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!