Exceptions to celibacy rule puzzle priests

The exception to the celibacy rule in the Latin rite is just that: an exception. The extraordinary accommodation given to existing Anglican clergy does not change the commitment to celibacy by Latin rite priests. Ironically, all the married Anglican clergy who have been ordained Catholic priests I have read about in interviews and similar articles have, without exception, upheld and defended the Church's rule on priestly celibacy. I find it interesting that, in the interests of getting the whole story, no one thought it important to hear from these men. I also find the headline "Exceptions to celibacy rule puzzle priests" an attempt to make something bigger of this issue than it really is.

In order to love one must expose the machinations of the ego. There is nothing that does that like the committed relationship of marriage.

All too often the ego runs wild in the ordained priesthood. The egos hide under the fine words of love and the imitation of Christ, but in practice the desire for power and prestige is the dominating impulse. Cf the beautiful vestments and long red train of Cardinal Rode, the very comfortable lifestyle of the celebates.

Last year my diocese ordained a married man with children and grandchildren who attended his ordination. He came to the Catholic Church from a Porotestant denomination, not Anglican either. It is indeed confusing not only to priests, but to laity. Obviously celebacy is not a requirement for these priests so why for those who were born and bred Catholic or those married conversts who are banned from the priesthood?

My head is spinning so much from the spinning non answers, I think I might get sick.

Mandatory celibacy is, for this generation, an agenda looking for an argument.

As time (indeed centuries) have passed and we have seen example after example of Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and other clergy operating absolutely effectively in the context of married life those arguments become more and more contrived and etherial.

Indeed most of the world's clergy are married.

As we approach a time where the number of Catholic clergy falls below the critical mass even to perform those functions that only clergy can perform (i.e., the Sacraments and in particular the Eucharist), the arguments begin to appear as a defense of the indefensible.

GOT ANY PROOF TEXTS?
"Father Heid said that like the apostles, married men who became priests in the early church lived completely chaste lives after ordination."
http://www.pusc.it/teo/conv/conv10/
In addition to the ECONOMIC ramifications of the Western church's discipline (to eliminate clergy's children from inheriting church property and benefices)is clerical celibacy actually another thinly-veiled "theological" expression of institutional misogyny?
Not even a cleaning woman/nun in the Opus Dei building?
http://www.pusc.it/press_office/galleria/convegno%20teologia%202010/inde...

"Priests are called by God to imitate Christ, the bridegroom, by dedicating themselves totally to God and to serving his people, he said. And they are called to stand in Christ's place at the Eucharist, pouring themselves out for the salvation of others, he said."
_______________________________

That is at the heart of cultured male-elitism. The "briedgroom" analogy is phoney. First of all, institutions are sexless, and totaly undeserving of being given the legal status of "person."

"...dedicating themselves totally and to serving his people...pouring themselves out..." as if the same isn't equally said about women and should be expected of them, in the same way as expected of men. Elitist male celibacy is a ploy of dominion and control. Few people really buy into any other explanation.

There is evidence that Jesus was for a time a practicing Rabbi in Capharnum. If this is the case, it is almost certain that he was, in fact, married.

It is important to mention that the movement away from priestly marriage had to do with Contenance - the belief that to worthily celebrate the Mass or receive the Eucharist, one must abstain from sexual activity, even within marriage. This practice is likely the reason for much of the Catholic doctrinal dysfunction relating to sexuality. There is nothing incompatible with married sexuality and the celebration or reception of the Eucharist, indeed married sex is part of the essence of that Sacrament. Any who teach otherwise should probably not carry such attitudes into teachings with the faithful. Indeed, this is a reason that Priests should not only be permitted to marry, it should be a requirement.

Celibacy is a deprivation and as such is no more character building or an imitation of Christ than is hunger!
Most honest medical professional understand it this way and not the way of this group of men that are no less sinful than anyone else but in fact in their deprivation are only guilt ridden.
R. Dennis Porch, MD

I never heard the one about the 12 Apostles leading chaste lives after following Jesus. Where is that found in Scripture?

In helping us to understand the mysteries surrounding the nature of God and His relationships to humanity, and especially with His Church, The Catholic religion makes widespread use of symbols and metaphorical language. It is thus important for us to realize just which concepts are symbolic and which are reality, and not to confuse one with the other.
In depicting Jesus as the "Bridegroom", we are speaking metaphorically!! This is not the reality of the relationship of God to members of the Church. As such, this image should not be used as reason for priestly celibacy.

In addition, "chastity" and "celibacy" are not synonymous. Married couples live lives of chastity when they limit all expressions of their sexuality to within the marriage bond. Married priests could also be chaste, and priests could be celibate but not chaste (as we well know).

Richard A

Celibacy is certainly not forced on priests, they freely chose it! It is wonderfully freeing for them. This article is an attack on the teachings and actions of St. Paul, on the proud tradition of the Church, and even on the actions of Jesus himself! To Michael Bindner, I would inquire what scriptures shed more light on this issue than the Bible itself? What Gospels are you reading?

Rather obvious questions for Fr. Heid and Pope Siriciu: (1) Exactly how did Peter acquire his mother-in-law? (2) Since when did the virtue of chastity become incompatible with marriage?

I agree with the posters who see all this thrashing around as a way to justify misogyny. The most convoluted scriptural arguments are used to support conclusions that are desired a priori, while the main messages of Jesus are diluted.

I like the way the Opus Dei speakers mixed the terms 'celibacy' and 'chastity'.

Not at all the same. Indeed, apples and oranges.

As for the Twelve, I recall Peter being married. I presume he was chaste, but I have no reason to conclude he stopped having sexual intercourse with his wife.

Mandatory celibacy: Going the way --- de facto if not yet de jure --- of the dodo bird.

A Letter to the Holy Father on Celibate and Married Priests

December 13, 2006
Feast of St. Lucy

Your Holiness Benedict XVI,

Cordial Christmas Greetings to you and the Apostolic Household.

We thank you, Holy Father, for your cordial response to our letters which you sent through Cardinal Re. His letter (519/1988 dated November 27) was received today on our return from the Married Priests Now! Prelature Convocation in Parsippany, New Jersey. We had an excellent attendance of about two hundred priests and their wives and we celebrated a common renewal of wedding vows during the Holy Eucharist. More than one thousand priests in Brazil, Africa, the Philippines and India joined our proceedings via satellite. At our last convocation in September, we celebrated the priesthood we share with Jesus. At this convocation we celebrated our marriages and at the next convocation we will celebrate our wives and their voices in our lives and in the church.

We thank Your Holiness and Cardinal Re for your profound understanding that while our actions are not in accord with the last one-thousand year history of church’s disciplinary decisions, we are acting in a profound matter of conscience. And as your letter pointed out, the time is quickly coming when the Holy Father, Cardinal Re, Archbishop Milingo and his College of Archbishops will stand before the throne of Christ and answer in conscience and personally for our stewardship and fidelity to the love and the gospel we have received, as well as for our pastoral responsibilities for the spiritual welfare of others.

We truly appreciate your response to our letters but we need a way to reduce the time it takes to hear a response. The matter is urgent. We know you have many issues to handle and ours is only one of them – but an important one. Perhaps, email or fax would be a better form of communication. We do want your advice and do respect and treasure your counsel. For your advice to be useful to us, the response needs to be a bit more prompt. Otherwise, we will think you are not going to respond and we do not want to be without communication.

We actually need a more vibrant dialogue and that is the important concern of this letter – to facilitate such a dialogue. We are asking the Holy Father to assign a friendly, open, English speaking cardinal or bishop in the United States who may be able to speak with us on a direct level either in person or by a conference call. Perhaps the Apostolic Nuncio could assist us in identifying such an ombudsman to work with us. We clearly state that we do not intend to or want to break away from Holy Mother, the Church. We believe we have a contribution to make to the Church through the Married Priests Now! Prelature which will improve the lives of our priests and ultimately improve the Church in the way St. Francis of Assisi did in founding his order. We need to keep communication open such an ombudsman would help us to do that. Such a means of communication would help to re-establish a process of "listening," "awareness" and "dialogue," which Pope Paul VI identified as marks of the Church in his first great encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam and which Pope John Paul II connected brilliantly to the Eucharist in his Apostolic Exhoration, Mane Nobiscum Domine. We also request that at some time in the near future we may be able to meet with you, Holy Father, and with Cardinals Re and Hummes to discuss this issue and to help resolve our situation. We will make a report to you of our ordinations of the past year and keep you informed of the married men we call to the priesthood.

When I use the pronoun we, I refer to myself and my Episcopal College of archbishops. Since we work collegially as a team, we must respond to you as one and we must be considered as one.

Your letter does bring us some hope. You have recognized that we do want to preserve the unity of the Church and we do honor you, Holy Father, with filial devotion. But the letter is one that emphasizes the awful bureaucracy of the institution instead of the Gospel of Jesus. We hope there be more kindness and gentleness in the Curia and in the bureaucracy to reflect Him whom it represents. Is the Church to continue to be an institution of fear and punishment or will it be an institution of love and forgiveness? Your letter appears not to offer any change in the absolute and unjust obligation of celibacy as a job requirement for the priesthood. This is out of step with the needs of the people, the needs of the priesthood and the needs of the church. We do support the need of celibacy -- especially for religious order priests and for those religious, clerics and others who actually freely choose it. It can only be a free choice if it is not a requirement for an office or a job. Celibacy is fine on its own. We are not against celibacy in any way except that it needs to be free and not a requirement for the priesthood. We are in new and different times with different problems which call for different and creative solutions.

When the Apostle Paul took the Gospel to the Gentiles he confronted the Apostle Peter about the limitations he was imposing on the spread of the Gospel. Paul believed that the Gospel needed adaptation to the Gentile culture and that he would be the Apostle to the Gentiles. In the same way today, we believe that Archbishop Milingo has received a calling to reach out to the thousands of married priests and through them to the Modern World discussed at great length in the Vatican II Document, the Church in the Modern World. The Church can no longer afford to continue in denial about its failure to reach millions of people who could more easily hear the Gospel from the holy lives of married priests and their charismatic leader, Archbishop Milingo.

On a Married Priesthood Restored.

We are not looking for anything new, but only to restore what the Church originally had in the New Testament and that is: priests and bishops who were married. Christ chose married priests first. St. Peter was a married man. The first centuries of the Church had married popes, bishops, priests and deacons. The married priesthood in the Latin Rite flourished for the first twelve centuries of the church. No one can deny this. This cannot be wrong. It is the truth. The celibate priesthood also existed, and married and celibate priests worked side by side. There are currently in the church married Eastern Rite priests and Pastoral Provision priests not to mention the married deacons in the Latin Rite who are part of the priesthood. Eastern Rite married men are now being ordained in the United States. A married priesthood would likely ease reconciliation with the Orthodox.

You reminded us that: “… celibacy, freely chosen and based on a gift of oneself to Christ, is such a valuable gift which renders a priest to carry out his love for Christ with an undivided heart as he dedicates himself with total disposition to serve his brothers and sisters.” While this is the official, canonical statement of the requirement of celibacy, it does come across as a pious, flowery and idealistic description of celibacy which does not reflect the lived experiences of priests. This description of celibacy can be seen as akin to cultic brainwashing and it is not sufficiently realistic. The obligation of celibacy has become a false god, a golden calf. But, the Lord has commanded: Do not have false gods before Me. Strike down this golden calf of obligatory celibacy before it topples the whole church!

How is celibacy more valuable than marriage? Do not married priests serve the Lord with equal dedication and doesn’t the married priest love God as equally as his celibate brother? The holiness of marriage enhances the priest’s ministry and brings him closer to the People of God. The priest’s family models for them what a Christian family should be. It is a reflection of the love of the Trinity -- the community of three Persons in Love in One.

For the priest who accepted the call to the priesthood at the young age of 23 without knowing that he did not have the charism for celibacy, it is an albatross around his neck. The charism is not as automatic as you may think it is. Celibacy is a true charism for some, but not for all. Grace builds on nature. If the priest does not have the charism for celibacy in the first place, grace is not going to bring it about. It is becoming clear to the world and to the people of the church that the requirement of celibacy for all priests is a prideful, sinful, sexual fantasy of power and control. This is not openness to the Holy Spirit. Demanding a charism, where it does not exist, is an exercise of human power contrary to God's manifest will. This is what makes our young people, seeing the failure of celibacy, flippantly describe their church as the one, holy, catholic, homosexual and alcoholic church. If they can see it, why can’t the church? Strike down this golden calf before it topples the whole church!

Remember, marriage is a sacrament. Celibacy is not. Celibacy is an option. Marriage is as holy as the priesthood. They are equally sacraments. Celibacy never becomes a sacrament and it does not add anything to the priesthood. If celibacy is freely chosen, it is a great gift. But it is a gift that is separate from the priesthood. And celibacy never becomes greater than the gift of marriage for the married priest. Marriage because it is a sacrament and because it is of God, is a higher calling than celibacy.

How can one manifestation of God's presence and love, the sacrament of marriage, stand in opposition to God's presence and love in other sacraments? How can God's call to holiness of priests stand in opposition to God's call to holiness of Married Persons? The compatibility is shown everyday in the lives of our married deacons. Our world needs the witness of faithful marriages from our priests more than ever. The 150,000 priests who have been forced to choose between marriage and priestly ministry are like lights that have been placed under a bushel basket instead of on a lamp stand (Lk 11:33). Those bishops who refuse to remove the bushel basket will be accountable before God for the charism of marriage which they have hidden at the time when the world sorely needed to know this love.

The church in the United States has seen public shame and disgrace fall on its bishops and clergy with the pedophilia crisis showing that criminal abuse of children by celibate Roman Catholic priests is at least as high as by other professionals not vowed to celibacy. This is public proof that the charism of celibacy which should be a sign of the Kingdom, is not such a sign for many but instead a discipline that has driven a shameful need to hide the truth about it. It has done immeasurable harm to the cause of Christ. The faithful no longer trust their celibate priests. The financial cost of this public scandal is far greater than what it would cost to maintain a married priesthood. The People of God have always supported their priests. They will generously support a married priesthood, since these married priests will bring them the Eucharist, which so many are currently without. This week the Holy Father’s spiritual adviser, Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa urged that the time has come to call for a worldwide day of fasting and prayer and penance to seek forgiveness for the sexual abuse by some priests of “the smallest members” of the Roman Catholic Church and to “cry before God.” We feel it is also time to fix the dual problem that caused the sexual abuse: how power is used in the church and the forced requirement of celibacy for priests. The cost of the pedophilia crisis in the Church has now risen to over one and half billion dollars leading many dioceses into bankruptcy. Even Pope Benedict XVI has acknowledged the toll that this crisis has taken on the credibility of the Church. Fr. Cantalamesa, has recently stated that the Church needs to do more to reclaim its credibility over this issue and express the Church's solidarity with victims of clerical abuse. Reclaiming the tradition of a married priesthood could help the Church to restore its moral credibility, which has been severely damaged by the pedophilia scandal.

In many places known to the Holy Father, priests and bishops live with wives and children, with greater or less secrecy, but generally known in society as well. Mother church seems to tolerate this situation, because of the fruitfulness and need of their priestly ministry. Where is the integrity of conscience in the Church when she cuts off the priestly ministry of those priests who publicly manifest their love for their wives and their children in a sacramental way? The Holy Father and bishops of the Synods of Bishops referenced in the letter must bear in their consciences the deceit and shame their obstinacy in this matter. You need to know that the active priests and bishops in the Global South whose marriages are now hidden and secret are preparing to declare them before the world in an open amphitheatre. Then, how will the world look upon the married priests you have thrown away like garbage in the Global North. How will the world judge the scandalous duplicity of the hierarchy? The time is coming soon.

Almighty God will call the Shepherd of Rome to account on his day of judgment for his conscience and for how he has shepherded his people. How many people are deprived of Eucharistic food for the journey because of the prideful legislation of celibacy. This discipline is contrary to the most important teaching of our Christ to “… do this in remembrance of Me (Lk 22:19).” How many of the apostles around that table were married? Certainly some were, if not all. How can Mother church see her children go spiritually hungry for the Eucharist, and do nothing, and believe in conscience that this is God's will? Your Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist, expected in January, will emphasize the priest shortage because without priests there is no Eucharist. Which is more important obligatory celibacy or the Eucharist? There is a serious priest shortage. Hundreds of parishes are closing, and active priests are stretched beyond capacity. The faithful are not being comforted with the sacraments while married priests who are trained and experienced stand idle. Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, call them back to full ministry in the church. Strike down the golden calf before it topples the whole church!

You further stated that, “ there must never be any hope that the church may admit once more those priests who have failed to maintain celibacy and who have ended up by contracting marriage” and you referenced some dated documents. Jesus would offer forgiveness and he would say, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” (John 8:7) Your answer has possible exceptions because you well know that many divorced priests have been received back into the full ministry as pastors even if they have not provided for their wives and children. It is not celibacy that the church is concerned about at all. It is the marriage and the woman. The church denigrates and oppresses women. The re-employment of divorced priests sets a precedent. But it is an unfortunate precedent because it is only after the breakup of the marriage and family. We do have hope that the Holy Spirit will prevail and that married priests who stand in honor with their wives will return to the Latin Rite. It is not priests who have broken any promise of celibacy. It is the church that has broken faith with humanity. The church has failed its priests miserably and must apologize for it, and offer a remedy for that failure. Let’s put the blame where it belongs. The sin is not on the priests but on the pope and cardinals who inflict the obligation of celibacy on unsuspecting young men. Mankind has an inalienable right to marriage and it cannot be taken away by some idealized job regulation no matter how noble. The requirement of celibacy is a form of spiritual bribery and extortion. It is an inhuman job requirement. It is the church that has failed these priests and taken advantage of them for the good of the institution. Why hasn’t the church signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights promulgated by the United Nations? Could it be because the requirement of celibacy for the priesthood denies rights due to every man and woman?

We gently remind you that there is another precedent for married priests and bishops to be received into the Latin Rite of the church in the person of the late married Bishop Salomao Ferraz of the ICAB of Brazil. He was received back into the Roman Latin Rite with his wife and family and he served as a bishop during the Second Vatican Council. We rightfully see a hope for a married priesthood where you wish to see none.

You also stated that the 1990 Synod confirmed: ““The Synod convinced that perfect chastity in the priesthood is a charism,” leaves no doubt with regard to the will of the Church to maintain the law which demands that a candidate for the priesthood freely chooses celibacy and ought to maintain it forever in the Latin Rite.”” There is no such thing as perfect celibacy. That is an ideal, a dream. Cardinal Re’s words show that it is not freely chosen because the law DEMANDS it. It can only be freely chosen, if there is no law that requires it. If that is the choice for the Latin Rite, so be it, then we need a NEW Rite for Married Priests. We propose that the Holy Father establish a new rite that honors a married clergy: The Rite of the St. Peter, the Married, or an Anglican Rite with married clergy. The Synod of 2005 did have an open discussion of celibacy and several very eminent Cardinals and bishops spoke in favor of it. We suspect it will come up again at the next Synod but you may need to act before that synod.

The approval of a married priesthood cannot be decided by slavishly following the multiple previous decisions about celibacy referenced in your letter. Celibacy and the Married Priesthood are two different things. You need new references about married priesthood and not old references about perfect celibacy. Those new references may be found in several recently published, well-researched volumes which we consider as an integral part of this letter to you. They are: Freeing Celibacy, by Fr. Donald Cozzens and Married Catholic Priests by Fr. Anthony Kowalski. Also pertinent is the document Compatibility of Priesthood and Marriage from the General Synod of Married Priests and Their Wives 1985.

Holy Father, you, and the other bishops and cardinals need to be open to the movement of the Holy Spirit in the context of continual prayer so as to open your hearts to the reality of what is happening in our time. The matter at hand calls for a profound dialogue of conscience such as Peter and Paul had about the manner of proceeding with the evangelization of non-Jews. Holy Father and Cardinal Re, this is indeed a matter of personal conscience and our responsibility before God for our shepherding responsibilities. Why are past decisions quoted instead of the needs of God's people? Let us proceed with the dialogue of conscience. Ask bishops around the world to join you in this prayerful dialogue of conscience instead of closing the door on further discernment and dialogue.

The Holy Spirit is working here. It is under the influence of the Holy Spirit that Cardinal Hummes said that celibacy is not a dogma. And even after he was compelled to retract his true but courageous words, Cardinal Dannells used a similar phrase two days later. We would like to think that our Prelature has some influence in keeping this topic before the eyes of the Cardinals, bishops and the people and indeed before the world, but this is the work of the Holy Spirit and it will continue to seek an answer which will overpower the Holy Father and the cardinals and bishops with love.

On Your Excommunication

You claim that we have side-stepped the rumored excommunication and you are not fully right on that. We only received notice of an excommunication in the media so it is actually only on the level of a rumor. We have no document or any tangible evidence of an excommunication. An excommunication is the property of the Holy Father. We also used the media to lovingly and cordially return the rumored excommunication to him. He owns the excommunication. We do not accept ownership of it. We ask the Holy Father to reconsider this action.

The bishops of the Chinese Patriotic Church were not excommunicated even though November 30, was the third time this year they consecrated without a mandate. We can send you a list of four hundred Roman Catholic episcopal consecrations that were done in the last century without mandates and among them will be the consecration of Cardinal Husar. It looks like excommunications are very subjective indeed. Are there different interpretations of laws for the same offense?

This is the Third Millennium and an excommunication has no meaning in our times. It is a Medieval throw-back that causes ridicule to the church. The Lord tells us it is nonsense. An excommunication shows the weakness of the church. It is a sign that the church cannot solve its problems. Canon Law needs to be refined to offer a more democratic resolution of differences. This one does not work.

The excommunication does have the positive effect of confirming the validity of our consecrations and of demonstrating that we are in unity with Rome. You would not issue an excommunication to anyone outside your jurisdiction.

The Married Priests Now! Prelature

You say that the Married Priests Now! Prelature is against the Will of Christ, and against the Church. How do you know that? Jesus taught us that when two or three gather in his name, he is present there also (Mt 12:20). Jesus came to cleanse the law and told us not to be like the Pharisees who (Matt 23:4) who tie up heavy loads and put them on other men’s shoulders but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger. He drove the money changers out of the temple to restore it as a house of prayer (Mt 21:12). It was Jesus’ will to change what was wrong and that is what our Prelature is doing. We are doing the will of Jesus and we will be misunderstood as he was -- even by the modern day hierarchs. But that doesn’t mean we are not doing the will of Jesus. Our cause is a good and noble one. It is to restore and renew the priesthood of Christ.

We very strongly believe that the Married Priests Now! Prelature is the work of the Holy Spirit. We are the Work of God being created by the Holy Spirit to renew the Church. It is not our intention to be against the church but to make the church more holy by acknowledging the marriages of its priests. We are the church. We are part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and may become a church within a church or the new Rite of St. Peter, the Married, whichever God calls us to be. This is the right time for Married Priests Now! and it is the right time for celibacy to become optional.

For the last forty or more years the church universal has prayed for an increase in priestly vocations. Can it be that God has refused to hear this prayer? Or is it that the bishops have not been listening to God's answer? Our prelature will bring the married priests back. The people are waiting for them. But they rightfully belong in the larger church. The tone of your letter is not one that would make priests feel comfortable to return to holy mother the church.

You have said that you will not recognize the ordinations of our Prelature. Our Catholic theology, faith and tradition recognize the ordinations of our prelature. It is a rather unusual posture for you to say you do not recognize them and it may indicate that you do not properly understand Catholic theology and ecclesiology of orders. If you deny our ordinations, you deny your own. Our orders are valid. And considering that we are acting in a matter of conscience we consider them fully licit.

We cordially ask you to listen to what we have carefully discerned is our responsibility in conscience. Do not decide a priori that our conscience is wrong because it does not conform to certain disciplinary decisions. It is in meeting the spiritual needs of our people that we are concerned. While the Gospel is the highest law, canon law acknowledges that the good of souls is among the highest laws. We are in a crisis of emergency proportions because of the shortage of priests and our faithful people’s lack of trust in the priesthood as a result of the sexual abuse scandals. We are concerned about the good of souls.

Our conscience does not want a break in spiritual union with you and our mother church. But neither can our conscience turn away from the needs of the church, of the priests who have married in good conscience, and of our own call to the sacrament of marriage. Conscience is the highest moral arbiter, not canon law. This is a somewhat complex issue, but we are sure the church can resolve it as Jesus would with love, compassion and forgiveness.

Historians have acknowledged the correctness of Martin Luther's call of conscience for church reform. Lack of good communication brought about serious breakdown in church unity. Do not let communication break down about these conscience matters that need reform. Excommunication and censures break down communication and do not meet the needs of our faithful people. The time for dialogue and action for God's people is now. "Feed my sheep" is the call that pulls at our consciences day and night until we stand before our Lord (Jn 21:17).

Finally, Most Holy Father, with your forgiveness and your permission, our Prelature is prepared to incardinate those married priests who wish to return to sacramental ministry; to select and train married men (viri probati) who are called to priesthood; to make them available to those Bishops who have need and request the services of married priests; and, finally in concert with the accepting Bishops, to provide ongoing supervision and spiritual direction. Initially this could be done on a demonstration basis.

As you are well aware, this has a precedent when Pope John Paul II in January, 1985, established the International Ordinariate as a Personal Papal Prelature under the guidance of the Russian Emigre Archbishop Josef DeBrulle. The stated purpose of that Prelature, although “under the radar,” was to oversee the training, internship and subsequent oversight of married men (viri probati) for ordination to the priesthood and to make those married priests available to the Bishops. Because the Prelature was more inline with the Eastern Rite and did not have public Papal support, nothing was accomplished.

Obviously Pope John Paul II was very sensitive to the needs of the People of God for the Eucharistic Food which only a priest can provide. Can you, Holy Father, who calls for greater emphasis on the sanctifying graces derived from the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass and renewed devotion to the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament, do less?

Archbishop Milingo’s Pension

The Prelature is quite concerned about the morality and justice issue surrounding the earned pension of Archbishop Milingo. A person earns a pension by putting in many years of faithful service. Archbishop Milingo earned his by more than fifty years of faithful service to the Church. He is owed that pension and it is due to him without any strings attached. The pension is not a privilege, it is a right. It is immoral and unjust that his pension has stopped being issued to him. The church cannot show itself as so morally bankrupt as to deny an elderly man his earned pension as a punishment because it disagrees with him or his actions. His pension should be returned to him immediately lest the faithful be scandalized by how the Church fails in its moral obligation as an employer, and how it is causing him to seek sustenance elsewhere. His own pension would free him from other associations.

The Rev. Stephen V. DeLeers writing of the history and theology of
Catholic clergy employment compensation writes that "... it was not until
the Second Vatican Council that the church officially recognized the need
for a new way of support for all of its priests. The Council Fathers
evidenced a change in the way of thinking about clergy compensation,
away from the benefice system. This change was signaled by their call,
in the Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, for the "just
remuneration" of priests." He notes that the older term of "sustentatio"
was replaced by the term "remuneratio" which refers to an earned salary.
He writes: "In the 1983 Code (canon 281 et al.), the term "sustentatio"
is dropped in favor of the conciliar term "remuneratio." A salary is to
be paid to pastors, parochial vicars, bishops, seminary teachers, lay
people in the employ of the church. The same term is used for all church
workers, and it is "remuneration" or "salary." (The Laborer is Worthy of
His Hire, 1999 Edition, The National Federation of Priests' Councils.)

Earlier, the 1971 World Synod of Bishops' Document on Justice in the
World declared: "Within the Church rights must be preserved... Those who
serve the Church by their labor, including priests and religious, should
receive a sufficient livelihood and enjoy that social security which is
customary in their region." (Section 41). This statement echoed Pacem in
Terris' enunciation of the "inalienable, inviolable, and universal
rights: to life, work, worthy standard of living, and security in
sickness, inability to work and old age.”

According to the 1999 Canon Law Society of America Report on the
Retirement Benefits of Retired Church Personnel the "remuneration" of
canon 281 includes the provision of a pension. (pg. 19). A pension is an
element of compensation for one's labors which is earned as one works. To
deny it after the fact is to in effect steal something which has already
come into one's possession, something to which one has an inviolable
right and can be seen to be a form of elder abuse.

Holy Father, we wish you a Merry Christmas and we will be remembering you in our prayers during this holy season when we celebrate the birth of Our Savior. We, too, ask to be remembered in your prayers

In filial devotion,

+Emmanuel Milingo
Emeritus Archbishop of Lusaka

+Peter Paul Brennan
+Joseph J. Gouthro
+George Augustus Stallings
+Patrick E. Trujillo
Archbishops
Married Priests Now! Prelature
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/married-priests-now/
A Roman Catholic Community
Attachments (only to the Holy Father’s letter sent under separate cover):
Chapters 7, 8 and 9 of Freeing Celibacy by Donald Cozzens (Xeroxed).
Married Catholic Priests by Anthony Kowalski (book)
Priesthood Renewed by Emmanuel Milingo (book)
Compatibility of Priesthood and Marriage: General Synod of Married Catholic Priests and Their Wives: Second Session 1985 Justino Zampini et al.(Xeroxed)
Archbishop Milingo’s Press Statement in Response to Vatican Censure Sept 27, 2006

All of these "answers" given by Vatican spokesmen would be funny if they didn't have such tragic consequences on priests themselves & the continuous shortage of priests.

There is NO way a person can make a LOGICAL argument for mandatory priestly celibacy when it is not required with the Eastern Rite churches & of Anglican/Episcopalian priests who choose to CONVERT to Catholicism.

Furthermore, these claims that Jesus & the early clergy were celibate are likewise laughable given that there is NO evidence for such claims.

Are these guys really that dumb? Or do they think WE are that dumb?

Whatever the specious arguments for mandatory celibacy, the fact is that after praying for more vocations over several decades it is time to meet the practical need for the availability of the sacraments.

Instead of a completely prohibitive approach optional celibacy might engender more candidates for the priesthood. Those who live in community, as in religious orders and monasteries, could be required to practice celibacy. Community living could bolster the psychic balance of priests living in common.

Diocesan clergy could be allowed to choose marriage. Certainly, the vast majority of the laity are in favor of a married clergy. Of course,a similar regimen has prevailed among the Eastern Rites for millenia.

In my non-RC experience in the Anglican Communion, there are good married men (and women!) clergy and not so good married (and single) clergy. Marriage does NOT,contrary to the traditionalists in your church, make a priest or minister an ineffective, conflicted pastor nor is it a determinative marker of effectiveness.. As a non-RC, I'm amazed that your church's traditionalists would rather have Roman Catholics go without sacraments than ordain married men even while the third world is swept for willing priest-immigrants to minister to U.S. Catholics (talk about neo-colonialism).

I've come to the conclusion that your church's right-wing sees mandatory celibacy as a falling domino. It is not really being defended on theological grounds but political ones. Allow married clergy and the "dastardly left" has won. It's a knee-jerk defense: The left hates it so we love it. Well, they do want a "smaller, purer church". Given the average age of U.S. priests they will get their way in short order.

Are we so sure that Christ never married?

People are using the terms celibacy and chastity as synonyms. I thought we were all called to be chaste whether we were married or not.

Jesus never used the word priest, nor did Paul.
Priests are identified with repeating ritual, maintaining a parochial cultural expression.

Jesus sought disciples for the Kingdom of God.
The Kingdom of God is a vision of the way life ought to be here,
that will not come through power but service. The emphasis on seeking men was radical. Men held the power; women were the service providers.
Jesus enjoined men to embrace the way of service as the antidote to the corruption of power.

We have a Roman priesthood that is cultic, and a privileged caste. We need to end this "ecclesiastical welfare" caste as we have known it and subsidize.

Unfortunately,the focus of the Roman Church has been on maintaining a parochial culture, and hence, the fixation with celibacy and priesthood.

Catholics are largely illiterate about the Kingdom of God and how this vision is in opposition to the kingdoms of "this world."

P.S.

Eastern Catholics have had an unbroken witness of a married clergy. However, they are treated like second class members and rarely not in the discussion. Are they less Catholic? It reflects the continuous rupture of Eastern/Western Catholicism. Rome seeks to continually impose its narrow interpretation. No wonder Orthodox Christians abhor Rome!

I know some priests feel celibacy is a gift. That's truly wonderful. But the exceptions ARE confusing. How can be something be non-negotiable and subject to exceptions at the same time?

As a Joe-average Catholic, I'm fine either way. Our priests are nice people; I would like them to be happy and well-adjusted and not lonely. It would be better for our church.

However, they are poorly paid. We'd have to find money to cover housing and insurance for their dependents. However, if we had more priests, our church could grow and attract more parishioners.

What would be wrong with letting older men whose children are grown, whose marriages are stable, and whose wives are supportive become priests? It would be nice if they'd make room for women priests too, but I'm not holding my breath on that one. 8) Weren't some of the apostles married?

Like St. Paul said:
Better to marry, than to BURN, molest, rape, enable or hide those who do!

Do the writers mean to say that the Apostles abandoned their wives? What evidence exists for the claim that the apostles left their wives? How does this square with Catholic teaching on the marriage covenant?

What possible proof is there that the Apostles went celibate after they chose to follow Jesus? They were married men, at least we know that Peter was. In the society in which they lived, fathers raised sons to be married and contribute to the economy of the family, much as in current African society. Certainly, 12 guys with no wives following an prophetic, miracle performing guy around would have been looked upon with some skepticism, if not concern, just as we would today. I believe through the ages, we have been fed a picture of a poverty-stricken Jesus and his ministry, in order to convince oppressed and uneducated masses "The Church has all the answers." Unfortunately, the wishful thinking hierarchy still clings to the outdated image of an ignorant population eager to believe whatever is spoonfed to them. It just doesn't fly, guys.

Once again, the Vatican spokespersons go through mental gymnastics to support a practice that nearly everyone else in the church, including priests themselves, thinks should be abolished. Funny, proponents never mention that celibacy enables the Vatican to control priests more than a married clergy would allow. Just think, if priests had wives who could support them, some priest just might refuse an awful, or even vengeful, assignment. With a married clergy, bishops would have to start treating priests like equals and with far more respect than they do at present. Wouldn't that be shameful!!

Pope Siricius in the year 385, as the article says, endorsed chastity, not celibacy. Chastity is a spiritual calling. Celibacy is a canonical law. That is a huge difference. Archbishop Amato says that, by renouncing marriage, Jesus was able to love all humans. Very superficial. Implies that married people are incapable of loving all humans, which is false. The truth lies a lot deeper and has to do with how one psychospiritually becomes a whole person by uniting the male and female parts of the self as Jesus explicitly says in the Gospel of Thomas. The "ordinary" way of doing so is to marry, the two, masculine and feminine, becoming one (usually taking a lifetime of interaction). The faster way is to work hard spiritually on oneself to unite male and female aspects of self as Jung said. Unfortunately, most priests who are celibate by law rather than calling have no clue on how to do this, or don't even know they must. Hence pedophilia and sexual and emotional immaturity generally, both rampant in today's priesthood.

I often comment, sometimes "pro," sometimes "con" on various articles here. I am pleased this article was published, but I will not dignify the trashy rubbish that most of the speakers tried to hand out. Period!!!!!

PS. Can they only see history and theology through twisted eyes and brains?

My observation is that institutionalized celibacy is intrinsically disordered....unnatural, if you will.

Anyone who is well schooled in any of the major mental health disciplines can easily refute Professor Lorente's position that being celibate does not "carry any more psychological risks than marriage does." It has been documented in numerous studies and in the clinical pratice of those who work with priests and religious that the rate of major emotional disturbances (particularly severe depressive, anxiety, stress-induced and personailty disorders)is higher than in the general population. As priests experience the continued stress of serving more parishoners - and even more parishes! - and the loss of close friends for a variety of reasons (co-pastors being moved to be pastors alone at other churches, retirement, death, etc.) the stress on a clergyman builds to sometimes unmanageable limits. Same thing for religious - the stresses of that life have grown considerably and most face increasing isolation and lonliness in their immediate future. The "psychopatholgy" of celibacy/chastity (for some, not all) is best seen in the thing that the Church heirarchy cannot face: the issues of sexual and physical abuse that has been widespread among clergy and religious. I wonder what Prof. Lorente thinks is the cause of that?

"If celibacy is so tied theologically and spiritually to priestly identity, why the exceptions?" the questioners asked.

Great question. Often wondered it myself. It cannot be a universal, unchanging truth or dogma if there are exceptions.

Why also does the Church teach that men and women are made alike in God's image, but women cannot "image" God the Son? The open contradiction is scandalous. If women are indeed equal in their intellectual and spiritual gifts, then why are they not involved in defining women's roles in the Church?

Celibacy seems like a way to keep priests distant from women, and thus from growing close enough to them to gain the balanced view that they, too, are human, full of human gifts, passion, spirituality and pastoral talents that are no different from their own human (not male) gifts. A deeper understanding and close relationship with women would, as someone above noted, also balance the rampant, uncritiqued ego and (certainty of righteousness) and oftentimes "cluelessness" about practical real life issues that we see in so many priests who have no experience whatsoever with these issues.