Priestly Celibacy

I've often wondered why priests weren't allowed to get married. I mean wouldn’t they have a much better idea of what we parents have to go through with our spouses and kids? But after a little research I've found that I was quite mistaken. You see, the Catholic Church doesn't forbid anyone from marrying. The Church simply chooses those who have already made a vow of chastity.

You see, everyone is free to decide whether or not to take a vow of celibacy. The Catholic Church of the Roman Rite, this congregation is member of this rite, chooses whom to lay hands on for priestly ordination. This practice is a tradition that could change since this practice is not a divinely ordained practice. It is simply a small‘t’ tradition that began from very early on in Christian history.

Personally, it would surprise me greatly if the Church did change its practice of only ordaining men who have previously made a vow of celibacy. It would surprise me because both Paul and Jesus encouraged the celibate life for those who were called to it. Jesus said:" For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’ (Matt 19:12)

Paul himself recommends celibacy for those who can live this kind of life since their priorities will be divided. Isn’t it better to have a priest that is able to pick up and go wherever, and whenever, he may be needed, including foxholes, without the worry of being absent from their wives and kids? Paul put it this way in his letter to the Corinthians: “I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.”

Here’s a somewhat lengthy excerpt from catholic.com on the goodness of celibacy in the priesthood.

Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy institution—a sacrament, an action of God upon our souls; one of the holiest things we encounter in this life.

In fact, it is precisely the holiness of marriage that makes celibacy precious; for only what is good and holy in itself can be given up for God as a sacrifice. Just as fasting presupposes the goodness of food, celibacy presupposes the goodness of marriage. To despise celibacy, therefore, is to undermine marriage itself—as the early Fathers pointed out.

Celibacy is also a life-affirming institution. In the Old Testament, where celibacy was almost unknown, the childless were often despised by others and themselves; only through children, it was felt, did one acquire value. By renouncing marriage, the celibate affirms the intrinsic value of each human life in itself, regardless of offspring.

Finally, celibacy is an eschatological sign to the Church, a living-out in the present of the universal celibacy of heaven: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30).

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood

God Bless
Nathan

Call no Man Father

One of the first times that a religious individual tried to show me that the Catholic Church was wrong was by pointing out that we call our priest ‘Father’ even though Christ Himself said not to call anyone by that name.  In this article I shall try to explain why it is not against Christ to call our priests ‘father’.

 

I acknowledge that Jesus did say:  “And give no man the name of father on earth: because one is your Father, who is in heaven ” (Mat 23:9).  Was Jesus saying an all-encompassing statement?  Did He leave any room for exceptions?  This verse seems to indicate that the Catholic Church is wrong in calling Her priests ‘father’.

 

After being barraged with questions mostly to trick Jesus into saying something unscriptural, Jesus turned to the people who were following Him and said: “The scribes and the Pharisees have the authority of Moses; All things, then, which they give you orders to do, these do and keep: but do not take their works as your example, for they say and do not.”  Jesus was condemning their actions for they may be teaching correctly but they were not doing what was taught…they were being hypocrites.

 

But Jesus also said in the next few verses: “But all their works they do as to be seen by men…and the things desired by them are the first places at feasts, and chief seats at Synagogues, and the words of respect in the market-places, and to be named by men, Teacher.”  Jesus was denouncing their egos, he was telling everyone that these priests were in it for the fame and not for the Glory of God.   And so, our Lord wanted to make sure that the people knew because he did not wish it to continue.

And so, in this context did Jesus say in Matt 23:8 : “But you may not be named Teacher: for one is your teacher, and you are all brothers.  And give no man the name father on earth: because one is your Father, who is in heaven.”  It seems as if Jesus was trying to condemn what the Pharisees and Saduccees were doing.  They were, in effect, misusing the title of Father.  It is this misuse that Jesus is condemning.

If Jesus was condemning all uses of the title father then surely His disciples would have understood it that way.  But you can see many different instances where Jesus’ apostles use the title father.  In the book of Acts St Stephen addresses the rabbis and his fellow jews as “Men, brothers and fathers, listen”(Acts 7:2).  Also in Acts 4:25 we find Peter and John Glorifying God saying with one accord: “Sovereign Master, You are the One who has made heaven and earth and the sea and all things in them, Who, through the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, has said, ‘Why, did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples devise vain things?’” And once more in Acts we find the apostle Paul talking to the elders of Jerusalem saying: “Men, brothers and fathers, hear my defense which I now make to you.”

 

With these past verses we find that Peter, John, Paul and Stephen all use the title ‘father’.  Would it surprise you that even Jesus himself used that title?  He uses it when referring to Abraham in his parable of the suffering rich man.  Being a parable Jesus is unrestrained in using any and all terms allowable to Him for describing this story and He still chooses to use the term ‘father’ when referring to the rich man by addressing Abraham in Luke 16:24: “…Father Abraham, have mercy on me…”  and again in verse 30: “…No, Father Abraham; but if someone risen from the dead would go to them, they will repent.”  If Jesus was making an all-encompassing statement when He said to call no man Father, then He either made a mistake (which I don’t believe) or He is not the perfect example of man (which I believe He is the perfect example to follow).  Therefore, there is no other conclusion to come of this other than Jesus was denouncing the misuse of the title and not of the word itself.  Anything else would deny the deity of Christ.

 

This little study also points out that to take anything on its own, that is not to use the whole of the scriptures to compare what is said about a certain subject is to possibly bring you to some very wrong beliefs which Christ never intended.  Some of what is said in one verse of scripture cannot be all-inclusive statements.  It needs to be interpreted in light of other passages that refer to the same subject matter in order to have a clear picture of what the Word of God is trying to teach you.

 

God Bless

Women Priest?

A woman was "ordained" to the priesthood of the Catholic Church, supposedly, by a dissident group last Saturday.  However, this dissident group has no authority to do this - not as a "Catholic," and the "church" they did this in is not a Catholic Church... it is the St. Andrew's Church of Christ in Louisville, Kentucky.  So this was not a Catholic ordination by any stretch of the imagination.  The 70 year old Rosemary Snead said she was not worried about excommunication - another proof that this was not a Catholic function - for a true Catholic would be concerned about being in communion with the Church.  The local ordinary, Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz, called the planned ceremony by the Association of Roman Catholic Women Priests a "simulated ordination" in opposition to Catholic teaching.  Ms. Snead is also allegedly a "former" Carmelite nun - which on the surface tells me she's already broken one vow she's made between herself and God with the Church as a witness - how many more will she break?  So that, coupled with the cavalier attitude regarding excommunication AND the fact that ordination of women is simply not permitted, we can safely say this was NOT a "Catholic" ordination.

More reading here:  http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/28/17959215-kentucky-woman-ordained-as-priest-by-dissident-roman-catholics?lite

Sacrament of Confession (Reconciliation or Penance)

In the Gospel of John, we see the power to forgive sins conferred by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. The power to forgive sins conferred upon priests validly ordained by a bishop would play a prominent role in the life and miracles of Padre Pio. From 1918 to 1923, Padre Pio heard confessions fifteen to nineteen hours every day. In the 1940s and 1950s, he generally heard confessions somewhat less than that, but still five to eight hours every day.

So many people wanted Padre Pio to hear their confessions that they generally had to wait two or three weeks before their turn came. A numbering system began to be implemented in January, 1950. There was also a rule instituted that you couldn’t go to confession to Padre Pio more than once every eight days.

One man from Padua, who had gone to confession to Padre Pio, tried to go to confession again before the eight-day waiting period had elapsed. In order to circumvent the waiting-period, he lied about the amount of days that had passed since his last confession to Padre Pio. When he entered the confessional, Padre Pio sent him out and forcefully accused him of his lie. After being kicked out, the man said with tears, “I’ve told many lies during my lifetime, and I thought I could deceive Padre Pio too.” But Padre Pio had a supernatural knowledge of his action.

Padre Pio demanded that each confession be a true conversion. He didn’t tolerate a lack of honesty in the explanation of sins. He was very hard on those who made excuses, spoke insincerely, or lacked a firm resolution to change. He demanded frankness and total honesty from the penitent. He also required a true and sincere sorrow of heart, and an absolute firmness in a person’s resolutions for the future.

If the penitent wasn’t honest, or just read through the list of his or her sins without the firm resolution to change, Padre Pio would often growl “get out.”

One man who was thrown out of the confessional by Padre Pio stated: “What kind of blackguardly monk is that? He did not give me time to say a word, but straightway called me an old pig and told me to get out!” Another person said to this man that Padre Pio probably had good reasons for calling him an old pig and treating him in this way. “I can’t think why,” said the man who had been thrown out of the confessional; and then, after a pause, the man said: “unless it is because I happen to be living with a woman who is not my wife.”

There are too many such stories to recount them all but I’ll share with you one more extraordinary anecdote and refer you to go do your own internet search or simply go to http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/padre_pio.php

Frederick Abresch was one of those penitents who had been converted after going to Padre Pio for confession. Here are some of the things he described about the story of his incredible conversion:

“In November of 1928, when I went to see Padre Pio for the first time, it had been a few years since I had passed from Protestantism to Catholicism, which I did out of social convenience. I did not have the faith; at least now I understand that I was merely under the illusion of having it. Having been raised in a highly anti-Catholic family and imbued with prejudices against dogmas to such a degree that a hasty instruction was unable to wipe out, I was always avid for secret and mysterious things.

“I found a friend who introduced me into the mysteries of spiritism. Quite quickly, however, I got tired of these inconclusive messages from beyond the grave; I went fervently into the field of the occult, magic of all sorts, etc. Then I met a man who declared, with a mysterious air, that he was in possession of the only truth: ‘theosophy’. I quickly became his disciple, and on our nightstands we began accumulating books with the most enticing and attractive titles. With self-assurance and self-importance, I used words like Reincarnation, Logos, Brahma, Maja, anxiously awaiting some great and new reality that was supposed to happen.

"I do not know why, although I believe it was above all to please my wife, but from time to time I still continued to approach the holy Sacraments. This was my state of soul when, for the first time, I heard of that Capuchin Father who had been described to me as a living crucifix, working continual miracles.

“Growing curious… I decided to go and see with my own eyes… I knelt down at the confessional [and told Padre Pio that]… I considered confession to be a good social and educational institution, but that I did not believe in the divinity of the Sacrament at all… The Padre, however, said with expressions of great sorrow, ‘Heresy! Then all your Communions were sacrilegious… you must make a general confession. Examine your conscience and remember when you last made a good confession. Jesus has been more merciful with you than with Judas.’

“Then, looking over my head with a stern eye, he said in a strong voice, ‘Praised be Jesus and Mary!’ and went over to the church to hear the women’s confessions, while I stayed in the sacristy, deeply moved and impressed. My head was spinning and I could not concentrate. I still heard in my ears:‘Remember when you last made a good confession!’ With difficulty I managed to reach the following decision: I would tell Padre Pio that I had been a Protestant, and that although after the abjuration I was rebaptized (conditionally), and all the sins of my past life were wiped out by virtue of holy Baptism, nevertheless, for my tranquility I wanted to begin the confession from my childhood.

“When the Padre returned to the confessional, he repeated the question to me: ‘So when was the last time you made a good confession?’ I answered, ‘Father, as I was…’ but at that point the Padre interrupted me, saying, ‘…you last made a good confession when you were coming back from your honeymoon, let’s leave everything else aside and begin from there!’

“I remained speechless, shaken with a stupor, and I understood that I had touched the supernatural. The Padre, however, did not leave me time to reflect. Concealing his knowledge of my entire past, and in the form of questions, he listed all my faults with precision and clarity… After the Padre had brought all my mortal sins to light, with impressive words he made me understand the gravity of these faults, adding in an unforgettable tone of voice, ‘You have sung a hymn to Satan, while Jesus in His ardent love has broken His neck for you.’ Then he gave me my penance and absolved me… I believe not only in the dogmas of the Catholic Church, but also in the least of its ceremonies… to take away this faith, one would have to take away my life as well.’’

Padre Pio died in 1968 at the age of 81 and carrying the stigmata for 50 years. His legacy included 726 prayer groups with 68,000 members. There are also twenty-two Padre Pio centers for handicapped children and one center for the blind. As an example of the profound influence of his life, in 1997 six and a half million people visited Padre Pio’s tomb.

Padre Pio said what he would do after he died. “I have made a pact with the Lord: when my soul has been purified in the flames of purgatory and deemed worthy to be admitted to the presence of God, I will take my place at the gate to paradise, but I shall not enter until I have seen the last of my spiritual children enter.”

Let us take advantage of such a gift of God by going to confession, to avail ourselves of the Sacrament of Reconciliation as often as possible.

Missed past week’s leaflets? Questions? Comments? Come visit our Blog at www.parishofthepreciousblood.blogspot.com

Prepared by a St.Denis parishioner

East and West and Married v Unmarried Priests

A friend of mine, actually a very GOOD friend, posts this blog article earlier this year.

http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/can-east-west-coexist-with-married-priests

I have left a few comments there, but I think a fuller response is merited...

The Problem:
The normative Roman Catholic position is that only single men can be ordained to the priesthood. Likewise, the Orthodox have celibate clergy, but they are usually required to take monastic orders, to fill the family void. However, Orthodox Bishops will also ordain married men to the priesthood. (Neither Church allows single men who have been ordained to later marry.) In a reunited Church, could Orthodox and Catholic parishes live side by side with people possibly transferring between parishes, one ordaining married men to the priesthood and one limiting it only to unmarried, single men?

My answer to this was, and remains, SURE!  A bishop has jurisdiction over his diocese and everything which takes place, as it relates to the Church comes under his authority within his jurisdiction.  Eastern Catholics who have migrated to Western territories have to understand that the bishop of the territory they have moved to has the authority over that diocese.

Another reason the Eastern Catholic discipline of a married priesthood is relatively unknown is because it is generally restricted to the traditional homelands of these Eastern Catholic Churches.

And one would expect that the traditions of the homeland remain in the homeland!  Why would an Eastern Catholic presume that just because they had traditions back home that these traditions are to be automatically accepted by Western Catholics?  Likewise, the Sacraments of Marriage, Confession and Confirmation are all under the auspices of the local ordinary (bishop) and a Western bishop in an Eastern jurisdiction should not presume to authorize these without consent of the Eastern bishop.

For an example of a Latin Rite practice (one which I personally oppose and do not participate in) is communion in the hand.  What would the Eastern Rite priest think if a Latin Rite person were to reach for the spoon?  Of course that would be expressly forbidden!  I have witnessed some Latin Rite Catholics who "self-intinct" by taking communion in the hand and then approaching the Chalice they take the Host and dip it - this practice is expressly denied in the GIRM (#287).  It is possible for a Latin Rite priest to practice intinction, but it would be quite illicit for a communicant to self-intinct.

Vatican II issued the Decree of the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite wherein it states:

The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church.

It must be noted, BOTH traditions are seen as apostolic in nature - and must be respected by each rite.

The Council of Trullo, 692ad (though arguments are made that this council was a continuation of the Sixth Synod, it was not represented by the Latin Church at all and when the decrees were sent to the Pope, he would have nothing to do with them) in Canon 13 states:

Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time.

My friend is not alone here:
http://catholicexchange.com/2010/10/21/139404/
Catholic Exchange presents this article which echoes the sentiments of my friend.

“My request is that the patriarch be granted personal jurisdiction over the faithful of his church wherever they might be,” he said (Coptic Bishop Antonios Aziz Mina of Guizeh, Egypt).

Now while echoing my friend's sentiments, it also brings out the point I have made:

At present, many Eastern Catholics living outside of their home territories are under the care of Latin Rite Bishops unless an Eastern Catholic hierarchy has been set up.

With all due respect to Bishop Aziz Mina, it makes sense that a Catholic living outside their homeland to expect to be under the local jurisdiction of the bishop under whom they are living. 
Note, if "an Eastern Catholic hierarchy" is established - then it is possible for the Eastern bishop to practice the traditions of their homeland without hindrance.  Again, this makes sense!  If there are enough of a given Eastern ethnicity in a given region, then an Eastern Catholic hierarchy can be and even should be set up.  Then proper and due respect is owed to both hierarchies within a given region.

We must also point out that the practice of the celibate priesthood in the West is a discipline, not a dogma, and one that is even observed by some Eastern Rites.  The discipline COULD be changed allowing for married clergy from any rite.  At present the Latin Rite chooses to adhere to St. Paul's recommendation in 1 Corinthians 7:28 and especially Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 19:11-12:

He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, ⁸ 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; some, because they have renounced marriage ⁹ for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

Footnotes:

⁸ [11] [This] word: probably the disciples' "it is better not to marry" (Matthew 19:10). Jesus agrees but says that celibacy is not for all but only for those to whom that is granted by God. ⁹ [12] Incapable of marriage: literally, "eunuchs." Three classes are mentioned, eunuchs from birth, eunuchs by castration, and those who have voluntarily renounced marriage (literally, "have made themselves eunuchs") for the sake of the kingdom, i.e., to devote themselves entirely to its service. Some scholars take the last class to be those who have been divorced by their spouses and have refused to enter another marriage. But it is more likely that it is rather those who have chosen never to marry, since that suits better the optional nature of the decision: whoever can . . . ought to accept it.

Jesus Himself recommends celibacy for those who are called to it, and in the Latin Church, those who are called to celibacy are also called to serve Him in His Church.  There are places for the married too, up to and including the deaconate, so married individuals are not forbidden from serving Him through His Church - they would just do a different role within the Church.

So, to answer my friend's question, "Can East and West co-exist with married and unmarried priests?"  The answer is YES!  So long as the local ordinary and the disciplines for each jurisdiction are respected on BOTH sides, then most certainly we can co-exist.  It seems to me that those bringing up married v. unmarried clergy are actually either deliberately or subconsciously throwing up road blocks, or attempted ones at least, in an attempt to thwart reconciliation between the East and the West.  Again I wish to emphasize that if proper respect is given on BOTH sides - this is really a non-issue, or a mountain from a molehill.

AMDG,
Scott<<<