A message from Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.

Ignatius Press ^ | Apr.27, 2002 | Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.

[katnip]

Thank you for the ping.

[Catholicguy]

After having read both of their writings over the last 20 "years, I say, so what if he said one thing he agreed with Neuhaus on. You should read the other things McBrien has had to say. He is a disgrace to his collar. He is a supporter of New Ways Ministry and is sourced in their literature affirming their stand on homosexuality. If you noticed at the end of his diatribe on the show he started doing a commercial for priests being able to marry. He has written volumes mocking the Church while maintaining an air of credibility. He's a snake."

I can "one-up" you on McBrien. He wrote a blasphemous column that appeared in my then local Diocesan paper. In that column he said that Jesus was in error, ignorant and sexually tempted.

I wrote, protested etc against this column and demanded an apology be issued.No apology was ever issued.

Now,it can accurately be stated that those things can honestly be said about Martin Luther King but not about Jesus. It is just as accurate to say that NO Diocesan would ever dare to print such truth about Martin Luther King. Apparently, only blasphemous lies about Jesus are permissible.

Now, let me close by citing a Prelate who "one-uped," the blasphemous McBrien. The Bishop of Portland (the entire state of Maine) was quoted to me by his spokesman, Mark Mutty, "The Bishop agrees with McBrien.".

That Prelate's name is Bishop Joseph Gerry.

If folks don't think this rot, corruption and evil is both deep and wisespread, then they are kidding themselves. Many Dioceses are simply dead.....

[eastsider]

The motivation for celibacy was the closer following of Jesus Christ, who required his apostles to leave wife and family, to become "eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom".

This is perhaps the only objective statement I can find in the piece, and even this shows a bias. It is certainly true that many of the early Christians practiced celibacy in imitation of Jesus, but to say that Jesus “required” his apostles to leave wife and family is a bit of a stretch. Here are the verses in question about becoming “eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom”:

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." (Mt19:8-12 (NIV); emphasis added.)

Although the apostles who were married were not “required” to leave their wives and children, however, there is evidence that they actually did so:

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?" Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first. (Mt19:23-30 (NIV); emphasis added.)

Moreover, even if one were to understand Jesus’ remarks in Mt19:8-12 to mean that celibacy was a requirement for apostleship, it’s clear from Paul’s writings that the apostles did not require their successors to be unmarried. (Cf 1Tim3:2, 1Tim3:12 and Tit1:6)

Remaining single for the sake of the kingdom is a wonderful spiritual gift, and Jesus urged those who received the gift – apostles and disciples alike -- to exercise it. There is nothing to suggest, however, that Jesus “required” his apostles to leave their wives and family or that the apostles required celibacy of their successors.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

I have a feeling that, although the libs will try to spin this all their way, they will eventually fail in this effort.

[history_matters]

I pray fervently that you are right. May the liberals all be exposed, fall flat on their face, and run home to satan with their tails between their legs...

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Good post. I was under the impression these myths were true until Catholicguy told me about one of the books in a previous thread. Keep spreading the word!

[eastsider]

Perhaps I am misinterpreting your comments, but it does a disservice to the many orthodox Catholics who favor a further relaxation of the celibacy requirement for the diocesan priesthood to marginalize them as "liberals."

[Aggie Mama]

I love that graphic. Where did you get it from?

[history_matters]

I did a google.com Image search and stumbled across it. Isn't it perfect? Padre Pio to the rescue with just the right word for us in this troubled time.

[eastsider]

Good post. I was under the impression these myths were true until Catholicguy told me about one of the books in a previous thread.

While I admire Fr. Fessio's advocacy of obligatory priestly celibacy, IMO, he overplays his hand. Take the following, for example:

The truth is that the Church's obligation of celibacy goes back to the apostles in an *unbroken* line.

I have one of the books listed in Fr. Fessio's "message" with me right now -- Celibacy in the Early Church, by Stefan Heid (the original German edition was published in 1997) -- and everything in my post #23 above is based on that book. Here's an extended excerpt from Chapter 1:

The broad outline of the last fifty years of celibacy scholarship shows that something has occurred that not infrequently causes misunderstandings in historical research: a one-sided formulation of the question has produced one-sided answers. Scholars took the present discipline of celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church as their point of departure and searched for a pattern of clerics in the unmarried state in the first centuries. This, however, they did not find -- at any rate, not for all clerics. The question that they should have asked is whether the early Church perhaps knew a different discipline of continence. This was the approach of the older German scholarship in the nineteenth century. But that was though to have been refuted scientifically, and so these contributions were consigned to oblivion.

Actually, if this deficit has not become evident already, it ought to when on looks at the Church's legislation. That is to say, according to canon law an exclusively unmarried clergy, as we know it today, existed at all only after the Council of Trent (1521-1545). Even the above-mentioned Second Lateran Council, which is repeatedly cited as the beginning of the history of celibacy, did not intend to exclude married men from holy orders; it merely declared marriages contracted after the reception of orders to be invalide (canon 7). [Emphasis added.]

The word "exclusively" emphasized above is significant. Heid is not saying that the Church did not practice clerical celibacy prior to Trent, but that the exlusively celibate diocesan priesthood has only been around for about 450 years, or about one-quarter of the Church's history. (Indeed, as I'm sure you're aware, there are presently former Anglican priests who are now married Catholic priests in the Roman rite, as well as Eastern-rite married Catholic priests who are in communion with Rome). Accordingly, one should exercise restraint in trying to read the tridentine model of clerical celibacy back to the apostolic age.

[Cindy]

What THE BIBLE says about Homosexuality (click here)

FREE CONGRESS FOUNDATION: "A BAROMETER OF SPIRITUAL CONDITION" -Commentary by Brad Keena (042602)

[Salvation]

getting ready to try to overwhelm the USCCB meeting in Dallas in June -- it is important for faithful Catholics to be informed ... and well-informed.

Agree wholeheartedly.

[eastsider]

Thank you for the information, Cindy. Missing from the Christian ministries linked at the "What THE BIBLE says about Homosexuality" link that you provided was one for Courage. The following is from their national homepage:

Courage, an apostolate of the Roman Catholic Church, ministers to those with same-sex attractions and their loved ones. We have been endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family.

Thank you for keeping your Catholic brothers and sisters in your prayers. God bless.

[history_matters]

Changing the discipline of celibacy for the Latin rite can happen if the Holy Father believes that is way to go. If Peter says so, then I'm there.

Until today I have not realized that there are conservative Catholics who feel the Church would be bettered served by the changing or ending of this discipline. It is a lot for me to digest, and I feel very confused about the state of the Church now.

Having lost confidence in the Princes of the Church, I am ready for a greater role for laity in the governance ... but I honestly don't know the what or how of that -- I just know the foxes guarding the hen house have to go.

I also know that pro-abort Catholics and their ilk need to be excommunicated and their influence in the Church brought to a swift end. When I think of the calls to end celibacy that I have read or heard, they have usually come from those who deny and reject doctrine that I believe cannot be abridged or glossed over.

You have given me food for thought and for prayer.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Thanks for the post. This certainly seems to be a complex issue.

[sinkspur]

Accordingly, one should exercise restraint in trying to read the tridentine model of clerical celibacy back to the apostolic age.

Thanks for your post.

Although he's viewed as a troll around here, Richard McBrien made the point this morning that mandatory celibacy IS related to the present crisis, if only because it draws certain kinds of personalities to the priesthood.

If a requirement for serving in Congress was mandatory celibacy for males, we would have an entirely different makeup in that body than we do today. And there would be more gays in Congress as well.

Those, like me, who argue for admitting married men to the priesthood recognize that the pool of candidates would be much larger, and seminary authorities could be much more selective in who they admit.

I find it rather odd that the American Catholic Church has a priesthood overrun with sexually active gays, when it could have had a priesthood overrun with sexually active married men if optional celibacy had been considered at Vatican II.

[eastsider]

I find it rather odd that the American Catholic Church has a priesthood overrun with sexually active gays, when it could have had a priesthood overrun with sexually active married men if optional celibacy had been considered at Vatican II.

Thanks for your post, sinkspur. JPII was on the commission at Vatican II that wrote the Dogument Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, and he has recently reiterated his personal opposition to a further relaxation of mandatory celibacy. IOW, I don't look for a further relaxation of mandatory celibacy to happen in this pontificate, if ever.

I concur with those who say that a married Catholic diocesan priesthood is not a panacea for the present problem, but then again, I haven't heard such a naive claim from any source I would informed and orthodox. IMO, there is room for both married and celibate diocesan priests in the Church.

More important, although I concur with those who deny a causal relationship between the infiltration of active homosexuals and pedophiles among the clergy and an exclusively celibate priesthood, I concur with you that the latter provided the proper conditions for that infiltration to flourish, and that a further relaxation of mandatory celibacy should at least be considered as part of any effort to rid our clergy of these deviants.

[eastsider]

Erratum in my #37: Dogument = Dogmatic. : )

[sinkspur]

Sir, do you think that would keep the homosexuals out of the priesthood? It seems like it would make it more like the Navy. An easy place for a homosexual to fit in.

Gays are being kicked out of the services in record numbers, or haven't you heard?

No one is saying that gays would never find their way into the priesthood if priests were allowed to be married. Fewer would, however, if there weren't a gay network screening candidates.