Celibacy: Neither healthy nor helpful for the future of vocations

If it isn't healthy for our future, then how could it have been healthy for our past? If celibacy was good enough for the saints, then its good enough for us!

"We were formed in a culture that was far more obsessed with sex than repressed about it." Ms. Manson also states her generation is more "enlightened" about sex than her parents' or her grandparents' generations. So, how does obsession lead to enlightenment? My basic point is: despite a general reference to "dozens of studies conducted in the past 40 years," this article trowels on its particular cliches as thickly as any overly pious sermon one might have heard in the "unenlightened" past. This article is mediocre, turgid, unalive. Show me one sentence in the article with any real sylistic verve or intellectual fire, and I'll retract my opinion.

Jamie, Thank-you for sharing your thoughts. I think that there is always a danger that one group of people will feel superior to another. And, although you don't mention it, it can be true with those who are in a relationship as to how they view the celibate as well as the other way around. That said, I beleive it is also true that what has been promoted as the "superiority" of celibacy has been used to sell it as a lifestyle. When this is done, it can easily create an elitist class and elitism and holyness can never co-exitst.

Church leaders defend the "charism of celibacy" to hide their real reasons for opposing optional celibacy for priests. I believe there are three main reasons for this opposition. The first is money. Priests with a wife and ten children will have to be paid a lot more money than they are now. Second the bishops do not want to deal with the problems that may arise from having wives and children in the rectory. They do not want to deal with wives that divorce the pastor, daughters who get pregnant or sons caught dealing drugs. But the third reasosn is I believe the most significant. They do not want married priests and bishops practising contraception like all the other married Catholics.

One solution might be the consecration of religious groups for married Catholics? A place for those of us who seek both the joys of family and the strength of spiritual community. Are there hierarchical barriers to such communities?

Where does this author find the notion that "one can only consecrate one's life to a religious vocation if they commit to celibacy?" The Church that welcomed early forms of religious life in which men and women voluntarily (and without ecclesiastical prescription) chose to lived the vowed life, has also welcomed any number of religious movements that chose, with ecclesiastical approval, not to make celibacy part of their commitment. There are valid arguments to be made against the church's attitude toward religious life, but the notion that the church imposes celibacy on all who would lead a religious vocation is not one of them. If the author has an argument with clerical celibacy, she should say so, and many of us will listen, but to conflate clerical celibacy with the vow of chastity will not further the debate.

Hey Jamie--Interesting point that young conservatives don't seem drawn to celibate lives. However, I'd like to see you acknowledge the experience both of vowed religious, who often do see their vocations as tied to celibacy both historically and in what it frees them to do, and of lay ministers, who do indeed pursue lives of service to the Gospel while having sexual relationships and families. There are more lay ministers than priests in the U.S. currently, and these graced and hardworking men and women have not been thwarted in their vocations by celibacy requirements.

Arguments about celibacy are never phrased in the proper context. It always seems to be about denying a person a family, or the possibility of sexual relationships (which for some is the most important thing in their lives, how sad!). Celibacy is always couched in the terminology of loss and denial. It is never discussed within the context of voluntary sacrifice for the benefit of the Kingdom.

Celibacy is a voluntary sacrifice entered into by men and women who are called to find their fulfillment, not in their own families, but in the family of faith that they are entrusted with. It is a voluntary sacrifice which enables them to be more fully like Christ, Who did not marry and did not enter into any sexual relationship; and to be more fully like the Apostles who left all that they had, family and homes, businesses and obligations, to follow Jesus.

Additionally, there is a practical reality to consider. Supposing we do permit priests to marry and raise a family. How can they be expected to provide for their family when they make a salary less than $20,000 per year (in most cases)? How can they be expected to leave a sick child to attend to a dying parishioner? Unlike ministers in the local Protestant conventicle, priests do not hold second jobs. They are on-call 24/7, and are expected and required to put the needs of their parishioners before their own needs. Now, supposing they have a family, whose needs will be placed first?

Finally, this author continues the practice of so many at NCR, putting sexuality ahead of faith. The most important thing for some of these writers is getting to sleep with whomever they want. That being the case, how can we expect them to understand the beauty of the voluntary sacrifice of a great good (marriage and family) for the sake of an even greater good?

To add to Ms. Manson's remarks, I'd go so far as to say that some or many in the Vatican actually are in fear of sex. Most of the rest of the world is somewhat obsessed with it, judging by what I see on TV, in print media, and hear in music (for many, many years, not just recently). I surmise that many clergy and religious are gay; and for previous generations, the only place to hide that (out of fear of violence) was in ordained or religious celibate life.

Things have changed.

We hear so much talk of tradition and the "old ways" from men who use a jet to get where they have to go. And it goes on...

Jamie, you are so right. Keep on telling it like it is!

Yawn. Here we go again: that same tired old argument against celibacy. The NCR must be taking one last gasp at trying to rouse the troops by bringing out the Hit Parade of things dissenters don't like about the Church. Last week it was the liturgy; the week before it was the sisters. What will it be next week? Probably contraception. No, celibacy isn't for everyone, and if one cannot live out one's life as a celibate, one does not need to explore a vocation as a priest or religious.

Dear Ms Manson, Most of the points you made regarding the health of vocations are as you state they are. It is not because the layman/laywoman is right.
During this Holy Season of Lent if all people of good Faith reflected truly on what Jesus Christ accomplished for each of us much of what you have written would disappear. We are human but is it necessary that we hound the God Who created us to allow us to be sexually active and also a participant in The Sacrament of Holy Orders? To remain celibate is not easy and requires Sacrifice. Do we tell the Son of God we do not want to make that Sacrifice? You are on the national board of the Women's Ordination Conference which throws your remarks on the side of Prejudice. All of us were brought up in the same SPIRIT! Humans have wanted more of their own desires rather than needs from the beginning of CREATION. Isn't it about time we change?

"They are simply seeking wholeness in every aspect of their lives. They do not believe that one must choose between the love of God that becomes present in a loving, sexual relationship and the love of God that emerges in a life of service and sacrifice to the work of God."

Yes. It's important to establish boundaries, but not to the extent that one has these boundaries imposed by others, and has no room to manipulate one's own self determination.

Also, I concur with your points about a whole myriad of things that occurred in the last century:

#1"... we live with a Roman Catholic hierarchy that continues to lead as if the women's movement, the sexual revolution, and the fight for equal rights for gays and lesbians never took place. There is no doubt that these movements deeply affected vocations because they generated a radical shift in relationships, most especially marriage."

#2 "The late 1960s shattered male and female roles: one's gender ceased to dictate a person's role in society. Large numbers of women began to seek higher education and the career of their choice. They were no longer relegated to living solely for the caretaking of their husbands and children. Men, too, gradually became more independent and could feasibly stay single longer, if not permanently. In short, men and women no longer depended on one another for the ability to function in day-to-day life. Marriages were almost entirely for the sake of love and personal fulfillment; the partners in the relationship were no longer wholly dependent on one another, as, for example, my grandparents were (and every other generation that preceded them)."

Consider the implications of my being a woman of 16 in 1969, with a father who was a tough, WWII staff sargent, and contrasting my own daughters being women of 16 in the years 1999 and 2001 respectively, and their father being a conscientious objector of the War in Vietnam...

Our formative years had marked differences, from "...every other generation that preceded them,". Major paradigm shift! I believe that it is a good thing, if indeed, the main task of the new century is to save the planet. My daughters, and my nephews!, and I, have the possibility in our lives, of seeing that redemption, if we can be patient, diligent, and follow the non-zero-sum path of love Our Lord continues to command of us. Be with us all, Lord, and now help us to figure out a way to save the people of Haiti. We know what to do.

Totally in agreement.

However-
The (conservative) hierarchy gets scared off about issues like a married priesthood when it is couched inside of a larger "the Church should be more liberal" stance that includes ordination of women and acceptance of homosexuality, along with a general "we need to be more like modern society" vibe.

While I totally agree with those ideas (most liberals do), I am not the people who need to be convinced. So I suggest a different tact...

Discussions about a married priesthood should really center around internal consistency within the Church. Rome recognizes married priests within the (in full communion) Eastern Rites, and even within the Roman Rite assuming the priest was married and ordained according to another (recognized, legitmate) rite, such as those married priests who have converted from Anglicanism or Orthodoxy. In fact, the recent invitation of conversion directed at disaffected Anglican communities specifically allows for married priests to convert and remain priests.

I suggest two approaches, for those of you actively seeking to champion the cause of a married priesthood:
-framing the conversation in terms of the Church's values, not your own (even if you think yours are better... which we all do)
-Actively encouraging those torn between the priesthood and married life to seek out the round-about option: get married, go to Orthodox or Anglican seminary, get ordained, convert. If enough young men (just men for now, unfortunately) start doing this, we'll create a sizable group of married priests. Reality will start to overwhelm orthopraxy.

BTW: Women called to ordination should pray long and hard about whether "staying and fighting" is the right move, or if converting to Anglicanism or a Liberal Catholic community (like the ECC) is the way to go. Surely some are called to fight the good fight, while others are called to blaze ahead regardless. Only sincere conversation with the Holy Spirit will help you discern your appropriate place.

Jamie, I fear you're to some extent mixing apples and aardvarks. It might be worth-while to have a chat either with Sr. Joan or Sr. Sandra concerning the difference between religious life and secular priesthood.

I, for one, cannot imagine vowed religious life (i.e., membership in a religious community or order) working in the absence of celibacy, at least not within the sensibilities of Christianity, which looks for sexual activity to be appropriate in context of a one-to-one relationship.

For a religious sister or brother (and priests who are Jesuits and Franciscans and so on are also brothers), their committment to the community is their "marriage." Or, at least, as near as they're going to get to it. The idea of marriage to an individual within that context would at best create "divided loyalties." This is to say nothing of ambiguities regarding the ownership of property and so on. In a non-chaste and/or non-single-sex circumstance, the only real option would be one where sexuality was communal as well--- I don't believe that is going to be an option any time soon! In any case we know from some commune experiments of the last century that such polyamorous situations just get over-complicated and fail.

Married life and vowed religious life are simply clear and distinct lifestyle choices. The latter has waned in popularity. It seems, however, that it still has something to offer for one who chooses to immerse himself or herself in the service of The Kingdom to the extent that their ability or desire to participate in a marriage and children would be severely compromised. Still, as a practical matter, they need a social, spiritual, and financial support system. Religious life offers that (more or less, nowadays, but that is a separate discussion).

Diocesean or secular priesthood on the other hand, either for a man or a woman, would seemm to be at least somewhat disjoint from the decision whether or not to marry and to raise children. Priests of a diocese do not vow poverty (i.e., the notion of communal property), nor do they vow chastity (they vow not to marry), nor do they vow the same sort of obedience to their bishop as most religious vow to their religious superiors, and by extension to their order.

It is towards this latter caste of individuals, Jamie, that your remarks are truly apropos. It is these individuals for whom we have a working model in the Anglican churches, with the added bonus that it applies also to women, and in some cases even to both men and women with same-sex partners. It is also among this class of people where we have a tremendous resource of already-ordained Roman Catholic priests who have chosen to forgo active ministry in order to marry and upon whom we could draw immediately not just for relief from a pronounced shortage of clergy but also as role models for young men (and women, we'd hope) who would follow a vocation to priestly ministry while simultaneously following a vocation to marriage and to child-rearing.

Jamie - You are a challenge to me, in every sense of the word. Thank you and you frustrate me. I often think I am reading some pretty big leaps in your logic, and I asuure you that - as much as I am frustrated - I am promoted to acknowledge that your studies are a tremendous resource I do not have at my disposal and that teaches me that I would love to enter formal theology studies.

You wrote: "Banning everyone who seeks a healthy, loving, committed sexual relationship from devoting her or his life to the service of the gospel creates shame about sexuality"

Jamie, those are huge leaps. The rub may be in your word choice:

celibacy in VOWED life "creates shame about sexuality".

Wow! That is a magnificently powerful and PRESENT-tense cause-and-effect equation you have established, Jamie. And I experience it as wildly out-of-date, a sentiment I have not encountered from any Catholic who came of age in the States in the 70s and 80s (when I did) and certainly not beyond. I have no difficulty believing that the the celibacy rule may have contributed to shame for people who came of age before that time because almost everything in our culture - Catholic or not - contributed to shame about sexuality prior to that time.

Jamie, I experiences your statement as reductive and extreme and I think it also likely references earlier generations and may, even then, be stretching it.
That it may reflect how you personally feel is for you to determine and then share based on your comfort level (I cannot tell from this piece if you are speaking for yourself or for others).

You wrote that "It suggests that any sexual expression is an obstacle to being fully and authentically committed to bringing the life of God into the world".

I assume that the "it" in your statement refers to celibacy in VOWED life.

Again, Jamie, I think this is a huge leap and an out-dated assumption. The ever-expanding literature on celibate sexuality - written by celibate and vowed Catholic men and women - is, in my mind, an explicit contradiction of your sweeping statement.

And, come on, Jamie, the Catholic Church is forever going on and on about sexuality as one of the holiest and most sacred means to "bringing the life of God into the world".

celibate vowed life is simply one more holy and sacred means of doing that and even the most orthodox and "papal" of vowed religious communities are incresingly at ease talking about sexuality as part of celibate life (check out the Ann Arbor Dominican women who were on Oprah. Those two young sisters who spoke about sexuality were not ashamed of being sexual persons. I thought they totally embraced their sexualities and spoke as women who know themselves as fully sexual and - it seems likely from their conversation - sexually experienced).

with all due respect, i think that particular statement - in the year 2010 and in the context of the vast dialogue out there about celibate sexuality and the Church's understanding of sexuality as one of God's most beautiful and sacred actions in our human lives - is reductive, out-dated and may even be primarily and intentionally provocative.

You wrote: "Young adults, I believe, have the vision to see that both paths have equal potential for holiness, and one needn't be exclusive of the other. They are simply seeking wholeness in every aspect of their lives. They do not believe that one must choose between the love of God that becomes present in a loving, sexual relationship and the love of God that emerges in a life of service and sacrifice to the work of God".

Jamie, I agree wholeheartedly with you on the essence of this. And I am so grateful for this reality, which I do trust as our existing reality, for vowed and unvowed Catholics alike.

what is tough for all of us humans - and i think in particular for late 20th and 21st century Americans in particular - is that, in any given situation in our life, we will encounter specific options. as i say to the people i work with in my life as a social worker, "all the choices are yours. these are the specific options we have identified. the choice of which option to pursue is yours". the message is that our choices (our desires, our wants, even our ultimate decisions) do not necessarily define the options existing outside our desires, our wants, our ultimate choices.

you do not want the Catholic Church to create a category of life in which vowed religious life is exclusive of genital/romantic sexuality.

i hear you, Jamie.

and the Catholic Church does have that category of life in which vowed religious life is exclusive of genital/romantic sexuality. and it works - today - for tens of thousands of men and women around the world. it has worked for tens of thousands of men and women around the world for centuries.

it does not work for you, I assume, and it does not work for the vast majority of Catholics. but, as so many have emphasized in these discussions about the declining numbers of religious since pre-VII days, it has NEVER worked for the vast majority of Catholic men and women. God made us sexual beings and most of us are going to use the physical equipment, Jamie, and we will encounter God through that form of sexuality. Some tiny fraction are going to choose to be sexual without using the physical equipment and will encounter God through that form of sexuality.

whether or not the Roman Catholic Church sticks with the celibacy vow for consecrated religious life is a whole discussion.

but i thinnk you are engaged in a conflict of your own making, Jamie, when you proclaim that the vow of celibacy "creates shame about sexuality" and "suggests that any sexual expression is an obstacle to being fully and authentically committed to bringing the life of God into the world".

and i think it is not helpful and perhaps not even honest.

Peace.

Jean Brookbank

Kudos, Ms. Mason. An extremely intelligent, insightful essay not only on the difference between celibacy and relationships, but on the societal influences on each generation's decisions regarding their life-choices.

I do not subscribe to the theory that a vow of celibacy provides necessarily richer more fertile ground from which to grow ministry. I entered the seminary at 13 years ready to make the commitment, but thanks to the Spirits insight, i was "asked to leave." I was married, had children and now my wife and are grandparents. In the midst of all this, i continued in service to the church in a multitude of roles. I beleive marriage and family life made me a far better minister than I ever would have been otherwise. I have come to know God in a far richer and more fertile way in these committed relationships than I beleive I would have in celibacy. Like the writer, i am not against someonewho might choose celibacy for themsleves, but the choice is not a pure mathematical equation for best holy order (In fact, I question whether Holy Order is what we really need). I have worked for many years with many dedicated and devoted church ministers who walked a wide variety of different lifestyles, and I know the church is the better for them. What impresses me is not that the people of God feel shorted because these lay non-celibate ministers had "family" interests, but how willingly the congregation came forward to support and nuture these ministers in their joys and sorrows. I enjoy working in this church!

congratulations to Jamie on a fine, well-reasoned piece. I will believe in miracles again if someone in the Roman and USA hierarchy both reads and understands it!

"Banning everyone who seeks a healthy, loving, committed sexual relationship from devoting her or his life to the service of the gospel creates shame about sexuality"

While this entire article is based on many weak and false premises, this line sows the seeds of it's own destruction. By making this claim, you affirm a principle that no one holds - that one must be a celibate priest or chaste religious to be at service of the Gospel. Someone needs an editor.

A very nicely written article; a few of her fellow young catholic columnists could learn a thing or two from Jamie. However, she works off of a couple of flawed premises. She writes:

"Banning everyone who seeks a healthy, loving, committed sexual relationship from devoting her or his life to the service of the gospel creates shame about sexuality."

Nobody is being banned from devoting their life to the service of the Gospel because they seek a committed sexual relationship (why she doesn't call this marriage is very telling). That is the vocation of every baptized person; married or celibate. She belittles those who are called to marriage by assuming they are not pursuing a life in service to the Gospel.

The other major flaw is that she makes no reference to vocation as a calling. She says that people are unwilling to "make" a commitment to celibacy, as if it is an arbitrary thing. Those who are called to the priesthood or consecrated life are CALLED to a life of celibacy. It doesn't necessarily mean that they 'want' it, but they are willing to live it out for the sake of the Kingdom and their vocation. Have you noticed that the best priests and nuns would also make great fathers and mothers? They see the value in both callings, but they did not chose their calling their calling chose them so they are happy to live it out.

If Jamie would read Theology of the Body or any recent theology about sex and marriage she would not make following statement,

"For the church, the ancient notion that virginity and/or celibacy is superior to married life has always been paramount."

John Paul II made it quite clear that the call to married life is a sacred vocation that does not take a back seat to religious life.

Finally I think it is wrong to assume that those who pursue a vocation to the priesthood or religious life do not "fall in love." But for Jamie love=sex, and perhaps that is the most dangerous premise of all.

"They do not believe that one must choose between the love of God that becomes present in a loving, sexual relationship and the love of God that emerges in a life of service and sacrifice to the work of God."

I doubt you would find very many people who do believe you much choose. Vatican II taught us we are all called to a life of service/sacrifice to the work of God whatever our vocation (married/single/religious).

"Most of these hardliners, many of whom reject the changes of Vatican II (that they didn't live through), have stayed away from the seminaries,too"

If anyone can point me to statistics/polls that show the above I would be interested. (Not saying I am doubting it just can't recall seeing stats like this)

Ed

I agree with your last statement Jamie, that

'Young adults...I believe, have the vision to see that both paths have equal potential for holiness, and one needn't be exclusive of the other. They are simply seeking wholeness in every aspect of their lives. They do not believe that one must choose between the love of God that becomes present in a loving, sexual relationship and the love of God that emerges in a life of service and sacrifice to the work of God.'I want to see celibacy as optional way of life in the RC'.

Well said, Jamie. Cardinal Rode and his ilk believe all we have to do is turning back the clock to 1559 and all will be the same again.

We need more young voices like you in the Church today.

Steve

A well-stated presentation, and thank you for it. A few thoughts in response. The call to religious life, and the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience, is for certain one that a very few experience. That is what the mass exodus from religious life for both men and women in the '60's and 70's was really all about. Many went in to religious life because it was the most reasonable option at the time (for a variety of reasons). But once other possibilities became available, especially for women, many left to pursue those new avenues. Nowadays, a new and most exciting phenomena has opened in the Church that allows for a true vocation, but without the required vows as we have known them. The lay institutes, sodalities and other styles of Catholic committed living blend the two options of religious life and remaining a member of the laity. One can envision a Church with a small number of vowed religious as we have known them, and large numbers of lay Catholics committed to and in unison with those congregations (I am thinking of the work of the Society of Mary [Marianists] here). As for the secular priesthood, the options should also exist: a celibate priesthood and a married priesthood, not separate but fully equal. To restrict priesthood to only the celibate actually devalues the special gift of celibacy/chastity. We hope that, in the next Pope, these developments will be examined and supported for their own worth and value, and not dismissed based on tradition and a fear of confronting the realities of the present Church. I know all the arguments on the other side, so save your breath (you know who you are). But I say this as representative of what many Catholics I know think about the current Church situation.

"Half of the men and women who have entered religious life since 1990 left before taking final vows, according to a recent study conducted for the National Religious Vocation Conference."

2009 NRVC CARA Study on Recent Vocations
cf. pages 34-35:
"Retention rates and Departures"
"There are NO significant differences in retention rates between institutes whose leaders are members of LCWR and institutes whose leaders are members of CMSWR."

You mean if we ordain women they wouldn't be celibate??

Though they insist sexual relationships should only exist between one man and one woman, and are only to be expressed in marriage, they are not much more drawn to a lifelong commitment to celibacy than any other young adult.

That statement may be true - but what the author fails to understand is that these couples who live faithfully according to Church teachings on sex within the bonds of marriage are more likely to be open to life - and have larger families. These larger families will be the sources of future priests and religious, as the children witness the demonstration of sacrificial love lived daily by their parents.

And that's what it comes down to - a life of self-sacrifice. For a great perspective on the loss of sacrificial love in our culture, Fr Dwight Longenecker's column sheds a lot of light on the source of this loss - it all comes down to contraception.

I realize that this is obvious to most of us, but we live with a Roman Catholic hierarchy that continues to lead as if the women's movement, the sexual revolution, and the fight for equal rights for gays and lesbians never took place.

Not hardly - the leaders of the Church are resolved to clean up the mess these destructive forces left in their wake. What the author really means to say is "it's not fair that the hierarchy hasn't caved in to our demands to change Her teachings'. The hierarchy knows what's going on - you just don't like the way they're addressing the problems.

Excellent article and ideas, Jamie Manson! I agree with you. Your last paragraph sums it up beautifully. Very wise of you, very true and very biblically authentic and faith-wise true. Jesus chose MARRIED St. Peter and also the great woman Apostle Junia/Joanna was MARRIED too (wife of Chuza, companion of Andronicus), the great woman Apostle Samaria woman had had multifple MARRIAGES too. Thank you for a brilliant, thoughtful argument for the necessity of letting our priests, deacons , bishops, archbishops, cardinals, popes be MARRIED people too. A healthy, balanced, safer COMMUNITY and CHURCH, both clergy and laity pluds authentic to the model that Jesus made 2000 years ago.

Celibacy as it applies to the Catholic priesthood is nothing more than a control mechanism. It was never instituted by Christ or was it something that he asked us to do. It is a control mechanism. I am not speaking about those who choose to live a celibate life because they do choose and are not told they must be celibate in order to be a priest in the Latin Rite. It's all very harmful and silly. We have a highly dysfunctional and unhealthy clerical state in the Catholic Church. It must change and it will change, otherwise, we will have very few priests left. The entire understanding of human sexuality is centuries behind the rest of the world. Catholic prelates are the least capable of judging the merits of human sexuality in this century because they are about five hundred years behind the current knowledge of human sexuality. The right wingers in the hierarchy do not have the necessary tools of being able to think critically or to apply current understandings of human sexuality. Requiring men to be celibate in order to be priests or bishops is against the natural laws but most importantly it was not asked of us by Christ. It is actually a very unhealthy policy that has led us to the current collapse and decay that we are facing in the Church.

Jamie, there are so many ordained men walking with a yoke around their neck because they can't retain the life they chose many years ago.
Many going into seminaries at the age of 13.
It's pathetic really and those of us who sense this, are very vulnerable to their needs and I don't mean having clandistine affairs either and there are many of those around.
As they age they look more for the intermacy, that closeness of having a family of their own, to be loved and cherished and a sense of worth.
If the mothers of these men were to know the guilt their sons felt for their
failure, because that is how it is perceived, it would break their heart.
Many of them deprived of the beautiful grandchildren that could have been and the ones who are.
Maybe the younger generation will see a change in the order of things.
I certainly hope so.

How refreshing and hopeful to hear from the heart of a younger member what many of us "older" catholics believe and have tried to live. Thank you, Jamie, for your honest, courageous, challenging,and hope filled words.

Ms. Manson's article reports what the changes in our society that the church ignores in many ways. It has been a myth for a long time that young men are recruited to the priesthood for life. As she points out, research shows that 50 percent who enter the seminary are never ordained. The research could also point out that five years after ordination, another half have left the priesthood. The priesthood has been a revolving door for a very long time but it is one of those secrets the church leaders keep to themselves. You see, the truth is the church institution exists for priests, not the laity, not the Gospel. What the church does always centers on the vested interest of those who stay in authority as priests. It is a sad thing to realize.

Jamie - I am reading Chesterton's book "Orthodoxy" (he makes me laugh out loud) and, coming across this line, thought of my most persistent objection to many of your posts. It is from the chapter, "The Ethics of Elfland", in an early section on democracy (Chesterton's argument is that "tradition is only democracy extended throught time").

"Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of the who few who merely happen to be walking around".

It made me think of this essay and how you lose me, Jamie, every time you tie your assessment of the wisdom of the Church and its teachings to the likes and dislikes of any given generation (in this case, yours).

i often can not even get to the point of hearing your assessment because of the clanging and clashing of that clunker of a foundation: "we don't like it".

i just cannot see how that can be a sturdy foundation for an assessment of the wisdom of the Church. that's nothing more than a statement of preferences.

and tradition should fold because of that? because a particular cohort does not like it?

it always stuns me when you come to that conclusion, Jamie. it seems so willful.

and that is what catches my attention in pieces like this: you are telling the Church that it should change and your foundation for that recommendation is based on the druthers of the current generation (yours) - a crowd comprised of everyone born in a 25 year period, right?

you and so many others have established that the huge numbers of women religious in the first three quarters of the 20th century were an anomaly; that the fraction of any "typical" generation that enters religious is tiny. (it makes sense to me).

so your assessment of whether the Catholic Church is right or wrong to maintain a 1700 year old tradition within religious life is based on your assessment of how a single cohort responds to religious life, a form of Catholic life which we know attracts only a tiny fraction of ANY cohort?

blows my mind, Jamie, blows my mind. i can't even get to the rest of your thinking because of that shaky foundation. I just don't like it.

Jean Brookbank

Three points:

As much as everyone wants more priests and religious, the goal is and should always be quality over quantity. I can tell you that the seminarians I know are, for the most part, very conscious of the celibacy requirement and do not lament it. Yes, it can be a trial at times, but it is not an unhealthy sexuality. Indeed, one great concern of the Church is determining if a man has the capacity to live a healthy sexuality as a celibate. The reason the Church's conception of healthy sexuality differs from the culture is because the culture has gone off the rails. The Latin Church chooses to (for the most part) select its priests from among those who have the charism of celibacy, just as the Eastern Church selects its bishops from among the "monks". Yes, they are but disciplines, but they are pretty high on the "things we hold dear" scale. They are a bit more solid than disciplines about what constitutes a fast or what colors are used at Mass.

Second, are we not in the age of lay leadership and valuing their ministry? It is not like you cannot be a leader in the Church unless you are a priest. True, there are some jobs reserved to clergy, but let'e be honest there are lay analogues. Eg only priests can be pastors, but how many lay people more or less run the parish and do the pastoral ministry with a priest, stretched between many parishes, comes in to be "milked for grace" every few weeks? Indeed, this is a way some priests even can feel belittled, that there are a rare few parishes with this model (which can be a good and useful thing) who see him as a "grace cow."

Third, I am often confused by articles railing on celibacy. How in the world do those who get angry at the first sign of the Church discussing sexual morality get off telling other people how to live their vocation to celibacy?

Uh, did you title this article Jamie? The title refers to celibacy as "neither healthy nor helpful to the future of vocations." And, uh, in Paragraph 13, you say "I am not suggesting that celibacy is wrong or unhealthy. Just what is it, exactly that you are suggesting?

Beautifully and strongly expressed, Jamie.
I would just add the concept of Associate Membership with Religious Congregations. These men and women are not "second class members" but individuals and couples who participate in the mission and charism of the community. As long as religious communities live out their vows in the context of community and seek approval from Rome, celibacy will be part of the package.
A Religious Community committed to Justice and the work of the Gospel, needs a new paradigm...one where relationships are possible. Perhaps celibacy in this new vision would be short term, maybe a year at a time. Or, perhaps the commitment would be to living in community, simplicity and obedience to the Gospel...no traditional vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.
Any takers?

I don't think that one can argue against Jamie's insights here. There is a need and value to celibacy, and this should and will continue in the Church through the witness of women and men religious.
Optional celibacy for priesthood is a strong possibility for the future church, where that lifestyle would be optional for men only presently. The question becomes then, how to include women in an institutional way that would allow them to consecrate their lives to God and to be in a relationship. As religious life has changed and adapted through the ages, perhaps the Spirit is now gently leading us to new ways of holiness and ministry. Let's hope that we will be open to whatever and wherever the Spirit leads us.

Hogwash. You know what's neither healthy nor helpful for religious vocations? Liberalism. Dioceses with courageous, holy, faithful, charismatic bishops and dedicated, faithful joyful priests (like Colorado) have ample seminarians. Places like California have a dearth of seminarians because the Catholic Church there is empty of substance and authentic conviction. Holiness invites religious vocations. Giving in to the sinfulness of the secular world, as you recommend doing, will discourage them. How's the Episcopal Church USA doing lately? They have everything you recommend that the Catholic Church adopt, yet they're not doing so hot themselves. You make a specious argument, whose falsehood is proven by looking at the declines in the leftist/liberal/progressive separated ecclesial communities.

I take it celibacy is the lastest object of attack from the National "catholic" "reporter."

Thank you Jamie for pointing out that those who demand religious remain celibate are almost never celibate themselves. It's always easier to demand others do things that they themselves won't do. They come up with all kinds of stupid reasons but as Sr. Sylvia used to say to us in the 8th grade: "Actions speak louder than words".

I suppose Ms. Manson has never actually sat down to read the Bible or, if she did, it certainly wasn't the one the rest of us read. Sometimes theology classes have a tendency to push a particular agenda and ignore the obvious. I seem to remember something similar to:

"...to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire." (1 Cor.7:8-9)

"Not all can accept [this] word, 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 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." (Matthew 19:11-12)

No where in these two quotes does either Paul or Christ Himself have the view that celibacy is 'unhealthy', except, perhaps, to those who have no self-control. The Catholic Church in the west has chosen, as a matter of discipline, that some are granted the grace to renounce marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Church is not 'commanding' Her ministers to be celibate; rather She is asking them to CHOOSE, if it be their vocation as priest or religious. No one is holding a gun to their heads; they have many years to decide what it is they need to do.

It might be 'unhealthy' for those who choose a vocation based on self-delusion, but it seems most of the priests and religious I have met are happy with their 'choice', which is an indication that they have conformed their will to the Will of God for their lives.

Some have the mistaken notion that the Catholic Church in the East handles priestly marriage the same as protestants do. I am sure there are several echelons within the Catholic church who believe this; however, a candidate for priesthood in the eastern Church is allowed to marry BEFORE he becomes a priest, not after. Priests who lose their wives to death are not allowed to remarry. Also, all bishops are single and celibate.

In our sex-obsessed and saturated society, celibacy AND CHASTITY are like a breath of fresh air and certainly counter-cultural to the zeitgeist of the times. As far as the 'scandal' that has hit the Church in many countries, less than 2% of priests and religious are involved. That means over 98% of priests and religious are doing a fine job and are upholding their choice with the grace of God. I disagree with Ms. Manson: the good that these men and women do throughout the world are a PRIME reason and a most helpful reason for future vocations. If candidates cannot make the choice, they don't belong as candidates in the first place.

Jamie, your headline is in conflict with paragraph 13: Healthy or not? Which is it: Your article doesn't make a lot of sense.

The 2000+ years of experience of the Eastern Churches, both Uniate and Orthodox, as well as former Protestant married clergy, now retrained and ordained into Catholic clergy, shows that celibacy is NOT an integral part of Holy Orders, but only a man-made custom, period.

These other groups certainly have the benefit of knowing the traps and tips for living such a life, so why doesn't the Latin rite Hierarchy humbly seek their guidance as more knowledgable than the Vatican Curia???

Why continue to insist that it is aerodynamically impossible for humans to leave the ground and fly, just because they don't have wings on their backs???

Thank you for your courageous & intelligent essay re: celibacy and how it may limit vocations to the priesthood/religious life in the Catholic Church. Best wishes as your career continues to evolve, KW Edgewater, NJ

In our diocese there have been no vocations for the priesthood for two years, yet the seminary remains functioning as though a new class will materialize on cue every September. By contrast, the deaconate program is offered once every seven years and has an age limit (55). That means that anyone born before 1955 can forget about responding to the call to ordination as a deacon; and the next time the diocese offers the program, if you born before 1962 you can forget about it.

This year 108 men applied to enter the deaconate. 60 were accepted. Clearly there is no shortage of religious vocations, but rather an acute shortage of common sense on behalf of the vocations department both here and in Rome. The time has come to recognize that mandatory celibacy is destroying the sacramental life of the church, that the hierarchy is composed of men who refuse to admit what is obvious to everyone else, and that we "lay-people" have to adopt a path of action to rescue the church before it morphs into an archaic cult, or disappears altogether.

Excellent article and something I have been saying for a long time.

I think the Church is "hung up" on an outdated model for many reasons.

The question is: What will it take for the Pope and the Vatican to recognize the need for change?

As a diocesan seminarian, I would definitely support optional celibacy. Although not for me, there are great candidates out there who would make excellent priests, if only ordination were opened to married men. I am relatively conservative on other issues, but this is something I believe needs to change.

Hello. I wondered then if you believe that priests should be allowed to marry. Perhaps part of the problem with vocations in the church is the celibacy issue. Some people can follow it, others simply cannot. Is it not normal to want to have a family? What about gay people who want to commit but are forbidden to marry legally? Have you ever done a commitment ceremony for people who wanted something more than just dating but weren't yet ready for the legalities of marriage? Would you conduct the service for an unmarried gay couple or a straight couple who wanted to have a commitment ceremony but aren't yet ready for to make it legal? When the vows are exchanged, do you believe that they are just as valid as when people marry legally? Would God recognize the exchange of vows in your opinion? Sorry for all the questions. I am very interested in your answers.

Thank you.

Anonymous.

Does Ms Manson not realise that it is impossible for married people to live religious life in the same way that religious of First and Second orders do? Does she imagine a contemplative Trappist monastery filled with partnered lesbians with their 1.5 in vitro-produced children, living alongside traditional men and women practicing NFP with a brood of 18? The married are not turned away from religious life because they want to marry and have a family; the married have a distinct vocation which is different than that of religious. While surely space can be found in the Church for communal life among married and celibates (one thinks of various charismatic communities), those are not the same thing as communities which adhere to the life of the evangelical counsels, especially if they are involved in a particular apostolate which is not always germane to married life (would I raise a family in the middle of the ghetto, consecrated to absolute poverty? (I think Child Protection Services would be called in) or the contemplative vocation?

Ms Manson is right to see that the "children of light" as she quote-marks her fellow young Catholics who, unlike herself, actually agree with Church teaching, do see sex and marriage as a positive thing. But for all that, they (or shall I say we) do not reject traditional religious life because they choose marriage; on the contrary, many young Catholics have a profound love of the priesthood and religious life, and have not entered it because that was not the vocation given to them by God. And also, how many young men and women have been rejected from religious communities, not because they had a vocation to marriage, but because their superiors were too busy deconstructing the charism of their founders and replacing it with the same agenda Manson wants to see take over the whole Church - the hermeneutic of discontinuity whose effects have been seen the abandonment of religious life by the young in communities which are not faithful to the Magisterium.

I'm a bit surprised that in this whole discussion of the legitimacy of celibacy the experiences of the eastern Churches aren't drawn upon.

There, the married life has always been one option for those looking to enter the ministry, open to all would-be priests (although episcopal celibacy has never been optional). For years now, however, the Catholic bishops (and especially the American bishops) have sidelined its eastern Churches, such that, in many cases, those who are married must be sent back to the 'home' country of these churches in order to be ordained, before returning to practice their ministry in the United States.

The point is, the Church needs both married and celibate priests, and in what I hope will be the coming transition to optional celibacy in the decades to come, the uniate Churches (Melkite, Ruthenian, etc.) have an already existing road-map of best practices that can at least give the Roman Church a place from which to start.

Thank You Jamie. This was a fantastic article, good to know I'm not alone out there. You've got it exactly right.

I don't think you get the idea of celibacy at all.
Celibacy is a total committment to God and His children.
You cannot serve 2 masters; marriage is a total
committment to one's spouse/children not divided towards others.
Sexuality is not a recreational sport as per the media bombardment to the masses.
Many millions of people over the ages have chosen not express love in a sexual way, that does not make them less human nor does it make them do bad things. When sexuality is not the center of their lives they
direct their energies to total dedication to duties, they express their
love by caring for those who need to hear of God's love.

You sell all young people short thinking that todays 'modern' trends would sway the Truth of what the Church teaches.
It's not for everyone but to say we don't have those that are willing to totally dedicate themselves to God and the Church is selling future generations short. Contrary to past trends after VaticanII, vocations are rising and the men and women taking vows of chastity, poverty, obedience with total dedication to Jesus Christ have chosen the better.