Hooper Debate 2 - Questions About the Church

PROTESTANT CHURCHES

Hooper: They didn't forsake the church, they forsook the Roman Catholic Church (big difference), and its man made doctrines.

There is only one Church established by our Lord. It is the Catholic Church. All Protestant churches were established by men.

Hooper: You would also do well to know the Biblical meaning of the word "church." The Apostle Paul gives the exact definition of what the one true Church is: "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:" -Col. 1:24)

I know full well the meaning of the Church. Just as St. Paul discerned in his conversion on the road, it was revealed that his persecution of the Church was an attack against Jesus Christ. Pope Pius XII wrote extensively about this truth refering to it as the mystery of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. Christ is the head and we are the body. St. John speaks of it as the mystery of the vine and the branches. Christ is the vine, and we his Church, are the branches. Priests and bishops of the Catholic Church were teaching and preaching about this from the beginning and we have records reaching back to the earliest centuries. While Catholics would reach out to Protestants as our separated brethren, would spurn the offer and reject the true ecclesial dimension of the Catholic Church.

Hooper: How does one become a part of Christ's body? The Apostle Paul further defines the meaning of the one true Church as having many members, and the only way to be placed in the church is by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not water.

Baptism by water does not deny the power of God's Spirit. We are baptized, as our Lord commands in the Gospel of Matthew, as a constitutive element of the Church's mission. Water as such is only water. But baptisms always denote faith and solidarity in the family of God, the Church. Just as circumcision was the rite of initiation for the old law, baptism is the manner of entry into the new People of God, the new Israel, the new Zion, the Church. Our Lord is the one who gives the action efficacy. We become members of the Church and of the body of Christ. We become temples of the Holy Spirit and by the power of grace are born again or made into a new creation, as new Christs. Our sins are forgiven and we are given helping graces to protect and assist us in life and our discipleship.

Hooper: "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

This unity is profound and is not breeched even by the grave. However, you reduce the saints to dust. There is a variation of atheism in your thinking. You protest against the miraculous at every opportunity.

Hooper: 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many." 1 Cor. 12:12-14.

The message of salvation is a universal gift. All are called to be one in Jesus Christ. This unity is already realized in the Catholic Church. While we live in a world of many false teachers and confusion, all in heaven know the truth-- everyone in heaven is Catholic-- if because of ignorance Mrs. Hooper should find herself there, then she would also at last come home.

Hooper: The One True Church is the Body of Christ, NOT the Roman Catholic Church.

It is the same. There is no other Church in history or in current affairs that could make the claim. Catholics are united by teaching, sacraments and governance. We follow Christ, who is the invisible head of the Church while we take guidance from the successors of St. Peter, the Popes, who are the visible heads of the Church.

Hooper: Once we accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, Jesus comes and lives in us and we are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and then said to be of his flesh and of his bones.

You would invalidate all the Scriptural references to the Church. It is you who do not know what it is about. The Church is more than a fellowship. It is the living sacrament of Christ's presence and power. we encounter Christ in the Church, his body, and so embrace salvation itself.

Hooper: "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." -Eph. 5:30

This statement of unity conflicts with your individualistic view just cited.

Hooper: And who is the head of this church? Is it the Roman Catholic Church? No. The head of this Church is Jesus Christ Himself.

The universal catechism also says that Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church. However, you cannot stand any level of agreement. You cannot bear the thought that you might actually have defected the true Church. Rather you silence your conscience behind all sorts of man-made rationalizations and the denial of the historical record. The are plenty of seducers out there ready to placate regrets and to assure you that the Church is a whore.

Hooper: "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things TO THE CHURCH, WHICH IS HIS BODY," -Eph. 1:23,24 (emphasis mine)

Yes, and again this is clear in the encyclical, MYSTICI CORPORIS.

Hooper: JESUS AS THE WAY, THE TRUTH & THE LIFE-- FORGOTTEN

Never forgotten, Catholicism has proclaimed Jesus as the Way and the Truth and the Life. He is the way to the Father. He is the revelation of God's face. He is the conqueror of death.

Hooper: No, they didn't forget. That's what they found out, but you didn't finish the verse, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME." -John 14:6 (Note Jesus did not say a man could only come unto the Father through the Roman Catholic Church.)

Ah, but as I have noted, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Rejection of the Church is denial of Christ. You talk about the Church, but do not understand even the little you quote. You cite Scriptures that stress unity, and yet your personal doctrines violate this unity at every turn.

Hooper: Jesus has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church. The "church" spoken of in the Bible certainly is not the Roman Catholic Church.

Saying it does not make it so. Jesus has EVERYTHING to do with Catholicism. The Church spoken about in the Bible, and about which you give no importance, is the Catholic Church-- the precious spiritual family of our Lord.

Hooper Debate 1 - Biblical Questions

BIBLICAL TERRORISM

Hooper: I would like to quote a local pastor who sums it all up better than I ever could when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church and private interpretation.

I would not be surprised if Mrs. Hooper's testimony is largely the work of some hidden partner, just as she cites a nameless pastor in the beginning of her rebuttal to various Scriptures I sent her.

Hooper: The Catholic Church, as such, from its first private interpretations by Augustine, Cyprian, and Iranaeus, to those of the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546), has been consistent in one thing: wresting and distorting the word of God in an effort to force it to approve of her own heresies and traditions.

The legacy of the saints and doctors of the Church, namely Augustine, Cyprian, and Iranaeus are immediately castigated. This is routine for fundamentalists because they will allow no Church tradition other than established, ironically, by their own pastors. They reject the lessons of history and so are bound to retrace the heresies of old. The Council of Trent is repudiated, largely because it was so very effective in dealing with the Protestant defection from Christian unity. Note here there is only the old slur: that the Catholic Church "has been consistent in one thing: restling the word of God in an effort to force it to approve of her own heresies and traditions." In actually, the Catholic Church is the Mother of the Christian Bible and her teachings and preaching even predated the written New Testament.

Hooper: Catholics will not read it [Bible] for three reasons that NO Catholic reads any investigation of Biblical truth, other than his own subjective investigation:

The business about Catholics not reading the Bible is a typical bigoted stereotype. Catholics not only read the Bible but hear it proclaimed at worship and prayer.

Hooper: Catholics are taught that anything written or preached contrary to the teachings and traditions of the Vatican STATE is a lie, even if Paul, Jesus, or Moses said it.

This is a silly business, because Catholics are taught no such thing. While elements of the Mosaic law are abbrogated by the new dispensation of Christ; what the Church teaches is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We claim the apostolic legacy and testimony of Paul, as well as Peter and so many others.

Hooper: If Paul, Jesus, or Moses did say it, then the statement has to be privately interpreted by the Church to conform with tradition, in order that it may be taught to the Catholic layman that there is no contradiction between the scriptures and the Church (except in the eyes of the PROTESTANT, who is REALLY the party guilty of "private interpretation," (see 1 Peter 1:20).

The terminology here makes no sense. The Church offers no private interpretation. The Scriptures represent a written tradition, while the Gospels began as an oral tradition and that oral tradition continued even after they were written down. There is no conflict. And yes, certain Protestant fundamentalists are truly the ones guilty of a privatized interpretation that often finds disagreement even among their own churchmen.

Hooper: Since every Catholic believes that the damnation of his soul is involved in a turning from any dogma of the Vatican State, they dare not honestly investigate anything contrary to their own religion.

Every Catholic is obliged in conscience to grow in the love and knowledge of Jesus Christ. The false implication here is that "any dogma of the Vatican State" would simply be human wisdom and not divine truth. The Church teaches that Jesus is Lord and Savior. Would the fundamentalist bigot say this is mere Vatican dogma? Probably not, but such critics would be quick to contend that Catholics do not really believe it. They create a false strawman Catholicism and then seek to tear it down.

Hooper: Now, the scriptures command the Christian to "prove all things" (1 Thess. 5:21). He is told to test and try out heresies and false gospels (1 Cor. 11:19; 2 Cor. 11:4), and, since the Christian studies the word himself, as he was commanded to (2 Tim. 2:15), he is not worried about being "always ready to give an answer" (2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Peter 3:15; 4:11). No born again Christian has to worry about reading and studying literature contrary to the Bible, for the Holy Spirit in the Christian has promised to lead and guide him into all truth (1 John 2:27; John 14:26; John 16:13). These plain verses, understood everywhere by all born-again Christians, prove "forever more" that Catholics (as a church organization) are not "born again Christians," no matter what their canons and decrees may state. Born again Christians do not only face error and falsehood confidently, cheerfully, and armed with the sword of the Spirit, but they also desire to search any teaching out to see if there is any truth in it, and put it to the test of the word.

The hypothesis is proven false again and again. The Scriptures cited do not support her position. There are plenty of born-again Christians who have serious disagreements with each other-- about the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the meaning of the descent among the dead, the value of the Lord's Supper, the signs of election in this world, the proper day of the Sabbath observance, etc. The fragmentation of Protestantism into thousands of denominations is ample proof that testing the word, apart from the Church Christ established and with a consideration to the traditions passed down to us, only leads to amplified error. The Holy Spirit watches over the Catholic Church and guards the truth of the Gospel in her teaching and preaching. Also note her presumption that practicing Catholics cannot be born again, an expression that is very dynmaic in Catholicism, meaning that we have been made a new creation in Christ. Her criteria for salvation and true Christianity is to agree with her. She treats the work of studying and understanding the Scriptures into a kind of magic, irrespective of learning. Of course, her position is a sham. Everyone who relies upon a translation of God's Word has already posited trust, not only in God, but in men. The Catholic Church is very careful about which men we trust and what mandate they have received from the Lord.

Hooper: Rome, like a man on a chain gang, is the most "misunderstood" church in the world, and has to employ its "Knights of Columbus" in a full time "ministry" of explaining the discrepancies between ITS teachings and Bible teaching, and making alibis for the rumors that speak of Rome's "hellishness," which is supposed to be her "holiness."

She misunderstands Catholicism, that is for sure. Despite claiming to have been a Catholic, she often fails to exhibit even a grammer-school level of understanding about what Catholics believe. She parrots her anti-Catholic masters. The Knights of Columbus is an order of Catholic men dedicated to Church and God, Country, Community, and Family. They provide insurance benefits to members to safeguard their families and seek to realize their Christian faith and works of charity. They are staunchly pro-life and patriotic. They do much to help the poor and the disabled, particularly children who face physical and mental challenges. Attacking these good men says a lot about her true character and the dark spirit that masquerades as holy in all her rantings. There is no discrepency between the Word of God and the living Church.

Hooper: Rome's defense of her ridiculous and bigoted theology is a standard patter that is found in 1500 years of Church History.

She knows nothing of history. Catholism was the only form of Christianity in the West for the first 1500 years. However, the Church began with Christ and is now some 2000 years old. A study of the ancient fathers verifies this. However, she has closed her mind to truth and her heart to honesty.

Hooper: Protestants are themselves divided about interpretation; therefore, "We must be right, because we all agree as to the correction interpretation."

But you do not all agree. Even now the various Baptist denominations are at war with each other and the fight continues over the control of their seminaries. Note that Mrs. Hooper herself posts at an "independent" Baptist site, probably because the regular Baptists would have nothing to do with her kind. Even the Reverend Fallwell has sought to substitute the rhetoric of hate with that of conciliation.

Hooper: "When we can get all the Protestants back with us, that will be self-admission that they had the wrong interpretation, and that we had the right one."

Not every point of biblical teaching is at question. Protestant churches continue to claim some elements of the truth that were held prior to their breech. Also, their view of some Bible passages are on the mark-- but not all.

Hooper: The fact that Protestants disagree about scripture is proof that the Holy Ghost is not guiding them; but He is guiding us, because "We all agree!"

The Holy Spirit does guide the Catholic Magisterium in teaching only those things that are from the deposit of the faith, and to do so without error. This does NOT mean that there is an official Catholic position on each and every passage from the Bible. Certainly, there is no Scriptural teaching that clashes with Catholic doctrine.

Hooper: This is the standard Jesuit, Dominican, Franciscan, Capuchin, and Trappist answer to those who dare to raise their voice against the old Harlot upon the seven mountains (Rev. 17).

Notice her slam here! Learned men from the various religious orders of Catholicism are ignored and the Church is called a whore, which in itself is a mockery of what the Book of Revelation teaches. She would equate the Church of the suffering saints and martyrs with the demonic forces of the beast. Early Catholic Christians were persecuted by pagan, not a Catholic Christian Rome. Mrs. Hooper will have to answer to God and to these noble heroes of faith for her prejudice against them.

Hooper: In the first objection mentioned above, no one takes the time or trouble to note that even if Protestants are divided, born again Christians are not! If born again Christians are divided, they are only divided on 'nonessentials." Again, when it is said that Rome is agreed with herself upon interpretation, that only proves the rottenness of the Roman system, for the agreement (as will be seen) is on the insufficiency of the scriptures. Rome agrees on interpretation but this interpretation is the private, false, wresting, and distorting of clear passages, and the subterfuge of obscure passages for proof texts: it is not scripture compared with scripture; it is not Christian; it is not true to the remaining verses; it makes other passages contradict; and, it is a travesty of common sense and sound judgment. [1]

Here is further evidence of the fracturing in Protestant Christianity. Note that while she hesitantly admits that Protestants are divided, she tries to argue, poorly I should add, that born again Christians are not. Now, she is not only against Roman Catholics, but admits from her own lips, that she is also opposed to these non-Catholic churches. Taking it a step further, she will next say that born again Christians are not divided by essentials. This is a lie. Some born again Christians, like Reverend Jerry Fallwell, admit that while he has serious disagreements with Catholics, that he recognizes her lay people and ministers as Christians. Mrs. Hooper would never make such an admission. Indeed, her enmity in this regard, as well as her insistence in defining her religion by her opposition to Catholicism, and her presumption of truth against any and all rivals, would seem to place her less in the category of a Christian Church and more as a member of a Cult. The sufficiency of Holy Scripture is wrongly argued as having no connection with the life of the preaching and teaching Church throughout the centuries. There is no contest or opposition between Scripture and Tradition. They are intertwined and the Church passes on to us the faith of Jesus Christ. There is nothing private about the Catholic Church's understanding of Scripture. We receive the texts and we also look upon how churchmen and believers have understood these teachings throughout the centuries. We do not come to the Bible alone, and despite her protestations, neither does Mrs. Hooper. You can bet that she did not come up with her views by simply being locked alone in an empty room with a bible. She was seduced by anti-Catholic fundamentalists. Maybe because of a love interest? Maybe because of a Bible Study group that lacked proper direction or which targeted Catholics? Maybe because of the books of critics of the Church? And maybe her responses are not even unique to her, but are also the result of another's hand and head. It is not as simple as she makes out. She has merely replaced one Magisterium, the Pope and Bishops, for one composed of fallible and mean-spirited men. Notice that she even makes citations, knowing that her own response is insufficient and that she must call upon aid from elsewhere. At least the Cathoic never pretends that he comes to the Bible without commentary and support.

SHARING IGNORANCE IN BIBLE STUDY

Hooper: The Roman Catholic Church is just as guilty. It does not matter what a person "thinks this passage means" or "what that passage means." A person can make the Bible teach ANYTHING they want it to teach. And though a person can make it mean whatever he wants it to mean, the one thing he can't do is make it say anything but what it says! We should be greatly concerned about what the Bible SAYS.

Actually, this statement is nonsensical. Jesus says if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. That is what the Bible says, but just as with the prohibition against calling men "teacher" or "father" it is Hebraic Hyperbole and cannot be taken literally. What the fundamentalists do is that they decide what they want to take literally and what they will not. They are not consistent in regard to their "literalism". The difficulty with translations also makes this point mute. Some editions like the KJV are very beautiful but are filled with mistakes. This was even admitted by the Anglican Church that produced the Bible, which also includes a KJV translation of the Catholic books omitted in most U.S. editions. It was not long after its promulgation that attempts were made to correct some of the more glaring problems. Here is an irony. The Bible was not a product of the Baptist churches, but was the English translation of a liturgical Church that still claims priests and services that parallel those of Rome. The British Crown, which became quite Protestant, did not see this Bible as teaching any conflict with these "Catholic" elements retained after the break. Also, if one takes isolated verses and avoids a contexual approach and/or notes, then Scripture can be quickly distorted-- as we see in Mrs. Hooper's use of it.

RUPTURED FROM THE CHURCH

Hooper: What the anti-Christian can't understand is, if a person has ruptured himself from the Roman Catholic Church, it just may be that he decided to open his Bible and read it a little more carefully, allowing the Holy Spirit to lead him and guide him into all truth. It just may be that he was among the number who saw it was better to believe what the Bible SAYS rather than be guided by what other people think. It just may be that the former Catholic finally knew what it meant to trust in Jesus alone for his salvation, and that he need not live by the dictates of the Roman Catholic Church any longer.

Admittedly, Catholics could do a better job at knowing and studying their Bibles. But, I have known many Catholics reaffirm and grow in their faith through the honest study of Scripture. It did nothing to undermine their Catholic beliefs. Catholics are not anti-Christian. They were the first Christians and the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ, himself. Any claim otherwise is a falsification of history. This is the lot of Mrs. Hooper and the other anti-Catholic bigots with which she associates.

BIBLE INTERPRETATION

Hooper: You should really keep the momentum going. You forgot to mention the Catholic Church and how they fall prey to thinking they are the sole interpreter of Scriptures, the pope infallible, how they wrest the Scriptures to fit their unbiblical doctrines, make up places like purgatory, think if they eat a piece of bread and drink some booze that it will give them eternal life, teach a "faith plus works" gospel, how they pray to Mary and dead saints to intercede on their behalf, and then published cannon decrees to condemn anyone to Hell who won't bow down to its beliefs.

Ah, here she goes through the litany of her dissent. I have already made mention in correspondence that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is the authoritative teaching office. As a Protestant she is free to deny this, however she is not content to stop there. Rather, her malicious spirit denies anything Christian of Catholicism and associates it with the beast. Papal infallibility is limited and must be properly understood. But, it does not matter in her case, because she has made herself-- or someone she follows in the shadows-- into the infallible teacher in her life. Do not believe for a moment that it is a direct relationship with the Bible. Someone has helped to spoonfeed her hate. Purgation is proven by various Scriptures and by the truth that only those perfected by grace may enter heaven. Although she purports to once being a Catholic, she now impugns the holy communion that Catholics receive when celebrating the Lord's Supper as "a piece of bread and "some booze". That is all it is to her, now that she has cast aside the gift of faith. It should be no surprise that she also rejects the value of works for people of faith because there is nothing of charity left in her approach to God and religion. The communion with the saints who share in the Easter mystery means nothing to her. After her long list of attacks against Catholic practices and beliefs, she acts like a crybaby saying that the Catholic Church condemns people like her to hell. No, people bring hell upon themselves.

WHERE DID WE GET THE BIBLE?

Hooper: What would the world do without the Roman Catholic Church who falsely claim we would not have the Bible if not for them. I refer the reader to Did the Catholic Church give us our Bible?

The record is clear about this. The role of St. Jerome, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage are public records. The establishment of the Christian Bible was accomplished by the Catholic Church.

CHURCH TRADITION

Hooper: "Christ gave something...?" Come now. Christ never gave anything to the Roman Catholic Church, it was not even in existence at His time.

Here Mrs. Hooper practices historical revisionism in denying the record.

Hooper: Proof again that Roman Catholic church does not think Scriptures in itself are sufficient.

More importantly, the Catholic Church does not think Mrs. Hooper is sufficient.

Hooper: The Bible SAYS, "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" (Ps. 119:105). The Bible also says, "If a man love me, he will keep my words:" (John 14:23), but not according to the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church doctrine would have us believe no one can understand the Bible for themselves, but that for one to understand, he must turn his mind and heart over to the Roman Catholic Church. This is so unbiblical!

As a Catholic Christian, I remain in good standing with my Church and with God's living Word. The Church does not deny the value of allowing the Scriptures to speak to us. What is denied is that anti-Catholic fundamentalists like Mrs. Hooper have a monopoly upon the Scriptures. How can she as an individual claim to think for the whole Christian world and the Catholic Church? While there are many references to the Church in the New Testament, I see no reference to her or that I must follow her personal interpretation of the Bible in order to be a true Christian and to know salvation in Jesus Christ.

Hooper: Vatican II states, It is for the bishops, with whom the apostolic doctrine resides, suitably to instruct the faithful entrusted to them in the correct use of the New Testament by giving them translations of the sacred texts which are equipped with necessary and really adequate explanations. [2]

Yes, and you have opted to accept Anglican texts while denying the authority of that church to preach and teach what their translation means. Have you PERSONALLY produced any Bibles from the scattered ancient documents? No, and nor could you.

Hooper: The Bible was given to mankind to read, mediate, and study, it was not given to some elite group to explain it to others. Man does not live alone on the heresies of the Roman Catholic Church, "but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Deut. 8:3). (Note it doesn't say, "but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of Roman Catholic Popes and Priests.)

The Bible did not pop out of the sky ready-made. Here again is an instance of fantasy and relativism regarding real history.

DISCUSSION: Married or Celibate Priests, part 3

MARIA

I would imagine that American society is much more informal than in Europe and here in England, so attitudes may be a little more relaxed. It does however appear that I am not alone in the views that I expressed in the last post. I realise of course that relationships between priests and women are sinful if they involve sexual intimacy. What I am wondering at the moment is that if one was to exclude the aspect of sex from such a relationship but continued to express one on one feelings of romantic love and provide mutual emotional and spiritual support for one another, would this still be wrong? I am trying very hard to align my personal feelings about such relationships with the views of the church. In all humility I have to say that I find it very hard to accept that I have wasted a great many years of my life by being there for the man that I love.No one who truly believes in Christ deliberatly sets out to sin,but surely neither are any of us perfect. Does the occasional fall from Grace negate all the good that one does in between?

PAULA

Dear Fr. Joe,

That is a beautiful well written letter and in a "perfect world" completely believable. Unfortunately we do not live in a "perfect world" and most priests who fall in love with a woman do not quietly back away. In a lot of instances these relationships go on for years and years, and the lives of the participants are destroyed by the guilt they have for living a lie. The priest who truly loves a woman makes the decision to openly marry her and live together as a married Christian couple. I speak from experience. I am married to a priest.

ROSANNE

Maria: "I realise of course that relationships between priests and women are sinful if they involve sexual intimacy." This is something that could be open for discussion...At what point is it sexual? I once had a relationship with a married man where we decided at the beginning that there would be no physical contact whatever but the sexual chenistry between us was so strong that we were able to have highly sexual experiences while sitting across the room from each other just looking into each other's eyes. Is this wrong? You ask the question yourself
with "What I am wondering at the moment is that if one was to exclude the aspect of sex from such a relationship but continued to express one on one feelings of romantic love and provide mutual emotional and spiritual support for one another, would this still be wrong?"

How can any relationship which offers such loving service to another be "wrong"? Christians are supposed to be recognised by their love for one another so it is hardly logical to prohibit those entrusted to teach by example that love to have any kind of personal love relationship themselves.

"I am trying very hard to align my personal feelings about such relationships with the views of the church." Well, good luck but I don't think you will be successful because you are right and the Church is wrong in this instance. People like us need to make our views known so that the Church will grow into a more loving and less guilt making organisation which recognises that the consecrated love of man and woman is also the royal road to sanctity. In all humility I have to say that I find it very hard to accept that I have wasted a great many years of my life by being there for the man that I love. No one who truly believes in Christ deliberatly sets out to sin, but surely neither are any of us perfect.

Maria, in my opinion you have not wasted your life on this man - you have
given him a great treasure. Please try and stop thinking about it as "sin". Love that is pure and honest gives glory to God and it makes me very angry that the man-made disciplinary rules of the Church can tarnish the divinity of your love for your priest and not allow you to make the public commitment you must long for. Let us all pray that this obstacle will be removed in our lifetime!

Love

CAIT

Paula wrote: "The priest who truly loves a woman makes the decision to openly marry her and live together as a married Christian couple. I speak from experience. I am married to a priest."

HERE! HERE! I have to agree with you Paula! Although I know many priests who do not marry, but either love and are so torn they confuse themselves to a point of making no clear decision (and both get hurt), or simply do not fall in love so much as simply ignore the mandate of celibacy and stay and play (hurting many in their paths). Certainly is not a perfect world. Those who choose celibacy choose it, period. Those mandated to do so may or may not choose to live it.

Cait -- also married to a priest for the past 24 years

EUGENIA

To Cait-- This is Eugenia. What has been your experience? I mean, as far as being married to a priest? How hard was the adjustment for him? And you? Where did you meet? Church? The neighborhood? I'm interested because I wrote a novel dealing in part with Priestly Celibacy. Thank you.

To Paula-- I understand you perfectly.

To Maria-- I think that when a man and a woman fall in love, they fall in love. That's it. No, it shouldn't be a sin, either for him or the woman. Unfortunately,
the rules are antiquated and make it look like sin.

Yes, Maria, I'm glad we both agree on this. Illicit or not, there's love in the relationship and nobody can take that away from you or him.

MARIA

Thankyou everyone for your valued words of support. However, I think that it is important to distinguish between erotic, romantic love and the Christian concept of agape. I agree that we need to speak out for transformation in the Church but I feel that it is important that we do not confuse the issues here. Any change in policy will (as Joe has pointed out previously) not be retrospective in nature. It therefore follows that anyone in a similar position to myself will not find any kind of solution to my dilemma by sitting tight and waiting for change. I would very much like to sit here at tell myself that the concept of sexual sin is outmoded but I can not help thinking that if I were to do that then it would be very easy to keeping taking progressive, if small steps, away from my Faith. For all the pain and hurt that the institutional Church has caused me, I am still certain that Roman Catholicism is the path down which we have to travel to meet the redemptive figure of Christ. Again, I must say how much reading all your postings have given me much food for thought.

MTC

The Church indeed changed profoundly with Vatican II, but Rome remained essentially the same. I think the Vatican is dragging its feet largely because of some warning in the *complete* third Fatima message. It would therefore behoove us to be cautious.

FATHER JOE

I would have to take exception to the judgment that my ideas about the subject at hand have no basis in reality. The fact that I narrated something of the emotional angst that a priest might go through in keeping his promises is hardly reflective of an ideal world. Of course, romantic love, attraction, and passion, while capable of generating tremendous joy, can also leave us vulnerable and in a pain beyond the description of words. This is true across the board, not only in relationships involving clerics. A married man might fall in love with another woman. He made a promise to God to do all he can to be faithful—for better or for worse. While the situation is not entirely analogous, nevertheless, the promises a man takes as he enters ministry are also supposed to be permanent— made not just to the superior or bishop, but again to God. Regardless as to whether a man leaves ministry or not, this is the situation and he will have to live with what he does or does not do. The fact that priestly celibacy is a discipline rather than an inseparable element of the sacrament of holy orders makes the situation of laicization and regularization possible. I would suspect that differences people hold on this matter depend upon their stand on a number of other issues:

Does the Church have the authority to require mandatory celibacy of clerics?

Does the true Church fully subsist in the Catholic Church as the sacrament of salvation instituted directly and uniquely by Christ?

Is the view of human sexuality promulgated by the Church correct or in error?

Is sexual expression outside of marriage a mortal sin and are marriages involving Catholics and/or priests (without laicization) valid?

Beyond these questions, a somewhat overriding concern would be the priest's psychological makeup, his capacity for self-discipline, his ability to endure the cross— perhaps with little external support, and (most importantly) the satisfaction he receives from public and personal prayer. I have known a number of very traditional and orthodox men who fell in love and could not reconcile their principles with what they would later do. They did not seem to have it in them. Does this mean that God may call some men to a vocation of marriage after a time of service at the altar? I do not know. In all honesty, I never thought so. I cannot stand in their shoes. But it would not be the road I would travel.

It may be that some men dissent from Church teaching or direction in the questions I noted. It may also be that some men would later seek desperately to justify their actions— that they were not at fault— that the problem was with the Church. Given that formation programs and clergy support is not always what it should be, the real answer might be somewhere in the middle.

It has been my experience that men in all lines of employment have problems with maintaining platonic relationships with women who are attractive to them. Is this a failure of maturation or how we are wired and concupiscence? Fr. Benedict Groeschel wrote about this in a book on celibacy published a number of years ago. He made me chuckle at one point when he said that priests need the presence of women and their influence in their lives, however, he added, they should not find them attractive. Another priest and I jokingly questioned, "Does this mean that priests can only surround themselves with ugly women?" The old rules about rectory housekeepers and cooks used to reflect this view, spelling out that they should be matronly. An old priest I knew actually insisted upon this policy, and as kids his housekeeper would frighten us boys when we came to the rectory door. To this day, many years later, she still remains in my mind's eye as the perfect caricature of a witch as one might find in Oz or in a Grimm's Fairytale.

I do not presume to have all the answers. I am just sharing something of my poor reflection. Nothing here is meant to be a judgment against any of the posters. Every day I try to be a saint and fail— I guess that is why we all need to be humble and pray for one another.

Pax et Bonum

CAIT

Fr Joe: "Does the Church have the authority to require mandatory celibacy of clerics?" First, I want to apologize if my words sounded as though I do not believe the cross carried by priests is not real, or part of the real world. Of course it is!!! What I was referring to was the idea (which I thought you meant) that ALL priests react with such integrity as you outlined. That is not the case. My own ministry for the past 22 years has been with those women and priests who have been or are involved in such relationships, and all too many priests stay and play--without any conscience, and I find that appalling! Only the good priests suffer from integrity and conscience. Not all are good. Many a good priest opts to marry, after heart-felt soul-searching, spiritual direction, and counseling. Too many priests are not concerned about the Will of God at all, and this is a very serious problem. They are the career priests, not the holy men.

I'm sorry if my post was understood as belittling your own experience, or that of good priests. That was not my intention. I certainly respect those who opt to remain celibate, as much as I respect those who marry.

In answer to your question, "Does the Church have the authority to require mandatory celibacy of clerics?"

My response is that all Church law, whether discipline or dogma must be accepted by the Faithful. This particular discipline is only applied to Latin Rite priests, and frankly, that gives those in the Latin Rite no other choice for married priesthood, as opposed to those Eastern Rites who have such choices.

On an other particular matter, that of "the divided heart," my personal opinion is that mandatory celibacy has nothing at all to do with serving with an undivided heart. ALL Christians are obliged to serve with undivided hearts, and to love God above all things, and love their neighbor as themselves. THAT LOVE is what we are commanded, and that love must be undivided by ALL. Married persons MUST love God above all else! Certainly I was passed the Faith by parents who Loved God above all else. That is not simply for celibates. Celibacy may free up time schedules, and some people work better as celibates, but the rest of the Catholic world is served by married priests, as well as the Orthodox and the entire Protestant world. Their ministry is as undivided as celibate priesthood -- when they follow the Great Commandment and live according to their Baptismal promises. Undivided love begins when we renounce Evil and all its pomps.

Celibacy need not be mandated for those who are truly celibates, called by God. Just as marriage to one spouse need not be mandated to those who are truly joined in and by Love in Christ! I believe it is joy and love (which is Grace and response to Grace) in one's vocation which keeps one in that life, whether married or celibate, rather than mandates. I do not believe celibacy is "given" to all those who are called to priesthood. I believe it is political, controlling and for that reason only. As far as it preventing inheritance--priests have a will, and many a woman I know has inherited the estate of the priest, or his siblings, etc. Outside of monastic vows, that doesn't apply. Outside of monastic vows, celibacy has been for control, and continues to be.

Celibacy freely embraced (Latin Rite candidates have a choice: priesthood or not, as opposed to the free choice of celibacy by priests of other Rites), can be a joy, and life of love. Married priests are just as holy, undivided, and serve with the assistance of a partner (as water finds its own level, and priests usually marry women who support the ministry. In the Orthodox tradition it is a religious vocation to marry a priest, and their has been actual training involved to enhance the marriage and ministry--so holy is the calling to be the spouse of a priest.

I believe the mandated aspect of clerical celibacy is the eventual destruction of the Latin Rite priesthood.

FATHER JOE

Certainly we are all called to love God with all our heart, mind and soul. This is the basic given that is often poorly realized in Christian discipleship. However, the celibate love of God, even if it is sometimes abused by the powers-that-be for profane reasons, remains a hallmark of the evangelical counsels, a singular imitation of Christ, and a powerful sign of contradiction for the kingdom. It
is not for everyone. Indeed, most people will never live perpetual celibacy. Nor is it easy, because these men are still made of flesh-and-blood and live in a culture that is preoccupied in every strata with sexuality.

There is a choice in the West, but it is not the choice that many would want to make. Instead of whether or not to be a married or celibate priest, the question is whether to be a priest or not. This gives rise to another question and a significant point of theology:

Does God call to priesthood in the West men who are not given the gift of celibacy?

How we answer this touches not only our view of holy orders but as so many questions really do, our concept of ecclesiology and authority. Catholic teaching at present contends that God would not call men to priesthood without giving them the gift of celibacy. This does not mean that celibacy would be easy. It is by nature a sacrifice. We do not ordain eunuchs or robots. Needs for friendship and intimacy will have to be found in prayer and in platonic relationships. There will be no one to hold in bed at night. There will be no one to share a life. There will be no children to give pride and joy. One of the things that some seminaries seek to discover in candidates is if they have the grace of "aloneness". This does not mean isolating oneself from the world. Rather, it is whether or not a man can live apart from the world-- in his head and heart and in his house.

Those who would contend that God gives a calling but not necessarily the gift of celibacy, will always have to argue that the demand is unjust and/or that the Church hierarchy has superceded its mandate and authority.

I want to thank you for sharing a civil tone in this discussion. Often when people share conflicting views on this issue, the dialogue becomes a heated and emotional debate. I find few people change their notions, but it is good to see as much of the picture as possible. I guess part of the problem is that most people
interested in this subject have some immediate vested interest.

On one side you have men who wanted to be priests but also wanted a wife and family, the priests who left and got married, or the women who married them, or the couple who is having an ungoing affair, or they have left the Church entirely for an Anglican, pseudo-Orthodox, or one of various small Independent Catholic communities.

On the other side, you have the career men who are always quick to defend the status-quo, men who are happy with celibacy and want to preserve the discipline, and men and women who distanced one another at great personal cost to preserve their sanctity and to protect the priestly vocation.

The last point was a serious concern when we starting ordaining (absolutely) for Catholic ministry married Anglican priests (and at least one Lutheran minister). How do you house these men and their families? How do we re-evaluate finances? How will a celibate priest who remained faithful to his promises and gave up the love of his life feel when he has to live and work with a man who has the best of both worlds? Would this not amplify his pain and sense of loss? This cannot be over exaggerated. Many if not most men who remain in celibate ministry as priests at some time fell in love. Memories remain and distance does not always extinguish the flames of devotion or longing. Maybe this is a reason why some guys get so very angry when the subject of priests who left to get married is raised?

In any case, it is correct to say that priesthood and celibacy are technically distinct and the discipline could change. The debate is whether it SHOULD change.

Of course, marriage would not resolve the problems we face. Lutheran seminaries are begging for candidates. The local Methodist seminary has seen a marked drop in male applications. Married priests would bring with it a whole new set of challenges and problems. There was great excitement and much written when the first married Anglican priest was ordained for priestly service in the Catholic Church. Now, over a decade later, the man still functions as a Catholic priest, but without his wife. She said that nothing prepared them for the work he would do as a Catholic. She gave him an ultimatum, leave the Catholic priesthood or she would leave him! Guess what?

She divorced him.

CAIT

Thanks for the thoughtful and clear response. You are so right about this topic evoking emotional responses, but I'm guessing the more peace one has with one's belief, in one's spiritual life, the less need to be defensive. Remember the streets of Paris flowed with blood over theological debates centuries ago! Gosh, how those Christians did not love one another! LOL You are correct, I think, about some folks never changing their opinions. When I was a young woman I was in the convent for a time (with the chosen name "Dominic Marie" with all that implies about defending the Faith!), and I was certain I would never see things differently than I did then. Some do change, some do not, each in good conscience, and for theological reasons or personal lived experience, or both.

Perhaps some difference boils down to values as well. See, although I hear what you are saying about celibacy being the hallmark of the evangelical counsels, I do not believe it is. I believe Charity is the hallmark by which each counsel is lived as the epitome of the Gospel life. I believe Chastity is required of us all. If the evangelical counsels are the epitome of the gospel life, we are ALL called to live that life. Some choose to live Chastity as celibate persons and some as married persons, but both live Chastity, just as all Christians are called to live the Poverty and Obedience of Christ--within the boundaries of their obligations of love.

So a hermit has different obligations of love than a married person, or a celibate who lives in the world in public ministry. A person in a celibate community will have different obligations of love than one obliged to provide in love for children, but each true Christian lives the poverty, chastity and obedience of the Gospel life as required by Love/God . Living a Rule of Life as a religious is wonderful for those it helps, whether 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Order (married or celibate). A Rule may better help some live the Gospel. Vows may better help some live the Gospel. But I believe the goal is the Gospel life leading to one's salvation, not the manner it is achieved. Achieving it implies the imitation of Christ--whether married or celibate!

The difference in our starting point seems to be that I believe Chastity is NOT the hallmark of the counsels or Gospel life, but that Charity is the hallmark, imo. One finds salvation through married Chastity (married), and another will find salvation through celibate Chastity. One is no more holy or perfect than the other, only better for the individual called to this or that. I often think of the old
"Catechism of the Vows," where we read "a vow is a promise made to God to do that which is better than its opposite." Married love which is chaste is better than its opposite (lust, or even celibate love) for the one called by God to marriage. Celibate love which is chaste is better than its opposite (lust, or married love) for the one called by God to celibacy.

If celibacy were the best for priesthood, it should be universally required, or we have second class, less-than-best married priests in all but the Latin Rite. To think of celibacy as a perfect imitation of Christ, I believe, is to focus on Jesus' sex life, and to me that is just silly. I believe a life of loving God and neighbor is a perfect imitation of Christ. I believe that Marriage reflects the love within the Trinity far more than celibacy, if I were inclined to make such comparisons.

You point out a very good example of the problem the Anglican couple faced when the Anglican wife was not prepared for her own life as the wife of a Catholic priest. The Orthodox (who have the most successful experience) know this and discernment regarding the marriage is an important part of the choice to marry (as it ought to be for ALL Christians). Personally, I am unimpressed by a married priest who puts his priesthood before his marriage, but it happens. The sad thing is in the case of Anglicans conditionally ordained upon becoming RC, is that the sacrament of Marriage came FIRST, and as such is his first
commitment. Of course Canon Law sees Orders as a higher calling, which I also reject. Marital problems are human problems to face, but have been faced for 2,000 years by the Orthodox, very successfully! Those priests who have prayerfully married, have been careful to marry soul-mates who are also supportive of them being priests forever. Many continue in ministry together. The ranks of CORPUS are full of such happily married priests, ready to serve, or who serve elsewhere.

The admission of Anglican priests IS a slap in the face to celibate Latin Rite priests, imo. Particularly to NEW ones! The flip side is that if the Anglican priest's wife dies, he is then bound by celibacy, and I think that is a slap in the face to his wife and the holiness of their marriage, saying she and their marriage are tolerated as a way of getting him, but their sacramental marriage is not truly honored, or he'd be allowed to remarry upon her death. Of course the Canonical loophole to defend that is they are conditionally ordained upon entering the RC Church (implying they are or might actually be married LAYMEN [requiring certain ordination] for a few moments), and so their marriages are (technically) BEFORE ordination.

My bottom line is that I have no respect for the motives behind mandatory celibacy, none at all. I do respect good priests who follow their conscience, so they can meet God with Hope and Faith.

I too am grateful to be able to discuss this here, rather than "debate" or fight.

Blessings

V. M. JOSEPH

Then the Lord God said " it is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper like himself " (Gen 2:18).

Our first parents knew the meaning of sexuality Their sexual love, God said
was not merely good , but very good. This love transcending all others , the
highest beauty to be found in sexual embrace. Celibacy,virginity are negative terms. Absence of a positive act which is ordained by God and which is beautiful and holy. " The Garden of Eden" is the "kingdom" where they did not know nakedness.

I feel volumes are written and several man hours wasted in theologising a
matter which is a non-issue with other Christians and so with non-Latin rite
Catholics. Only the celibates have the luxury of time for it. With all the celibacy in the Latin rite, I can boldly say that my mother and several others' fathers and mothers were greater saints than canonically created saints...

The only important thing in this world is to love God and love your neighbour.
I can not justify a person who has fathered a child and still carries on pretending to be a celibate or holy. He has to love his wife and child as God has planned it right from the beggining.

EUGENIA

Yes,there are people who father children and yet pretend to be celibate and holy and all that.

V. M. JOSEPH

I feel the storm has died down after my last posting. We have convinced ourselves of the many issues raised in the forum. It is not enough that only we are convinced. Others in authority and those have the monopoly of the Holy Spirit have to realise it too. We may not outlive that moment, unless some one like Pope John XX111 or John Paul 1 comes to lead the Church. I feel that this forum should be kept alive to build up a fraternity. We are the most talented and sincere Christians in the world. Now let us now positively think how we can build ourselves in to a force to be more recognisable to the world around us!

FATHER JOE

What storm are you talking about? It seems to me that the people who post here have many views and come from various backgrounds. As for changes coming with the next Pope, given that most of the Cardinals who are eligible electors were chosen by Pope John Paul II, that seems highly unlikely. I would like to respond to your previous post, edited slightly for clarity.

V. M. Joseph wrote:
"Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper like himself" (Gen 2:18).

No one would deny that the companionship of men and women in marriage is rooted in nature and is an element of God's creation.

The observation from Genesis merely reiterates the usual course of things. It is not an utter rejection of celibacy.

V. M. Joseph wrote:
"Our first parents knew the meaning of sexuality. Their sexual love, God said, was not merely good, but very good, this love transcending all others, the highest beauty to be found in sexual embrace."

Our first parents knew many things, including the knowledge of good and evil that came from eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. Adam placed his affection for Eve ahead of his love and loyalty to God. Similarly, Eve placed greater confidence in the serpent's deceit than in the word that God had spoken to her and Adam. I would not want to read more into the story than is actually there.

I can agree that what God creates is good because he cannot himself be the direct source of evil. Evil comes into the world through our own rebellion. However, I would hesitate to call sexual love a "love transcending all others." That designation is usually reserved to the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

I will not deny the quality and intimacy of sexual love. However, passion and sin can also allow it to be distorted and cheapened. Widespread pornography, prostitution, and fornication are instances where physical love and attraction are misdirected. Further, it must be allowed that given a fallen nature, passion in marriage can degrade into lust. The former celebrates unity in sexuality; the
latter depersonalizes the beloved to an object for personal satisfaction.

You seem unwilling to admit that sometimes true love might mean not embracing and a denial of the sexual commingling. This is just as extremist as those who repudiate sexual congress as dirty and sinful. There were notable figures in Church tradition who downgraded sexual love, and not just in the Catholic camp. The great Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, who himself would leave Catholic unity and get married and sire children, wrote that sexual intercourse was always at least a venial sin, even in marriage. On the other side of the question, you would so elevate the dignity of physical love that you wrong downplay celibacy. Look at what you write closely.

V. M. Joseph wrote:
"Celibacy, virginity are negative terms. [It is the] absence of a positive act which is ordained by God and which is beautiful and holy."

You do not understand celibacy and consecrated virginity. Were you really a priest? It is one thing for critics to argue against MANDATORY celibacy, but more prudent voices would not disavow it as a man or woman's personal decision. Further, while there is a secular celibacy, practiced for business success or what have you, which might be viewed as negative; such is not the case for those who embrace this lifestyle as an element of their Christian discipleship. You would seem to claim that it is wrong or even a sin for a person to remain celibate or a virgin. I have heard such arguments from the most severe anti-Catholic bigots, but I was somewhat surprised to hear it in a forum such as this. BOTH married love and celibate love are ordained by God and are "beautiful and holy".

Celibacy should not be embraced as a denial of the goodness of married love. Virginity should not be lived out only in cases where people cannot find suitable spouses. You would condemn priests and religious who remained faithful to their promises and you would ridicule lay people who never marry, for whatever reason. This is wrong, plain and simple.

Single people who remain open to the possibility of marriage, married couples and those consecrated to a life of celibate love make their state in life an element of their discipleship to the Lord. It is more than theologizing to say that Christian celibacy is an eschatological sign of contradiction pointing to the kingdom where Jesus said the saints neither marry nor are given in marriage. They find something meaningful in the imitation of our Lord's celibate love and devote themselves to the service of God and his holy people. None of this is to downplay or to belittle our married ministers and laity. Husbands and wives, along with their children, are living symbols of Trinitarian love and can know, as the prayers of the Church insist, the one great joy that was not washed away by the Flood or lost by sin.

V. M. Joseph wrote:
"`The Garden of Eden' is the `kingdom' where they did not know nakedness."

Actually, it was only before the Fall that primordial man did not worry about his nakedness. The Scripture story tells us that after our first parents sinned, they were ashamed and they tried to hide themselves and cover their nakedness. God would not be deceived.

V. M. Joseph wrote:
"I feel volumes are written and several man hours wasted in theologizing a matter which is a non-issue with other Christians and so with non-Latin rite Catholics. Only the celibates have the luxury of time for it. With all the celibacy in the Latin rite, I can boldly say that my mother and several others' fathers and mothers were greater saints than canonically created saints."

I do not know your mother or the other parents about whom you speak, and so I cannot say whether or not they are greater or not than the many canonical saints. Again, I detect not only something of fundamentalism, but even a disdain for a Catholic practice like the selection of holy men and women as examples and special intercessors. Canonized saints are both married and single, and so I am unsure where you are going with this.

I have hesitated to respond to your post since I saw it as a rebuke, not only against celibate priests, but also against the many others who have posted to this site. What purpose does a message board or email list have other than to foster dialogue, and even some charitable debate? Do you mean KEPHAS is simply a place to advertise your job or to enable spammers for non-topical services and information to bombard well-meaning people?

Not just celibates (like myself), but all should make time to think critically about the things that matter most to us. Faith and ministry would rank high for religious people. I would also object to the notion that priestly celibacy is a non-issue for Christians of other denominations and "non-Latin Rite Catholics" (like Cait Finnegan?) and that "theologizing" is a waste of time. We can learn from each other and if nothing else, we can develop a heightened respect for each other and the views we hold.

V. M. Joseph wrote:
"The only important thing in this world is to love God and love your neighbor. I cannot justify a person who has fathered a child and still carries on pretending to be a celibate or holy. He has to love his wife and child as God has planned it right from the beginning."

Finally, as my posts have illustrated, I would also contend that priests should not live a lie. About this, we can agree. However, if there is no genuine love and friendship, as in cases where sexual satisfaction is pursued for its own sake, it would not be wise to insist that all cases of priestly liaisons should be formalized in a common life and marriage. The issue of priestly sexuality is far to complex to be dealt with this lightly. What if the priest is a real rogue and has impregnated several women? Which one would you call his wife? Marriage does not solve every problem, and sometimes, when it is wrong, it can make matters far worse.

CAIT

Fr. Joe,

So good to hear your voice again! I enjoy your posts very much, whether I agree or not with all you write.

Fr. Joe wrote: "The great Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, who himself would leave Catholic unity and get married and sire children, wrote that sexual intercourse was always at least a venial sin, even in marriage."

Martin Luther was a an Augustinian!!!! He couldn't help himself! What would you expect him to write? LOL Personally, I'm way too Irish to believe that the expression of love in marriage is sinful! The only sin would be a lack of love, using another, disrespecting another.

"I would also object to the notion that priestly celibacy is a non-issue for Christians of other denominations and 'non-Latin Rite Catholics' (like Cait Finnegan?) and that 'theologizing' is a waste of time. We can learn from each other and if nothing else, we can develop a heightened respect for each other and the views we hold. . . .However, if there is no genuine love and friendship, as in cases where sexual satisfaction is pursued for its own sake, it would not be wise to insist that all cases of priestly liaisons should be formalized in a common life and marriage. The issue of priestly sexuality is far to complex to be dealt with this lightly. What if the priest is a real rogue and has impregnated several women? Which one would you call his wife? Marriage does not solve every problem, and sometimes, when it is wrong, it can make matters far worse."

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! From my years working in Good Tidings Ministry I can totally agree with you here! God the sorrow such men leave in their wake! Priests of the Lie!

DISCUSSION: Married or Celibate Priests, part 2

MARIA

Firstly I would just like to say how enlightening it has been reading everyones comments. I feel it is always good to see ideas and issues through others eyes. I, like Eugenia, believe that celibacy should be optional and I agree with her that anyone who feels that they have to leave Religious life or the priesthood should not be made to feel shame, but rather admired for having the integrity to leave rather than a lie. Those who stay and live lives of service to others and devotion to God whilst keeping their vows also deserve our admiration and support especially during these times when instant gratification and self serving materialism is the order of the day. So Father Joe and everyone else out there who are working hard and living the spirit of their vocations whilst exploring the concept of ministry in the modern world-Thanks for being there and know that I at least admire what you stand for.

EUGENIA

Thank you, Maria, for your email to me. I feel deeply about the Celibacy issue. That's one of the reasons why I joined the group.

Fr. Joe, While it's true that some priests are happy being celibate, some are not. Sone would never be really happy and continue in the priesthood anyway. As for the ministers you know who were once Episcopalian, etc., yes, I'm sure they feel they have too many responsibilities. But the same could be said of a doctor, anybody who is in charge of things. I believe, as always, that Celibacy should be optional and that the Church should keep up with the times.

V. M. JOSEPH

You have researched well. I find no thoughts in the list by Hans Kung a very great theologian and perhaps the architect of Vatican II. Raymond Panikkar is another great man who could enlighten us.

BENZIGER

IN HANS KUNG'S WRITINGS WE FIND

1) A PRIEST NEED NOT BE A PRIEST FOR EVER.
2) A PRIEST NEED NOT BE ONLY A CELIBATE.
3) A PRIEST NEED NOT BE ONLY A MALE PERSON.

BUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS TO GO A LONG WAY YET. ALWAYS THE MILLS OF ROME GRIND SLOW. THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH PROVES THIS.

FATHER JOE

Years ago I read Hans Kung's book THE CHURCH, but I do not remember any work focused primarily upon the priesthood. It is true that he had an influential advisorial role at Vatican II, but so did other clerics like Karol Wojtya, Karl Rahner, and others. The "mills of Rome" may move slowly but that is no guarantee that things will go the way we hope or that personal ideas will be validated by the teaching Church as true.

I actually have a book by Shri Raimundo Pannikar from Paulist Press but have to admit to not opening it. Maybe I will give it a peek? I am not sure what value Eastern religion and Hinduism should be given in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I suspect that there is more dissonance than some would like to admit.

While attempts have been made by some authorities to insist that celibacy is an intrinsic element of holy orders, the historical evidence and the recognized rites (Eastern) of Catholicism with an optional married priesthood are ample evidence that priesthood is distinct from either marriage or celibate life. Now that Episcopalians have entered Roman Catholicism, we even have a small number of married priests in the Western Church. Some have contended that this is a wedge that will force the Church to revisit the question. Maybe, but their numbers are few and many dioceses give them special duties instead of regular parish assignments with celibate priests. While even many of the most conservative (i.e. orthodox) critics could admit that the discipline of obligatory celibacy could change, the other two points are much more problematical and they seem to conflict with overwhelming precedent.

The assertion that a priest need not be a priest forever seems to run contrary to any tenet regarding a supernatural mark upon the soul and a sacramental transformation into the ministerial priesthood. The Episcopalian Church has been dealing with this topic and the Australian branch has been toying with allowing lay people to offer the Eucharistic liturgy. Orders thought suspect by Rome are now being deemed by some Episcopalians themselves as institutions of no consequence. The Jews of old practiced a transitory priesthood where they offered sacrifice at assigned times in the Temple. During these times, the men abstained from sexual activity. However, the Church's reflection upon her ministries has given us the insight that ministerial priests participate in the one priesthood of Christ. There is evidence that periodic abstinence was also practiced by Christian priests, but following the pattern of Jesus and St. Paul, a preference developed for celibacy. The fact that worship was no longer restrained to Sundays but became daily also had a part to play in the equation. Single-hearted love became an ideal (particularly in the monastic model) where a perpetual priesthood could regularly re-present the oblation of Christ.

It is a misnomer when we speak about the "laicization" of priests. The matter is canonical, but not reckoned as sacramental. A man is returned to the lay state in terms of Church law, and he may even be released from his vow or promise of celibacy (a separate procedure), but Church doctrine maintains that he remains ontologically a priest. While marriage ends with death, once a man is a priest, he is deemed a priest forever-- on earth, in heaven, and even in hell.

As for the gender of a priest, I suspect that the movement for married priests has done much damage to itself by adopting other agenda items like women priests. This has caused many churchmen sympathetic to calls for a relaxation of the discipline requiring celibacy to dismiss the matter and to distance themselves from such advocates.

It is troubling that in the "women priests" debate that gender is often reduced to an accidental like hair color or race while it actually reaches deep into our core identity. The witness of Christ and the Church, the iconic value of Christ's humanity and manhood, the participation of a minister "in the person of Christ as head of the Church", the Scriptural bridal imagery, and the limits of revelation must all be given critical weight regarding this question.

Anyhow, these are just a few quick thoughts. I have to go back to work. Too bad that spammers and advertisers have jammed this message board with their nonsense, it makes it harder to follow legitimate posts.

Peace

MARIA

I would agree that linking the movement for the relaxation of the celibacy requirement with the movement for the ordination of women is a mistake in that it does alienate some who would support the former but can find no scriptural or traditional beasis for the latter. However I think there is a definate connection between the Churchs attitude to women and its approach to sexuality and priestly celibacy in particular. Many of the laws and tradition relating to human sexuality seem to have evolved during the period of history in which women were thought no only to be inferior but also to be avoided at all costs, (except of course for procreation.) This deep seated mistrust of women has remained as a institutional flaw right up to the present day and it goes some way to explain the reluctance of the exclusivly male hierachy to discuss the issues. I would also suggest that the Church during its earlier centuries was tainted by ideas of ritual purity practised in many of the sects based on the greek mysyery religions and later infiltrated by ideas similar to those of Arien dualism.

FATHER JOE

It is somewhat ironic that Pope John Paul II has taken much heat about the Church's view of women and human sexuality, given that as a young cleric and bishop his views were considered revolutionary and progressive. Hardliners even held him as suspect. As Maria says, there were many voices in the Church that reduced women to baby-making machines and criticized sexual intercourse, even in marriage, as a necessary evil. The Church placed a great stress upon "proles" or procreation; however, the Holy Father has stressed that "fides" is no less important. Thus, the joy and intimacy of the marital union should suffer no negative stigma, even if age and health prevents the conception of children. The Pope and his supporters speak about it as a wonderful self-offering, an expression of unity. He would denote it as an ocassion of grace and an element of lay spirituality. Many young adults and couples were attracted to him because of these views, and his high esteem of women and their contribution to the society and the Church.

Admittedly, as a son of Poland, he has inherited and promotes a very traditional view of faith; nevertheless, he has advanced Church thinking on such matters way beyond what previous Popes allowed. A host of saints from the laity have been elevated by the Holy Father, like the heroic Gianna Beretta Molla.

If you remember what the Church was like in the 1950's, only half a century ago, I think you would have to confess that the Church has endured a revolution. We have embraced more change in these five decades than in in the previous thousand years. That hardly seems slow to me. We are not better off for all the changes either.

No matter what the structure of the Church, or how restrictive, there were always some women who were able to excel. Joan of Arc, Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Siena, Hildegaard de Bingen, Claire, etc. are remembered even today. Teresa of Avila, along with John of the Cross, helped to save the Church in her time. There were also powerful women like Queen Isabella of Spain.

Pope Pius XII was particular appreciative of women, and was considered a bit of a "mother's boy", living at home even during seminary instruction and then under the influence of the so-called Popessa, a nun that was resented by the Curia because of her pull with the Pope.

Today a handful of women are involved with the Vatican bureacracy (yes, they should have more of a presence), and women are deeply involved with the Church on the grass level. They are often in the majority among Parish Council membership, readers, extraordinary ministers, catechists, DREs, choirs, office staff, in the pews, etc. Indeed, in my diocese a woman lawyer is the Chancellor. Women are making inroads, and in Church terms, at lightening speed.

Critics may not be satisfied because they fail to appreciate the gains made and are anxious for more. There may also be the dilemma that some things will never change because the Church will deem it outside her jurisdiction to make those changes-- regarding points of revelation, natural law, and divine positive law.

As I stated in my earlier post, ritual purity was not simply something seen in the Greek Mystery Religions, but was also an element of Judaism eventually adopted into Christian thinking. I would argue that the Church did more to Christianize existing structures and philosophy than any kind of detrimental Hellinization to the Church herself (as Harnack contends).

What are the ideas of Arian dualism that you mention? As I recall, the Arians contended regarding Jesus "that there was a then, when he was not." In otherwords, Jesus was not viewed as truly God but more as a creature in the equation-- dare we say like a Platonic demiurge?

Peace!

MARIA

Very much enjoyed reading your post again Joe,you are of course much more knowledgeble about these things than I am,so it is good to read the views of someone who knows what they are talking about. I am afaid I wrote my last post in rather a hurry, consequently I managed to mix up my heresies. I meant to refer to Manichaeanism and its later incarnation as practised by the cathars. I may be mistaken but I thought the ideas behind these movements, put simply, was that the body and spirit were in conflict because there were two gods, a good God and a bad one (who we would perhaps refer to as the Devil) and it was the bad god who was responsible for material creation; Thus the world and the body would be seen as intrinsically evil. I would also like to point out that there are a great many women at the grass roots level of the Church but my experience, at least here in England, is that they are mainly in positions which involve arranging flowers and making coffee. Whilst these activities and the like are of course to be valued,they are not exactly positions of power. I am also quite sure that most of the women employed in the Vatican are there doing low level secretarial jobs. How ever many times we as women are told we are equally valued as human beings within the Church it somehow doesnt stop me feeling that we are not.but thats just a subjective view and maybe things are a lot different in the United States. Just a quick final word to ask everyone to continue to pray for me in relation to the other issue mentioned in previous posts.

FATHER JOE

Correction noted, and again, many prayers for your situation, Maria.

Peace

National Catholic Reporter
Issue Date: May 7, 2004

Sister named to high-level Vatican post
Some see appointment as attempt to open doors to women
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR. (Rome)

In a historic breakthrough, a woman has been named to one of the top three positions in a congregation, the most powerful type of Vatican office. The move could defy conventional wisdom under John Paul II that because congregations exercise ecclesiastical power in the name of the pope, their top officials must be clergy.

Vatican-watchers say the appointment could also have broad implications for the role of women in the church, especially taken in tandem with other recent "firsts" -- the appointment of two women to the International Theological Commission and a woman to head a pontifical academy.

On April 24, John Paul II named Salesian Sr. Enrica Rosanna, a 65-year-old Italian, as undersecretary of the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and the Societies of Apostolic Life. The office is commonly known as the "Congregation for Religious," and it has responsibility for the 140,000 religious order priests in the world, 55,000 brothers and 800,000 sisters.

Among other things, Rosanna will now have authority over a staff of 30, including some 15 priests.

Rosanna told NCR April 25 that she hopes to bring "a distinctively feminine way of seeing things" to her work.

Women religious have responded positively to the news.

The Roman curia is composed of three types of offices: congregations, tribunals and councils. Because the congregations exercise what is known as "jurisdiction," meaning the power to issue binding decisions that draw upon the pope's own delegated authority, they have long been regarded as "first among equals" in the Vatican. Each has three superiors: the prefect (a cardinal), a secretary (usually an archbishop), and at least one undersecretary (usually a monsignor).

The previous undersecretary was the signatory on official documents such as indults, releasing religious from solemn vows, a seemingly clear exericise of jurisdiction. Rosanna told NCR April 25, however, that her tasks have not yet been defined.

Noted American canonist Fr. Ladislas Orsy told NCR April 26 that an undersecretary is often not involved in jurisdiction, so Rosanna's appointment does not necessarily mean a reversal of policy. "Psychologically and socially, however, the move is significant and for the better," Orsy said, "because the undersecretary is a major official and the appointment of a lay person, a woman in this case, has no recent precedent and may have an impact that we cannot foresee."

Rosanna's nomination comes on the heels of the March 6 appointments of American Sr. Sara Butler of the Missionary Servants of the Most Blessed Trinity, and German laywoman Barbara Hallensleben to the International Theological Commission, plus the March 9 nomination of Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon as president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. In both cases, it was the first time women have been selected for those roles.

Taken cumulatively, some observers see these nominations as an attempt to reshape the sociology of the Vatican, opening doors to women's participation in roles that do not require ordination.

Rosanna is a professor at both the Auxilium, a pontifical institute on education, and the Claretianum, an institute on consecrated life. John Paul has previously named her an auditor at three Synods of Bishops: on consecrated life in 1994, on Europe in 1999, and on the episcopacy in 2001. She has served as a consultor to the Congregation for Catholic Education and the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and the Societies of Apostolic Life.

MARIA

The post Vatican 2 Church is of course very different to what it was prior to the Council.However, I think I am right in saying that Paul VI totally ignored the majority of theological advisers on the two very crucial issues of Priestly celiibacy and birth control. The two documents concerned with these issues; Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (1967) and Humanae Vitae (1968) placed the teachings of the Church profoundly at odds with the prevailing feelings of a large percentage of loyal Catholics. I would suggest that they also resulted in a loss of credibility on issues of sexual morality in general.

However many intellectual ideas there are around the issues surrounding Priestly celibacy. I have to admit that one of my main objections is, on the face of it,a subjective one. Celibacy seems, in many cases to erect an invisable barrier between the Priest and the often more than fifty percent of his congregation who are female. I and other female friends have noted many times over the years that on occasions when we have needed the urgent pastoral or spiritual help of Parish Priests we have come running into this unseen wall which many ordained men seem to feel the need to build around themselves to protect their chastity. For example,when male parishoners are assailed by some urgent crisis and feel the need of advise of a spiritual nature,they can just knock on the presbytery door and are greeted with an invitation to step right in,have a drink and open their hearts. Unfortunately, I have spoken to many women in similar crisis who have been left standing in drafty halls or if they are really unlucky on doorsteps and been requested to return at a later date when an appropriate guardian i.e the secretary or housekeeper is present. When anyone (male or female) is truly commited to a chaste and celibate life for God they should be mature enough to live out their vocation without erecting either physical or psychological barriaers that do nothing except prevent them from living a truly Christian life of charity and service to all. Celibacy, like any other spiritual discipline can be practised purely as an excercise of human willpower, when this is the case the priest can not reconcile himself to his humanity or serve all his people in a truly Christ like way. By letting go of some of the concern for outward good form and putting himself in the hands of the spirit I would suggest that he can then allow his humanity to show through the persona of the cleric that many men bind there own God given humanity within. One of the arguements often put forward for Priesly celibacy is that a man unencumbered by wife and family can be totally available to his flock. Again in theory this is a great ideal, and many men have through the centuries lived such lives of selfless devotion. However,my own and others experiences of parish priests have often been such that the reality does not live up to the ideal. In the worse cases not being directly responsible to another special individual produces men who are self centered and overly obsessed by their material comforts. I recognise that there are in every parish damaged women who having been helped in some small way by their parish Priest go on to believe him to be the answer to all there problems and can go on to make the mans life very difficult,but I can not help feeling that too many celibate male priests fall into the error of seeing all women as potential seducers. By seeing women in these terms they can not but fail in their duty of Christian care to the women in their congregations and become little more than inapproachable and distant figures of authority. One of the primary solutions to the problems outlined above is a re-assesment of the approach to the education of priests, more female teachers in the seminaries would be a good start. Also, some of the priests I know personally tell me that much of the seminary education was concerned with dogmatic theology and little emphasis was put on helping them in their life of prayer or listening to the spirit, perhaps if this is still the case it might be a good time to look at what is really important in the formation of young men to the priesthood.

Well, I did warn everyone that it was going to be a some what subjective view and if anyone reading the above feels that I have been to harsh I am truly sorry it is not my intention to suggest that all priests are failing their female parishoners, but I am afraid that some are and I am quite sure that this is not because they are bad people, but rather because they are caught up in a system that values purity above compassion.

EUGENIA

Maria, I agree with what you say. Yes, priestly celibacy is, for the most part, something that we object to on a subjective level. And yes, there is a difference between the way women and men paridhioners are treated.

MARIA

I am very glad that you agree with me Eugenia, I have over the years spoken to many women whose feelings I have tried to sumo up in this posting. I do believe strongly that celibacy (or chastity to be more precise) has its place in Gods Church. But I do not believe that the charism of chastity is always given and a true priestly vocation can excist without a parrellel vocation to celibacy. I also can not help feeling that those priests who get involved with relationships with women tend to come out the other end much more mature and compassionate human beings.It seems a great pity to me that these illicit relationships (my own included) instead of being torn apart when they are discovered are not gently encouraged to turn from ones based on physical intimacy to being based on spiritual understanding and support.

ROSANNE

I have been on this list for some years but have never posted before because I was very disappointed that the issues that the list was set up for were never discussed. So I am very grateful to you Maria for starting this discussion and to all the others who have joined in and offered such well considered views. I have to say I am in total agreement with pretty much everything Maria has said and I wish you a holy and happy resolution to your dilemma, a situation which should never have occurred if the Church had recognised that the imposition of obligatory celibacy is cruel and unnecessary.

"Well, I did warn everyone that it was going to be a some what subjective view and if anyone reading the above feels that I have been to harsh I am truly sorry it is not my intention to suggest that all priests are failing their female parishoners, but I am afraid that some are and I am quite sure that this is not because they are bad people,but rather because they are caught up in a system that values purity above compassion."

No, you are not harsh, you are speaking the truth plainly and honestly and there should be more of that! I do think that younger priests are less affected by the things you have talked out than those who were trained before Vatican 2. I was 24 when I fell in love with the first priest who captured my heart back in 1971. He was 20 years older and told me they had been trained never to be alone with a woman and it that were unavoidable to make sure there was always a table between the priest and the woman. I doubt such counsels would be given in this day and age, at least I certainly hope not! I have often been drawn to priests as the kind of man I love is intelligent, gentle and deeply spiritual - a description that would fit many priests and not so many men "in the world".

I could say a lot more but at this time will leave it at this: celibacy is not essential to holiness and should not be a prerequisite for the clergy. Obviously, it may be appropriate for those in religious orders but a secular priest should be free to choose. All the energy he puts into denying his healthy and God given urges for intimacy and partnership with a woman could then be returned to service for the people of God. And here's a new idea - his wife could help in that as well! The former Anglican (Episcopalian) priests who have converted to Rome while married with families do fine - their colleagues must not be denied the same freedom to enjoy the special experience of God that comes in a sanctified Christian marriage.

Love

FATHER JOE

The Majority Report recommended a change in the teaching regarding artificial contraception and its prohibition. However, the Minority Report which became the basis for Humanae Vitae did a better job in respecting tradition, the Church's perennial philosophy regarding personhood, a Christian view of conjugal relations and human life, and past authoritative statements. It is true that many theologians and ethicists thought that there might be a change because of the pill, since it mimicked a woman's hormonal cycles. But, even the Majority report would not have permitted all forms of birth control. Obviously, the Church is not a strict democracy and even a majority of so-called experts may not be right on any given issue. As for the "sensus fidelium" of God's people, it only applies to Catholics who offer religious assent to legitimate authority (even on questions where there is some mutability); who practice their faith regularly and keep the precepts of the Church; and who are in solidarity with the universal Church, both on earth and among the saints who have gone before us. The development and research into natural family planning has also changed the dynamics of this question today where there is a legitimate option for family planning within the Catholic moral framework.

Back in 1967 when Sacerdotalis Caelibatus was released, polls showed that a large "global" majority preferred the retention of priestly celibacy in the Western Church. Even today, the numbers questioned on this issue are largely different between Catholics in the pews on Sunday and those who have defected or are irregular in their practice. While many men left the active priesthood in the 1960's and 70's, the numbers today are fairly low. Vocations are also starting to show a turn around, especially from strongly traditional and religious families.

I discussed the matter of optional celibacy with a well-placed canonist a few years ago and he claimed that even if such became the practice of the Church again, it would not be retroactive. Thus, men who have vowed celibacy would be required to keep their promise. Men who have left the ministry to get married would not be invited back. However, their children and other new candidates would have such a choice. Further, it would follow the Orthodox and not the Anglican model.

Men would have to marry women who share their faith (Catholic) and do so BEFORE ordination to the diaconate.

The spouse would also have to give consent to the ordination and express a willingness to support the priest in his ministry. If she objects, just as with permanent deacons, the men would be released from the program of formation. If their spouse should die, they would NOT be allowed to remarry—the same regulation that governs our permanent deacons.

CAIT

On Oct 26, 2004, at 10:30 PM, Rosanne Parker wrote:

"I have been on this list for some years but have never posted before because I was very disappointed that the issues that the list was set up for were never discussed."

I agree about the issues for which this list was formed never being discussed. KEPHAS was begun for married deacons to discuss their desire for ordination to priesthood! It's rare that is addressed anymore.

" One of the arguements often put forward for Priesly celibacy is that a man unencumbered by wife and family can be totally available to his flock. Again in theory this is a great ideal, and many men have through the centuries lived such lives of selfless devotion."

As an option, this might be as holy as married priesthood, but as a mandate or "ideal" it is a slap in the face to 2000 years of Apostolic Tradition maintained in Orthodoxy and most Roman Catholic Rites other than Latin (or Eastern in the USA). IMO, it's a power and control issue far more than some spiritual ideal which would need no mandate whatsoever. Those Orthodox priests who are called to celibacy need no mandate, so why would Latin Rite priests if it is not simply about control?

FATHER JOE

MARIA: "Unfortunately, I have spoken to many women in similar crisis who have been left standing in drafty halls or if they are really unlucky on doorsteps and been requested to return at a later date when an appropriate guardian i.e. the secretary or housekeeper is present."

Comment:

Seriously, has this been your experience and that of friends? Goodness, I am sorry about that. Are you sure it is not a cultural thing? It has never been my practice to treat people like that. My concern these days is not with women but with children. Given the scandals, priests are required these days to make sure a parent or another adult is nearby when we counsel children. As for adult men and women, it is my practice to treat them both with generosity and respect. I may even be a bit of an old fashioned chauvinist in the deference I give women, who so often constitute the majority of our congregations and volunteers.

I live in a poor one-man parish. I have a part-time secretary who has been out months for medical reasons. There is no other staff. The situation you enumerate would force priests like me to become hermits. That would never do.

Why would guys be so circumspect regarding women?

Not everyone who comes to see a priest is well. I have known priests who were pursued by women or who had charges of solicitation or harassment against them. They were alone, and there were no witnesses to say otherwise. Priests who have been burned or dioceses that have faced lawsuits may have set barriers because of this that some of us would question.

Priests are also men—good, not so good, strong, and weak. Some of these guys do have real problems in sexuality that cause them to be fearful of the slightest temptation. This is not simply a problem of celibate males. Lutheran ministers in the United States are increasingly divorced and remarried. Scandals are sometimes involved. Many were the result of adulterous relationships with parishioners. I know some men who flirt with ever woman they see, even though they are married.

None of this excuses bad manners. But, let me speak from the heart about this. It is important for the celibate priest to have male and female friends. However, speaking frankly, the situation with women always requires diligence, especially when the women are real soul mates. There is no woman as attractive to a priest as the lady who is devout in her prayers and supportive of his ministry. The issue of gay men aside, such a woman represents the ideal that a celibate priest would have sought out had he not been ordained. The question here is not, "what if he falls in love?" No, the real question is "what will he do when he falls in love?" Given time and exposure in ministry, the priest will fall in love; indeed, he may fall in love several times before God calls him home.

What will he do when he falls in love? Sometimes love means embracing, but for the man who lives a vowed life, it also means refraining from embracing. I will not judge men who have fallen in love and have left ministry. My respect is profound for the couples who have lived a chaste life until the laicization and their marriage in the Church. However, I will question any form of self-deception and dishonesty to the woman involved and to the rest of the believing community. A man cannot be a good priest and keep a mistress on the side. If he really loves her then he would not live a lie. It upsets me that men who are called to minister the sacraments and forgive sins would participate in acts, no matter how touching and intimate, that would place themselves and another in serious sin. I am fearful that a few priests are not really good and that they "use" women in a selfish way. But, most men I know are above reproach.

When a priest falls in love—and we all do—the proper response may be distance. This is no insinuation that the woman is bad or a dangerous temptress; it is an acknowledgment of a fallen human nature. The dynamic of love is also involved—love always cries out for unity. Add the ingredient of passion, and there could be an explosive situation.

Regardless as to how one feels about celibate and married priests, the priest in the West today makes a promise of celibacy. He did not have to do this. He could have opted to be a deacon later in life or have chosen another way to work and serve the Church. How can we tell married couples to keep their promises if we as priests do not keep ours?

A priest falls in love with a woman and he places her welfare ahead of his own. He wants her to be happy and holy. He wants her to remain in good standing with the Church. He loves her more than his own life and he would walk through fire for her. He backs away. It is the hardest thing he has ever done. He cries into his pillow at night and loses weight. He is sick at heart but he knows it is for the best. She will move on with her life and maybe marry another. He might even perform the wedding, quickly wiping a tear from his eye that escapes him. His happiness is her happiness. He will always love her. Never a day will pass that he does not pray for her. A piece of his heart will always belong to her. He will baptize her babies, dismissing from his imagination all of the "what ifs". It may also be that he will never see her again. It might be too hard to be her friend and always want more. He becomes a real sign of contradiction and the wounded healer. He joins his experience with the passion of Christ. He is a priest forever.

Well, those are my few thoughts. I wonder if we live in a worldwide society where single, celibate and married people are not as mature and informed as they should be about such things? The fact that so many marriages fail is evidence that there is something wrong in many camps.

Thank you for the opportunity to share a few thoughts. I suspect that a number of the people who come to this site (spammers excluded) seek not only answers but support and consolation. Please know that while you may not agree with much that I say, you have my prayers and respect.

Even the Orthodox churches make a clear distinction between celibate and married priests.

Only celibate priests are eligible to be bishops.

There is no denying that the question is complex. The history gives us a mixture of spiritual and temporal arguments. In the West, several come to mind:
The success and high caliber of men in monastic circles.Imitating Jesus the High Priest of Christianity. The preference given by St. Paul to celibacy. Special sign of contradiction and sign of the kingdom to come. Single-hearted devotion to ministry and love of God. Tradition of periodic abstinence in Jewish priesthood. Protected church properties from claims of heirs. Scandal of broken marriages eliminated. Men could be reassigned anywhere without family concerns. Men belong wholly to the Church. Discouraged many undisciplined candidates. Celibacy did not preserve the situation from abuse. Scandal is not a new matter. However, I still see celibacy as a gift that God will give a man who really wants to be a priest in the West. At least that ahs been my experience. This does not mean that it is easy or that the sacrifices are not real.

In another post you said this site was established to discuss the ordination to priesthood of married deacons.

Some of us have thought for awhile that men who have proven themselves, and who are mature in years, might be good candidates to move from the diaconate to the priesthood. The permanent deacon program in my diocese is a five year program and many of the men are more traditional in thinking than a majority of the priests.

The question of marriage aside, we have had a number of single and widowed deacons who have advanced to the priesthood. One guy (again a widower) had his five children in the front row of the cathedral when he was ordained a priest. Another man had never married but took care of his mother until she died. A deacon for many years, he has proven an outstanding priest.

Peace