The following comes from an Apr. 10 posting by Ed Peters on his CanonLawBlog.
In the wake of the latest off-hand, private, ambiguous, papal comment to be trumpeted around the world as a harbinger of impending change, I note that, for the proverbial umpteenth time, solemn heads are nodding in agreement that clerical celibacy is “merely disciplinary.” Good grief, everyone knows that. The question is not whether clerical celibacy is “merely disciplinary”—unquestionably it is; rather, the question is, What does it mean to designate an institute or practice as “merely disciplinary”?
In Catholic circles the phrase “merely disciplinary” conjures up things like the Communion fast or giving up meat on Fridays. In a very well-read crowd, perhaps the directing of bishops to make ad limina visits or requiring canonical form for marriage would be recognized (and rightly) as “merely disciplinary”. Now, provided one means by the technical phrase “merely disciplinary” that the institute or practice in question could be changed, even eliminated, without the Church ceasing to be the Church, then yes, Friday abstinence, ad limina visits, and clerical celibacy are all “merely disciplinary.”
But, considered from that technical perspective, there are very few things about the Church that aren’t “merely disciplinary”, that is, there are very few things in the Church that, when push comes to shove, are essential to her existence. An episcopal hierarchy would make the short list of non-negotiables, as would the seven sacraments. Eliminate the hierarchy and the Church ceases to exist, jettison even one sacrament from the Church and whatever that institution would be, it couldn’t be the Church founded by Christ.
So, yes, eliminate clerical celibacy and the Church would still be, in essence, the Church founded by Christ. No one can plausibly dispute that narrow claim. But those pushing for the elimination of clerical celibacy, touting the fact that it is “merely disciplinary”, should advise their audiences that, by the very same token, many other things could be eliminated in the Church as well, including:
• the Sunday obligation (not to mention all holy days)
• religious congregations, third orders, and secular institutes
• Catholic schools (including seminaries and universities)
• virtually everything in the liturgy
• parishes, arch/dioceses, provinces, etc.
• the College of Cardinals (and papal conclaves), and so on and on and on.
Each of these things appeared only in the course of Church history (sometimes only recently) and all have undergone major changes over time (sometimes in our very own lifetimes). Any of these things, and indeed all of them, could be altered, or even eliminated, and yet the Church would still be the Church founded by Christ. But is there (serious) talk about tossing them? Of course not. Just because something is “merely disciplinary” does not mean that it bears no connection to divine law (consider the Sunday obligation), or that it does not contribute to the holiness of the Church (consider religious life), or that ecclesiastical authority cannot impose its observance under pain of sin (consider liturgical law). This is so obvious it almost defies demonstration.
But if one can scarcely imagine (let alone seriously propose) doing away with any of these long-standing and spiritually formidable Catholic institutions and practices simply because they are “merely disciplinary”, then how do some propose eliminating an observance like clerical celibacy, of all things—something much older than most of the items listed above and at least as great a fount of holiness as the others—with the facile assuagement that clerical celibacy is, after all, “merely disciplinary”?
You know, like we’re talking about a little Communion fast or something….
To read the original posting, click here.
It is beyond frightening how in just 50 years since V2, how much the modernists have wreaked havoc on the Church. What was once clear and precise Catholic teaching is now so muddled and confusing. Domine, miserere nobis. +JMJ+
Let’s see, didn’t Christ himself say to the Apostles that whatever they would bind and loose on Earth would be bound and loosed in Heaven. See, Matt. 18:18. This is generally considered to support authority for the Church to establish requirements of a wide variety that are mandatory on all Catholics (and Mankind). The concept of “discipline,” at least used in the way described in the article, is essentially a canard. Virtually everything is a “discipline,” but the correct response is: so what! If the Church — that is Pope Francis (sorry Michael Voris) — wishes to change its requirements, character, and all that, then it can do so, under Christ’s own charter. Doing so, however, is institutionally destructive, as can be seen by the unraveling that has been going on for 50-years. The fact that the continuation of structural change in the Church is now getting some attention can be attributed to several factors: (1) the internet; (2) the sense of loss of the Church, that all Catholics love and need — perhaps the Holy Ghost is inspiring all Catholics somewhat, as He did with the Apostles and Disciples in the Upstairs Room; and (3) the boldness of evil that has come forth to claim its due in the Church (e.g., demanding a slew of sexual rights, mostly, and other perversions). All Catholics who care about the incessant demands being made by one liberal group or another, and who suffer under uncaring and indifferent bishops and clergy, should all shout-out, as did the late, great Peter Finch, in “Network”: “I’m mad a Hell and I’m not going to take this anymore.”
Modernism marches on!
Many forget that in the Eastern Rite of the Roman Catholic Church it is ok to be a married priest. Many also forget that in the Latin (western) Rite of the Roman Catholic Church we have former Episcopal priests that are married and acting as pastors. For many, the requirement for unmarried priest is questionable. The Pope has said that we may have married priests if the local conferences of catholic bishops ask for it. Things they are a changing, or at least the discussion is changing.
Please do not misquote the Pope.
CCC: ” 1577 Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.
The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.
The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return.
The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.”
RE: Catholic Eastern Churches: CCC: ” 1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates,
married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God.
In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.”
1 Cor 7:32-34:
” I want you to be free from anxieties.
The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided.
Although Pope Francis listens and invites comments; he has not changed one teaching of the Church.
Watch, listen and learn.
Sam,
In washing the feet of women, he has effectively, at least tried, to change the teachings of the Church, pray for him and those who are behind him.
God have mercy May on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Great… if the local conference of catholic Bishops ask for it. More dilution. Just what the Catholic faithful need. Good grief but we are pitiful sheep in need of shepherding.
Ann Malley, the Holy Father was not diluting, he gave the right answer! The Pope is not the dictator of the Church, he is its shepherd, the first among equal shepherds. It is called collegiality, and it is the most central pastoral message of Vatican II.
I never mentioned the Holy Father, YFC.
But you are absolutely correct in that the Pope is not the dictator of the Church. All the Bishops are not equal, however, when compared to the Pope. Call that first among equal shepherds if you will, but you will be deluding yourself. And, yes, that lovely wordplay is called collegiality that is being used to hammer away at the centrality of the Church. (Or give the allusion thereof )
But remember, VII was a pastoral council just as you say, not intended to define dogmas or doctrine. So approaches and styles – especially those to placate a modernist, democratic headstrong laity and religious – will come and go. Much like the dangling lure of democracy in the Body of Christ.
Pastoral councils are still binding on the Church, AM, no less so than dogmatic ones.
Not when the don’t define anything, YFC. And that was the point. To be vague without precisely changing anything. Hence a seemingly bipolar Church.
Keep hoping though.
This is an issue that you conservatives have already lost. What do I mean by that? Well, I mean that clergy celibacy has always, even within our own Roman Catholic Church, been a matter of when and where you were ordained. Even within the strictest Roman Rite, celibacy is only required of those deacons whose wives have passed. And I say these things as someone who supports a celibate clergy!!
Should I support latin rite priestly marriage? I am quite ambiguous on the matter, as I have known (and lived with) married clergy as well as totally committed celibate clergy. I have to say that I think overall, the value of a clergy totally committed to their parish is an awesome thing.
Unfortunately, I am not sure that the dearth of vocations we are now experiencing will allow us the luxury of this conversation for very long.
YFC, I must say that your April 16, 2014 at 1:51 am post was an impressive performance of the pulling-a-rabbit-out-of-the-hat trick! Yes, married deacons are considered to be part of the clergy, as are celibate priest. With a subtle slight of hand you were able to trick your audience into agreeing with you that “This is an issue that you conservatives have already lost.” Very Clever!
Tracy,
Haven’t you noticed that self identified “YFC” has pulled that rabbit of the hat on several occasions, and he or she (which is it) has pulled a lot of other rabbits out of his sick hat!
God have mercy May on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
The dearth of vocations is more likely do the dearth of catechizing the faithful. Men and women raised in large families that are completely open to life understand the requisite generosity of the married state. It is that witness of the total gift of self that often encourages them to make a total gift of themselves to the religious life.
Sadly, the contraceptive mentality has its effects. When mainline Catholics find it impossible to discern the call of fidelity in married life, or even the life of a Catholic, how can we expect the sacrificial call of vocations to be heard… or answered?
One little lost, forgotten, and forsaken truth about celibacy is that experience and time and the holy spirit have all proved that the victim soul is always totally, a virginal one.orchaste one. All of the apostles of jesus left their wives and were all martyered. Watering down discipline is a great deal more serious than meets the eye.
You has missed the point, get educated, please!!
A post-script is needed. The many changes rumored to be in the making may, or may not, come to pass within the Catholic Church. Of course, many clergy, being themselves well outside the mainstream of the Faith — and this includes the great bulk of German clergy, including Cardinal Kasper — work tirelessly for a liberalization of just about everything. Certainly, these clergy enable many outlier groups, such as homosexual sexualists, who see an end to the many “disciplines” of the Church as a way to open the backdoor to their own pet beliefs, who go far beyond the issue of whether there could be a”married” clergy, or whether some divorced/remarried Catholics can receive the sacraments, without annulment. Nope, waiting in the wings are the really big issues: woman priests (no, this has never been dropped), homosexual sexual union blessings and then, after a respectful wait, marriage (this is the true evil here, but beloved of a largely homosexual clergy (except for those wonderful Africans), election of bishops (maybe not a bad idea after all, that Luther, what a guy!), and complete devolution of authority to local bishops, so that we all become just like the Methodists and Lutherans, so desired by the Austrians, Swiss, Nordic countries and Germans (well–let them go to it). The actual P.S. is: Dear Pope Francis, St. Christopher, after prayful consideration does not give consent to these proposed changes. Please consider this reaction as the synod meets and you are bombarded by demands from all of the Judas clergy around you. Listen to the Holy Ghost and all will be well. Embracing the modern now completes the destruction o fthe Church. In that event, redirection of donations and other activities will follow.
YFC. The word is spelled Latin, with a capital “L.”
Whether it is “merely disciplinary” or not, clerical celibacy has lost its attraction, if it ever had any. The practice was instituted around the 11th century to ensure that any assets the priest may have had through his marriage & working life would become Church property upon his death, not passed on to his children. There was also a concern about priests building little dynasties by having sons become priests down through the ages.
We must pray for our priests, but also pray for the Holy Spirit to guide the Church to a new understanding of the priesthood, personal relationships, and health. Repealing the man made celibacy requirement would be a positive step in that direction. Christ himself left his Church in the hands of St. Peter, a married man. That’s good enough for me.
What do you mean, “good cause,” by “. . . personal relationships, and health.”? Do you mean that the Church also needs to review its position on homosexual sexual relationships? On out-of-wedlock sexual relationships? On adulterous sexual relationships? No, the Church does not need to review any of these “relationships” as its prior writings and teachings are voluminous and clear and have withstood everything over the test of time, including the elimination of the Faith in England, and the related deaths of many martyr, for example. No, the Church needs to — today — clearly (1) articulate to all, starting in school and from the pulpit, the rules on licit sexual relationships and man-woman marriage; (2) speak ex cathedra on the requirement of a celibate clergy; and (3) affirm the sactitiy of a marriage performed by or recognized by the Catholic Church and limit the level of annulments given. The present, post-Vatican II Church is losing the allegiance of its long-standing believers by constantly flirting with liberals, like Cardinal Kasper, and by admitting so many homosexuals to the clergy and elevating many mediocre men to leadership roles in the Church as bishops and cardinals. Now is the time for the Church to stand up, not say, “You know, those centuries of thinking has caused me to now believe that old Henry VIII was right, all along. Damn, should have given him that annulment.” If that is the way to go for the present drivers of the barque of St. Peter, than maybe it is time for them to call up “bishop” Jefferts Schori and let her have a spin at the helm. Could not get much worse.
gc, your “NEW understanding” = DOCTRINAL destruction. This is called Protestantism.
O Mary Conceived Without Sin Pray For Us Who Have Recourse To Thee. And Pray For Those Who Do Not Have Recourse To Thee, Especially The Enemies Of The Church.
Self named “Good Cause”,
It is only too obvious that you have swallowed most of the Devil’s lies about the Church, so enjoy his company in the next “life”!
God have mercy May on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Self described “Good Cause”,
BTW, you have never answered the question as to just what your alleged good cause is. However; it is obvious from your comments that you have drunk from the demonically poisoned cool-aid of the condemned by Canonized Popes, MODERNISM!
God have mercy May on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Really Kenneth?You always make good doctrinal comments about various subjects. But, might you not be just a little judgmental and accusative in your last two posts? I think it is your job/right to keep us on track with dogma, but not your/our job to condemn people to hell. That is for Christ to decide. Who are we to judge? By the way, gc is accurate in the historical notation about keeping priest/bishops from taking all the money for their families.
For a priest to choose to be celibate is an awesome choice. To keep the vow is even more impressive. Every priest that wants to be celibate should be able to do that. But, what of those who want to be priests but also want a family? Why not? Is it really such a big deal? Look at our brothers in the protestant churches. Most are married and have families. They can still be effective pastors to their people. Thousands and thousands do it every day. So, what is the big deal, really?
Bob One, I thought Priesthood was a gift and call from God, not simply a choice of profession one makes. So if it were truly no different than any choice or preference a man may choose as an occupation, then I could see your point. But if the Priesthood is rather a gift and a call from God as the Church has always taught, then the grace of celibacy is also given.
From the day it was instituted by Christ, the Priesthood has always been under attack in one way or another. It will be thus until the end of time.
Men who choose to be married can become Deacons not Priests.
1 Cor 7:32-34:
“I want you to be free from anxieties.
The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. ”
Does anyone deny what St. Paul wrote ?
Well, apparently both the separated Orthodox Churches as well as the Byzantine Catholic and Anglican Ordinariate would dispute this direct interpretation of Paul.
Sam,
Ask that question of our resident modernist on this Site!
God have mercy May on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Sam,
As to “Does anyone deny what St. Paul wrote?” Ask that question of our resident modernist on this Site!
God have mercy May on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
I agree than no one should deny what St Paul wrote! Like what he wrote in his first letter to St. Timothy: “Let the bishop be the husband of only one wife”. Are we going to obey Holy Scripture and encourage marriage among bishops? This is a series of arguments by the uneducated masses to show their ignorance of Church History. Read first, study much and pray more to know the teachings of Holy Mother Church.
I do deny what St. Paul wrote. Because Christ picked many married men as Apostles. How then, does St. Paul purport to know better than Christ?
So, Bob One, you’re holding up Protestants as the standard for the Priesthood? I’ve always said your comments come from a Protestant. Thanks for finally coming out of the closet.
We already have married priests in the Latin Rite, so the discipline has clearly already been made “merely disciplinary.” It’s a little late to be complaining about this now.
Celibacy is a VOW in Orders of the Roman Catholic Faith.
A “VOW” is never “merely” disciplinary. It is a promise to God.
CCC: ” 2102 A vow is a deliberate and free promise made to God concerning a possible and better good which must be fulfilled by reason of the virtue of religion,”.
A vow is an act of devotion in which the Christian dedicates himself to God or promises him some good work.
By fulfilling his vows he renders to God what has been promised and consecrated to Him. The Acts of the Apostles shows us St. Paul concerned to fulfill the vows he had made.
Men who choose to be married can become Deacons not Priests.
1 Cor 7:32-34:
“I want you to be free from anxieties.
The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. ”
Does anyone deny what St. Paul wrote ?
Why are those who are fighting the teaching of the Church, not answering this question ? ? ? ?
Yes celibacy is a vow. But it is a vow taken by an individual. I don’t think anyone who supports removing the celibacy requirement is saying that those who have taken a vow should be permitted to break their personal individual vow.
No priest takes a vow of Celibacy. Learn about your Church. Diocesan priests take a promise of Celibacy and religious take vows of Chastity. No one has a “Vow of Celibacy” as you ignorantly stated.
The priesthood is a holy vocation! The Catholic priest stands before God, at His holy altar, as our “alter Christus!” A true priestly vocation is a call from God! The priest wears a ring, and makes his holy vows, signifying a “marriage to God!” Before the Council, almost every young Catholic boy was trained to serve as an altar boy, and almost every single one gave serious thought at some point in life, about the vocation of the priesthood. Most attended Catholic school, and many also attended minor seminary, and had a serious interest in the priesthood. It is a very great thing to “leave all and follow Christ,” as it says in the Gospels! Eastern-rite unmarried Catholic men must remain celibate, after ordination, and all bishops are celibate. Yet, regardless, all Catholics— single, married, or in consecrated life as a priest, brother, or nun– are called to the virtue of Chastity, according to one’s state in life. God helps all Christians with the practice of virtue! He Himself, cultivates His Divine Life, the Life of Christ, in the Catholic faithful! Our body belongs to God, and is His holy temple! God loves us very much, and wants us all to be fully sanctified, in body, mind, and soul– to be prepared properly, to oneday begin our True Life– far beyond this earthly realm, with all its troubles, sickness, suffering and sin– the Eternal Life, with God, in Heaven, for which we were originally created! A glorious destiny, for the sincere Catholic!
“the first among equal shepherds. It is called collegiality, and it is the most central pastoral message of Vatican II.”
FALSE!!
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
22……..But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.
Good luck, Tony, of course you are right, but your time is better spent talking to a wall than trying to inform the one who made that statement (“the first among equal shepherds. It is called collegiality, and it is the most central pastoral message of Vatican II.”).
Again, the errors of “the Spirit of Vatican II”: yet decades later, blowing still through the Church, like a howling desert wind (Deut. 32:10).
Right Tony, no disagreement. This is one of the collegiality passages of VII.
Denzinger Index n. 1830: “And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful. Therefore, they stray from the straight path of truth who affirm that it is permitted to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than the Roman Pontiff.
Without prayer, it is very difficult to lead a chaste life. A priest in the seminary told us that when we stop praying to Our Lady, and especially her Rosary, then that is the beginning of trouble. It is difficult to do anything we do not want to do, but with God’s grace it is possible. To be celibate means to be totally dedicated to God. Our Blessed Savior said ‘YOU CANNOT SERVE TWO MASTERS!’ My father, who was a physician was very dedicated to being a good doctor. Oftentimes we were just sitting down to dinner, and the exchange would call, saying there was an emergency, so my father skipped dinner, so he could do his duty. My mother was hurt, and we children were upset because father was gone again. To be totally dedicated means basically that family comes second. Now if there were married priests, there would be the same problems that I experienced. The family would always have to come second, while a priest’s duty comes first. With all the problems that are afflicting marriage today, I believe it would be unwise to make celibacy optional. Many priests who have left the priesthood and have gotten married have made a real mess of their lives. Many of them have been divorced and re-married several times, and many have also become alcoholics. There are not thousands of men knocking at the doors of Protestant seminaries to become ministers just because they can get married.
Thanks for the reality check, Father. Spiritual aspects aside, so many assume only the supposed positives when looking at lifting a regulation, all too often without assessing the repercussions of reality. The old ‘have it all’ line is just that, a line. Something always falls off the plate. And living a Catholic marriage that is completely open to life is a huge undertaking, not one to be had when Dad has other top priorities. For whereas your mother might have received some compensation for her extra duties and sacrifice thanks to your father’s good salary, a priest does not have a lucrative profession. (But no amount of money really covers Dad not being there.) But then a priest doesn’t even have a salaried profession really. So then what? Who is to help the priest’s wife with the large increasing family? Will more concessions to Church teaching need to be made to accommodate these issues? Will strict tithing rues need to be established to supply for the priests and their families?