tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post7875432725682163374..comments2024-03-28T09:54:55.115-05:00Comments on Dad29: Archdiocese of Milwaukee Misrepresents on Celibacy?Dad29http://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-60019425339842963572008-07-29T10:12:00.000-05:002008-07-29T10:12:00.000-05:00"By putting the Pope's name on the quote, he raise..."By putting the Pope's name on the quote, he raised the stakes, so to speak. To the common man, words of the Pope have far more authority than those of the Council."<BR/><BR/>Is that common man John Catholic of Erie, PA?<BR/><BR/>"By the way, are you denying that he mis-quoted the Pope?"<BR/><BR/>You can always email our Archbishop and see what he says. Given what the council said, and where he put the quotation marks, I wouldn't use that characterization.Terrence Berreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02867275234105879358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-17771740071814867792008-07-28T19:55:00.000-05:002008-07-28T19:55:00.000-05:00But he did not. He mis-quoted Paul VI. By puttin...But he did not. He mis-quoted Paul VI. By putting the Pope's name on the quote, he raised the stakes, so to speak. To the common man, words of the Pope have far more authority than those of the Council.<BR/><BR/>"Incontinence" does not necessarily connote sin; but my mention of it was not necessary. In either case, the first two sentences are accurate.<BR/><BR/>By the way, are you denying that he mis-quoted the Pope?Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-7401664183047261262008-07-28T19:34:00.000-05:002008-07-28T19:34:00.000-05:00If Archbishop Dolan could have said what the counc...If Archbishop Dolan could have said what the council said, then it would be reasonable for him to, in fact or in effect, interpret what Pope Paul VI said to have the same significance in this context.<BR/><BR/>"The sacrament of Orders is NOT obviated by subsequent incontinence--which is the meaning of VatII's statement AND that of Paul VI. One remains an ordained priest despite sin."<BR/><BR/>That would make sense if the effect of incontinence or sin on prior ordination was a bigger issue at that time than the issue of ordaining married men. I don't recall the former being an issue at all, while the latter certainly was, and is.Terrence Berreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02867275234105879358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-88615401286176904132008-07-28T18:54:00.000-05:002008-07-28T18:54:00.000-05:00Just for fun, start here:http://www.newadvent.org/...Just for fun, start here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm (Catholic Encyclopedia)<BR/><BR/>This edition of the C.E. predates Conchini's work (it approves Funk's, e.g., which was refuted by Conchini/Stickler.<BR/><BR/>To answer your question: no, he would not be mistaken.<BR/><BR/>However, I wrote that the Archbishop mis-quoted Paul VI. Do you dispute that?<BR/><BR/>As to the larger question, reading the C.E. article will provide both background and order of thinking.<BR/><BR/>The sacrament of Orders is NOT obviated by subsequent in-continence--which is the meaning of VatII's statement AND that of Paul VI. One remains an ordained priest despite sin. As you know, even "de-frocking" does not obviate the character--a "defrocked" priest retains the power to forgive sins <I>in extremis.</I><BR/><BR/>The discipline of continence (not the fact of virginity) was requested (following the teaching of the Apostles) from the earliest times. But the "lex" followed later--around the late 300's. That did not "change" the discipline, which was already in place, but not observed uniformly. Even after the legislation, there was disobedience, to a greater or lesser degree until roughly the papacy of Gregory VII.<BR/><BR/>The Abp. could have better formulated the "catechesis" by accurately quoting Paul VI. Paul's formulation establishes the ground, and there is no good reason to skip over that statement. In fact, it is foundational to the VatII statement as well.<BR/><BR/>He could then quote VatII's statement that "celibacy was imposed by (written) law on all who were to be promoted to holy Orders. This sacred Council approves and confirms this legislation <B>so far as it concerns those destined for the priesthood</B>..." (also Para 16) and he could underline the sequence implicit--specifically, that one is 'destined' if he is not married, under the law of the Church. It is noteworthy and should be mentioned that matrimony was NEVER administered after Ordination, although Ordination may have been administered after matrimony. (Except in cases of "release from vows"--again, exceptions.) <BR/><BR/>He could then state, accurately, that the sacramental character of Orders is indelible even if celibacy is not observed--and in THAT sense, "celibacy is not required by the nature of priesthood...."<BR/><BR/>Finally, by virtue of <B>an exception to the rule</B>, granted by JPII, certain men are allowed to maintain marital life AND be ordained Roman Catholic priests; and that this <B>exception</B> is the OTHER sense in which 'celibacy is not required...'<BR/><BR/>It all begins with an accurate quotation.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-22428336513137531182008-07-28T17:52:00.000-05:002008-07-28T17:52:00.000-05:00Are you contending that even if Archbishop Dolan h...Are you contending that even if Archbishop Dolan had instead said "Although it is highly valued, the Second Vatican Council states that celibacy 'is not, of course, required by the nature of the priesthood itself'"? he would be mistaken?Terrence Berreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02867275234105879358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-16569369288866520422008-07-28T17:02:00.000-05:002008-07-28T17:02:00.000-05:00The Archbishop's statement clearly MISQUOTED Paul ...The Archbishop's statement clearly MISQUOTED Paul VI's statement of Para. 17. <BR/><BR/>I think you are aware of the differences between virginity, celibacy, and continence.<BR/><BR/>Paul VI had his reasons for using the term "virginity." AND he had his reasons for inserting the sentence that followed: "...But at the same time the Council did not hesitate to confirm solemnly the ancient, sacred and providential present law of priestly celibacy."<BR/><BR/>"Perfect AND perpetual continence" can easily be interpreted as "virginity." Paul's point was precisely that "virginity" is not required.<BR/><BR/>And with his phraseology, Paul VI did not deny the requirement of celibacy (which is NOT the same as "perfect and perpetual continence.") In fact, he specifically affirms celibacy.<BR/><BR/>Your argument would forget the possibility of sin. Thus, while 'virginity' is not required, "celibacy", after Ordination, IS, with few exceptions, per JPII. Sin happens, which does not erase the sacramental character of Ordination. Recall that Ordination's prerequisites are only "a baptized male." Thus, the Church recognized the possibility of sin, without prejudice to the ideal. <BR/><BR/>The exception does not obviate the rule. You would seem to argue that the exception DOES obviate the rule, which is not a valid interpretation.<BR/><BR/>VatII's teaching (not dogmatic, remember) was pre-Conchini's research and his book. So they used what was known at the time.<BR/><BR/>Had the Abp. quoted Paul VI correctly, the catechesis would be founded on a perfectly acceptable premise. As it is, he does not "begin at the beginning," which makes catechesis all the more difficult.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-32212412400411419132008-07-28T15:59:00.000-05:002008-07-28T15:59:00.000-05:00You said there should be a correction to Archbisho...You said there should be a correction to Archbishop Dolan's "Although it is highly valued, Pope Paul VI states that celibacy 'is not, of course, required by the nature of the priesthood itself."<BR/><BR/>From what was said above, do I understand you to agree this could be corrected to say "Although it is highly valued, the Second Vatican Council states that celibacy 'is not, of course, required by the nature of the priesthood itself.'"Terrence Berreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02867275234105879358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-42668263388063167492008-07-28T15:09:00.000-05:002008-07-28T15:09:00.000-05:00The fact that it "spread" does not deny nor deroga...The fact that it "spread" does not deny nor derogate the practice of celibacy which (per the research and Paul VI) was 'widespread' by the year 200 (or before.) Nor does it change the understanding that celibacy was (and remains) the ideal, as was mentioned by many in the linked research paper and by Paul VI. All that it means is that it "spread." <BR/><BR/>In other words, "So what"? Reductionism is not what the Church is all about. (Can you obtain heaven if you eat sausage on Fridays?)<BR/><BR/>There is an analogy in church music. The ideal, as expressed by Pius X (and preceding Popes, and Vatican II) is Chant and polyphony. Chant "spread" throughout the Church early on, and has spread and receded over the years since then.<BR/><BR/>Didn't change the ideal a whit. And as the research mentions, "[f]or St Jerome (347-419) continence is above all a matter of holiness. In his Letter to Pammachius he justifies continence on the authority of Scripture and the actual witness of priestly chastity. <B>This latter is not offered as an ideal to be pursued but as a fact admitted by all</B>. Chastity, he claims, is also the rule for selection of clerics: bishops, priests and deacons are all chosen from one of the following: virgins (that is single men), widowers, or married men who, after ordination, will observe perfect continence." <BR/><BR/>I do not deny that some early priests were married (nor does the research.) However, it is clear that celibacy was expected as a discipline for Orders (see, e.g., the current requirement that an ordained lay Deacon secure written permission from his wife.) This 'permission' is a vestige of the old requirement.<BR/><BR/>"Perfect and perpetual continence" is not 'demanded by the nature' of the priesthood because, were THAT to be the case, many, many priests would have been de-frocked. But nature and the ideal are different. The Church points to the ideal, celibacy, as did St. Jerome (above.)<BR/><BR/>But since continence/celibacy is not 'demanded by the nature...', JPII created exceptions. I suspect that he considered justice towards the (female) spouses as part of the decision-making process.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-34509894177061809552008-07-28T13:56:00.000-05:002008-07-28T13:56:00.000-05:00"Subsequent research (the link in the post) tends ..."Subsequent research (the link in the post) tends to demonstrate that celibacy was required by oral Tradition, and that the practice was modeled on Christ. ...<BR/><BR/>"It was 'voluntary' in the sense that being a priest is 'voluntary.'"<BR/><BR/>That doesn't square with Pope Paul calling it a "practice" that "spread" through the Church. <BR/><BR/>Nor does it square with the Second Vatican Council's Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests' paragraph 16, which says "Perfect and perpetual continence ... is not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood, as is apparent from the practice of the early Church and from the traditions of the Eastern Churches...."Terrence Berreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02867275234105879358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-63583845100903568572008-07-28T10:13:00.000-05:002008-07-28T10:13:00.000-05:00Subsequent research (the link in the post) tends t...Subsequent research (the link in the post) tends to demonstrate that celibacy was required by oral Tradition, and that the practice was modeled on Christ. Fr Conchini's book was published early in the reign of JPII.<BR/><BR/>It was "voluntary" in the sense that being a priest is "voluntary." You don't have to be a priest--but when you accept that vocation, you have to be celibate, according to the Conchini analysis and the documentation he dug up.<BR/><BR/>Exceptions CAN be made. JPII offered one, and there are others. But it is an indult, not the rule.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, the Archbishop's letter was inaccurate.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-58112710509076442042008-07-28T10:02:00.000-05:002008-07-28T10:02:00.000-05:00Pertinacious Papist said "the priesthood has alway...Pertinacious Papist said "the priesthood has always been predicated upon the condition of celibacy". <BR/><BR/>"Always" and "predicated" are not what Pope Paul VI's Encyclical indicates, at paragraph 35. "In Christian antiquity the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers testify to the spread through the East and the West of the voluntary practice of celibacy by sacred ministers".Terrence Berreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02867275234105879358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-91745823604164797772008-07-28T08:43:00.000-05:002008-07-28T08:43:00.000-05:00Terry, I object, strenuously, to the substitution ...Terry, I object, strenuously, to the substitution of the word "celibacy" for "virginity."<BR/><BR/>That substitution significantly alters the meaning of Paul VI (and VatII's) statement on the matter.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-30118207765702115662008-07-28T07:56:00.000-05:002008-07-28T07:56:00.000-05:00Dad29,The problem is not canonical, as long as the...Dad29,<BR/><BR/>The problem is not canonical, as long as the proper dispensations have been made. Even where this is the case, however, the problem is two-fold: (a) the priesthood has always been predicated upon the condition of celibacy, understood with a profundity that escapes most of us today; and (b) even where a married priesthood is permitted, as in the Eastern rites, it is predicated upon a condition of celibacy in a sense that escapes most of us today -- a day in which the emphasis on celibacy is the more needed because of our uncontrolled inclination to self-indulgence.Pertinacious Papisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03213911570586726075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-70841091213060284462008-07-28T07:09:00.000-05:002008-07-28T07:09:00.000-05:00If, as you say, "there is no licit objection to th...If, as you say, "there is no licit objection to the situation of the priest who is the subject of Abp. Dolan's letter", then to what are you objecting?Terrence Berreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02867275234105879358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-3520294992530909532008-07-28T06:49:00.000-05:002008-07-28T06:49:00.000-05:00al mentioned that St. Peter was married. The usual...al mentioned that St. Peter was married. The usual verse that supports this is the Gospel story of the healing of Peter's mother-in-law. <BR/><I>And immediately going out of the synagogue they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. And Simon's wife's mother lay in a fit of a fever: and forthwith they tell him of her.<BR/>And coming to her, he lifted her up, taking her by the hand; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them. <B>Mark 1:29-31</B></I><BR/>Funny that Simon's (i.e., Peter's) wife doesn't minister unto them. Peter might well have been a widower by then, and was caring for his mother-in-law. <BR/>The other passage that is often used to support Peter's marriage is 1 Corinthians 9:5:<BR/><I>Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?</I><BR/>But this does not specifically say wife. This could well be the mother-in-law, who helped Peter much as Susanna, Mary Magdalene et al helped Jesus and the Twelve during Christ's earthly ministry.Steve Cavanaughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021781365974293126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-56444402472167127342008-07-27T10:04:00.000-05:002008-07-27T10:04:00.000-05:00Clearly, the anons are so certain of their positio...Clearly, the anons are so certain of their position they're willing to put their name behind it.<BR/><BR/>"Alleviating" a host of issues has nothing to do with it. The Church's teaching is clear - sex is reserved for the sacrament of marriage, between a man and a woman, and open to the possibility of life.<BR/><BR/>No gay marriage. No birth control. No co-habitation. I don't think there's anything there that needs to be alleviated.<BR/><BR/>It's the culture that's got the issues, not us.Amyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05913350782739004678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-44319311557481635412008-07-27T00:55:00.000-05:002008-07-27T00:55:00.000-05:00PS The best arguement I ever heard for celebacy w...PS The best arguement I ever heard for celebacy was given by a happily married Lutheran ministerAlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07721319432213055605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-63460307177264605022008-07-27T00:54:00.000-05:002008-07-27T00:54:00.000-05:00Just a reminder, the 1st known priest/bishop to be...Just a reminder, the 1st known priest/bishop to be celebate was the Apostle Paul. & even though Peter was married, we don't know how many, if any, of the others were. So, yes celebacy as an accepted norm does go back to the start.Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07721319432213055605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-80472124500482950672008-07-26T21:15:00.000-05:002008-07-26T21:15:00.000-05:00Yes, so long as they do not re-marry.In fact, ther...Yes, so long as they do not re-marry.<BR/><BR/>In fact, there's a seminary in this area (Sacred Heart) which specializes in "late vocations." A goodly percentage of them are widowers.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-4844632710965998062008-07-26T21:06:00.000-05:002008-07-26T21:06:00.000-05:00Year one. :)What's the rule on widowers? Are they...Year one. :)<BR/><BR/>What's the rule on widowers? Are they able to be ordained?Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-7883416127379462962008-07-26T20:54:00.000-05:002008-07-26T20:54:00.000-05:00Anon 6:22----maybe. If that's the case, then the ...Anon 6:22----maybe. If that's the case, then the Rector and Archbishop will have to live with their decisions. And they will have to answer to very strict scrutiny.<BR/><BR/>Anony 7:18---actually, the "celibacy thing" is quite a bit older than "medieval."<BR/><BR/>It started right around the year Zero.<BR/><BR/>You are correct that well-grounded priests will alleviate a host of issues. But they don't have to be married to be well-grounded.<BR/><BR/>Mature would be sufficient.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-29455462162838326402008-07-26T19:18:00.000-05:002008-07-26T19:18:00.000-05:00The whole celibacy thing is so medieval. I totally...The whole celibacy thing is so medieval. I totally agree with the other anon...well grounded priests in the pulpit will alleviate a host of issues related to sexuality that the Church continues to grapple with, much to its detriment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-1980150095596188402008-07-26T18:22:00.000-05:002008-07-26T18:22:00.000-05:00Check out your nearest seminary. A very high perc...Check out your nearest seminary. A very high percentage of the priests being turned out are gay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-14183158864489963582008-07-26T15:07:00.000-05:002008-07-26T15:07:00.000-05:00Umnnnhhhh...the priests we have are the priests we...Umnnnhhhh...the priests we have are the priests we have. Certainly, homosexuals are not supposed to graduate from the Seminary, much less be ordained.<BR/><BR/>But married priests do not represent the solution.<BR/><BR/>Better vocations directors, seminary rectors, and Bishops are the keys.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-89490197516055828452008-07-26T13:23:00.000-05:002008-07-26T13:23:00.000-05:00Hey, Daddy Zero -- This is a step in the right dir...Hey, Daddy Zero -- This is a step in the right direction for the Catholic Church. When you get rid of the gay priests, you get heterosexuals in the pulpit. That's not what you have today, as you know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com