Precis: “The Pros and Cons of Clerical Celibacy”
Since its inception Christianity has associated continence with position. As the cultic priesthood took hold in the 4th Century, continence applied especially to the hierarchy. With the Gregorian Reforms of the 11th Century and completed in the 15th came mandatory celibacy for priests. The reasons for this discipline have been varied; few valid reasons remain today, especially since only half of the clergy actually practice celibacy. Reforms suggested by Paul VI forty years ago have done little to enforce the practice of, and ease the burden of, clerical celibacy. We can only conclude that mandatory celibacy for diocesan priests must be made optional.
October 23, 2007 at 3:31 pm |
What is your source for saying that “only half of the clergy actually practice celibacy”? If this can be “proven,” it would raise significant questions of scandal as well as option. Church history seems to indicate that change comes from the top down and that when the top is threatened with irrefutable facts, it is reactionary rather than conciliatory. Notice that Benedict XVI et alli are more concerned with shoring up the hierarchy when it is conciliatory, e.g. Bishop Lefevre and company and the reintroduction of the Latin Mass. Only the threat of annihilation brings about papal concordats. There seems to be no possibility of any internal threat from any cardinal, bishop, priest or lay group: this would be necessary because celibacy is an internal issue. The Catholic community is growing in numbers worldwide; even in communist China, the Pope is a “rock star.” The American laity and lower clergy will continue to pay, pray and obey despite the scandals of the hierarchy.There is no outcry that the Vatican needs to concern itself. No hope that the existing papal electors will select another John XXIII; take a look at the most recent nominees. I cannot recommend concerned Catholics to put their aspirations on hold until the next council. You may recall that the doctrine of infallibility of Vatican I was suppose to negate the necessity of any more councils. Vatican II will be another Chalcedon. No need to be bitter; will only hurt. I recommend the writings of the theologians censored by the Holy Office; they contain the present Galileo material…you can live in the 16th century or in the 21st…let him who has ears to hear, hear…