for amateurs.
The Pope writes against allowing married Catholic men to be priests, but allows married Protestant converts to jump the fence and be ordained.
Give me a logical explanation for that, other than "well, the Pope says so."
My father, my aunt and practically every Catholic I know says the very same thing. I myself just can't put "eating meat on Fridays" on the same level as the priesthood. Eating meat on Fridays is on par with Communion in the hand or on the tongue, bowing instead of genuflecting, etc.
He did say to give up everything and follow me. And a priest is acting "in persona Christi."
the biggest con is the very real probability that some American Catholics who've become accustomed to attending Mass weekly will now have to settle for attending Mass monthly
I'm sure any Catholic wanting to attend Mass once a week can find a parish within driving distance. Most of us drive a very great distance to bring the kids to baseball, hockey, soccer, etc. Some even travel to different states on the weekends for travel teams. Of course, it depends on one's priorities. And I'll say again, if we had more kids per family, the pool for priests would be greatly increased. We are paying the reaping what we've sown.
And what priestly shortage? With about 30% of Catholics attending Mass on Sunday and maybe 5% attending daily, how many priests do we need? I haven't been to a standing room only Mass since I was a kid. Empty seats all around, now.
A married clergy is OK in small doses. We have a married priest leading a parish about 25 miles from me. His parish can't support him so he "tag teams" with another parish and gets financial help from the archdiocese.
I would think that someone with a true calling would want to be a part of the priesthood - even if, as you say, they perceive the priesthood as a haven for homosexuals. Change occurs one by one.
Eating meat on Friday, prior to 1966, was a mortal sin.
So is attending Mass on Holy Days of Obligation, and the bishops are moving those around now at will.
I see a big difference between those and a pastoral practice like bowing or genuflecting.
? I haven't been to a standing room only Mass since I was a kid. Empty seats all around, now.
You've got Churches on every street corner in the Northeast. We've got parishes here in Texas, where I live, that are bursting at the seams, at every Mass.
One priest serving a parish of 7000 families is not unheard of.
We have a married priest leading a parish about 25 miles from me. His parish can't support him so he "tag teams" with another parish and gets financial help from the archdiocese.
The financial excuse is the last refuge for opposition to married priests.
People, especially Americans, tend to pay for what they get. Protestants support their clergy well if they are well served by them.
Catholics are cheapskates; we're used to people who live in poverty serving us.
Quibbling, sitetest.
Lots of families in my city live modestly, some ascetically, and they're not even clergy.
My suspicion has been, over the last ten years, that the underlying, unspoken reason for not looking at a married priesthood more seriously has been financial.
Look at the sexual abuse scandals. Bishops are acting like ogres toward suffering victims, all to save a buck or two in a civil suit.
You know as well as I do that there are some hierarchs who look at the checkbook balance before they get on their knees in the morning.
No question they can.
I'd ask the Catholic parishes served by the married Protestant converts, and Eastern Rite parishes served by married priests in Europe, what they think of the dedication of their priests as well.
I know I keep harping on this Anglican dispensation, but I think one of the reasons it was originally allowed was as an experiment to see how married priests will work in a Catholic parish, and the guise of Protestant converts gave the Vatican the loophole.
Now that it's working so well, there's no logical argument that can be mustered as to why the Vatican doesn't allow married Catholic men into the priesthood as well. That's why the Vatican feels it necessary to pound the table every year, reminding Catholics that there will be mandatory celibacy (even if we can't really explain why).
This last proclamation, celibacy was an afterthought, tacked on to a larger discussion of the mention of Christianity's heritage in the EU constitution.
I was just at a cookout with five other Catholic families. Four of us have two kids each and one has one kid.
In other words, contraception is the major problem. Catholic Moral Theology demands that parents should strive to have at least four children (gosh, how hard is it for most who marry before age 34?). This is one reason for that.
Our friendly neighborhood Deacon does not, as far as I know, advocate for priestesses, which is formal doctrinal heresy since the 1994 definition. Your sister is NOT a Catholic, though she may like to think she is.
From what I have read of the lives of some of the Russian mystic priest saints, I think he probably could have. Although Padre Pio was pure, a little earthly purgatory can help anyone on their way to sanctity ;-)
No it isn't. Humane Vitae is an enshrining of unchangeable principles of the moral law, and is based upon Casti Connubii, in which Pope Pius XI defined infallibly against birth control. Please stop defaming Sinky and misrepresenting the teaching of the Church in this magnificent Encyclical:
56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.57. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust ...
Reformable my foot!
Meatless Fridays is an Apostolic Tradition, like Lent, the use of the Sanctus at Mass, mixing water with the wine at Mass, the Sunday obligation, and the Order of the Diaconate, etc. See the Didache. Are those things reformable?
It is also still in the Code of Canon Law. If you do not do another penance on all Fridays, you must abstain from meat under the penalty of grave sin. The matter is intrinsically tied up with the satisfaction of divine law, which the Church has universalised for the faithful on Fridays, just as she universalised Sunday Mass attendance to satisfy the 3rd Commandment; that is why it is a grave sin. The only parvity of matter here is if one simply forgets out of absentmindedness, or does not realize Friday is still a day of abstinence unless some other penance is selected.
I thought that was what they did while on their knees each morning!
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.