I don't understand why Catholic Church authorities still
hang onto the requirement of celibacy as a precondition
for ordination.

Nowadays the requirements of celibacy is seen for what it is:
a requirement of church law that could be changed.

But despite the massive shortage of priests - the Church refuses
to change this requirement.

So while it is clear to the vast majority of sensible Catholics
that the Church must change its policy on celibacy, Church
authorities still resist the patently obvious.

Why?

Your thoughts please.

Good question Foxy, growing up it was thought this Church was the holiest one, but recent dreadful revelations prove that wrong, surely sex is a basic for humans and putting groups together that do not think so has in part put the wrong people in that Church?

Foxy,

I think that the requirement for celibacy for priests is a throwback to the church's roots where papal decrees are deemed to be the word of god and cannot be challenged. Changing something as fundamental as this would be tantamount to admitting that they were wrong for centuries.

Personally, I believe that this has been the Achilles heel of the Church, and has excluded many devoted and competent (straight) men with predictable results.

I also doubt that this will change anytime soon.

Dear Belly and Shadow Minister,

I'm not a theologian - but I'm rather sure that celibacy
is a church law that could be changed today. The shortage
of clergy - and the creation of a much bigger pool of
candidates for the episcopate - could be solved today.
Is there a theological or doctrinal reason why the Church
cannot ordain suitably qualified married men? Frankly I
don't know. I tend to think this is merely a church law
that could be changed. If some countries want to maintain
celibacy - well, that's their business. But I feel that
for some countries to have married clergy would do no
harm to the universal Church.

Foxy,

I never claimed that the canon law can't be changed. I believe not only that it can, but it should be changed. However, I believe that for the reasons I have given above, that it won't.

The Catholic Church stands now at the brink of its death, it is my view it must change this law, right now my view swill hurt but this Pope, in my honest view, should face the same charges his Australian servant has just been found guilty of, without massive change this Church is dead.

Shadow Minister,

You're probably right.

I've been doing some research and Church history provides
a context here. The law was universally imposed on the
Western Church in the second half of the 11th and the
first part of the 12th centuries. Even the apostles
were married and all three synoptic gospels speak of Saint
Peter's mother-in-law, so the first pope must have had a
wife (Matthew 8:14-15; Mark 1:30-31; Luke 4:38-39). During
the first millennium the vast majority of clergy and bishops
were married, as were many of the popes and, despite the attempts
of some reformist local councils to impose celibacy, clerical
marriage was the recognised norm. It has never been universally
imposed in the eastern Orthodox Church and there are a number
of eastern-rite Catholic Churches in union with Rome which have
always had married priests.

What we have inherited from the medieval world is the clerical
system the notion that priests are somehow sacred , separate
from and superior to "ordinary" Catholics.
The whole issue is not about celibacy. It's about authority,
leadership, and power.

Foxy,

The Orthodox church has no problem with married priests. Their only requirement for celibacy is if one wants senior positions in the church such as Bishop or higher which are very few, and which tend to have a less direct connection with the community.

Shadow Minister,

The Catholic Church's authorities still hang onto the
requirement of celibacy as a precondition for ordination.
This requirement was imposed on the clergy of the
western church in the 11th century for reasons that make
absolutely no sense today. Even then it apparently had
nothing to do with improving the spiritual or moral life
of priests. Celibacy apparently was used in the 11th century
as a way of maintaining a primitive form of ritual purity,
and of preventing the alienation of church property by laity
and stopping priest-fathers from passing on their parishes to
their priest-sons. Nowadays the requirement of celibacy is
seen for what it is: a requirement of church law that could
be changed today.

But despite the massive shortage of priests and the fact that
many Australian bishops would probably ordain properly trained
married men immediately, they are hamstrung by popes and Roman
authorities who stolidly refuse to face up to the problem of the
shortage of clergy. In the process Catholicism, according to
former priest Paul Collins, is in danger of losing aspects of
its essential core - that is worship, Mass, and the Sacraments,
the heart of the church, and a defining element of what it
means to be Catholic.

cont'd ...

One explanation for the Church's policy on celibacy and
why Church authorities resist any changes was explained
by experienced church lawyer and former Sydney Auxiliary
Bishop, Geoffrey Robinson who stated that:

"I believe that the Catholic church is in a prison...
It constructed the prison for itself, locked itself in and
threw away the key. That prison is the prison of not being
able to be wrong ... Far too often the Catholic church
believed that it had such a level of divine guidance that
it did not need the right to be wrong ... even when clear
evidence emerges that earlier decisions were conditioned by
their own time and that the arguments for them are not as
strong as they were once thought to be."

This imprisonment in the past has been reinforced by the
doctrine of infallibility, which also conveys a sense that
the church can never be wrong.

It is precisely this that the church needs to confront -
especially today - with the issues of the seal of the
confessional and of child abuse.

Foxy,

I don't disagree with you at all. However, for the purists, the Catholic church is the only one that hasn't changed their teachings with the vagaries of opinions of the times, and with a large portion of their followers in countries for whom abortion, homosexuality etc are not accepted this is a huge plus.

Celibacy was only ever practised by a handful of priests & I'd imagine the same would apply to Nuns.
I recall when I was a kid when they apparently found tunnels leading from the priests' quarters to the Nuns in on old fortress in Europe. Rumour had it that many skeletons of babies were discovered in secret caves.

Strange doctrine considering apostle Peter was married and Mary had children by natural means after Jesus was born.

Church history provides a context here as has been
stated previously. During the first millennium the
vast majority of clergy and bishops were married, as
were many of the popes. The law of celibacy was
universally imposed on the Western church only in the
second half of the 11th and the first part of the
12th centuries. Even the apostles were married and so
was Saint Peter - the first Pope.

Today, the inability of the leadership of the church
to come to grips with a fast-changing society is
resulting in the collapse in the religious practice of
Catholics across all age ranges but particularly among
people from the youngest groups. This is vividly shown
by the statistics of Sunday Mass attendance over the
last decade and a half.

Robinson is right. The Catholic Church is in a prison of its own making and would look completely hypocritical if it changed. The way it fights back is by tempting all the superficial parents who want a cheap 'private' education for their kids over to their dark side. The brainwashing of children is the only way any organised religion survives, adults are less likely to believe the supernatural claptrap. They know these kids and their families pretend to be Catholic just to get in to their schools but are so desperate for bums on pews, they take them anyway. In return, the kids get compulsory religion until year 12. Because that's what we want our young people spending classroom time on in the 21st century!

The Catholic Church is also in demise because of how it treats women. You talk about celibacy, I ask what about female leadership? Churches need to reflect the society they work for otherwise they risk extinction. The Catholic Church has instead created misery and poverty for third world women in its shaming of contraception use. It really is the most abominable organisation, corrupt for centuries with deviant Popes, Bishops and priests alike, underhanded methods to get access to vulnerable third world populations, using its money and power to influence the politics of poor countries, shaming Aids afflicted Africans from using contraception (instead encouraging celibacy - ha! The hypocrisy) . The list of their crimes is long. No wonder so many of the Nuns were also responsible for brutality, being the dirt on the shoes of the men of the church.

The Catholic Church is just a non-progressive, irrelevant waste of space that needs to disappear as soon as possible. The human race has more important things to focus on than keeping an organisation of be-robed, backward men in a comfortable lifestyle.

Not all Roman Catholic priests are obliged to practice celibacy. Exceptions have been made for married Anglican priests who defected to the Catholic church. IIRC many defected when the Anglican church began ordaining women.

Dear FP,

Former priest Paul Collins would agree with most
of what you've posted. He wrote in his book, "Believers:
Does Australian Catholicism Have a Future?" in 2008
that:

"An example of the current church leadership in Australia...
To me the sum of the actions of Cardinal Pell are the antithesis
of Jesus. I am thinking of his treatment of gays. I am sure
that Jesus would have welcomed them into his company. As I see
it Pell was acting at the behest of the Vatican and is not
supported by the majority of Australian Catholics. Another example
was the vision of John Paul II refusing a priest (Father Fernando
Cardenal) in Nicaragua his blessing because he espoused Liberation
Theology. The change in the Pope's demeanour when he recognised
the priest was stark. He immediately went from the smiling, waving
celebrity, to the stern, lecturing autocrat. Well, to me those
guys in Latin America are the real Christians doing the hard
yards among the poor. The church is not God's church, it is the
church of ambitious and ruthless men."

Dear Aidan,

Many Catholics see an inconsistency and a lot of scandal in the
fact that Catholicism has accepted covert married clergy into
its ministry particularly from the Anglican and Lutheran
churches in Germany, England, the USA, and Canada.ordaining
them after only a cursory priestly, spiritual and theological
formation while, at the same time refusing to accept well-trained
theologically formed ministerially experienced Catholic priests
who have left the active ministry usually, but not always to
marry. It is also particularly galling when convert clergy
from other churches indulge in commentary on celibacy.

It looks like this discussion is not going to attract
too many new contributions so I'd like to Thank
everyone who's contributed to it. I feel that the
reality is that the role of priests increasingly
has to be seen more broadly within the context of
the whole ministry of the church. Short term solutions
such as the importation of foreign-born clergy
whether they are culturally sensitive or not, is simply
not the solution. The only real answer is facing up to
the question of the theology of ordained ministry and
asking - who can be ordained? The shortage of clergy -
and the creation of a much bigger pool of candidates
could be solved today. Because as far as I know there
seems to be no theological or doctrinal reason why the
church cannot ordain -
suitably qualified married men. It has nothing to do with
basic belief it's merely a church law that can be changed
today.

My thoughts must come with a warning, I no longer think any God ever lived and feel quite sheepish about the younger me who did,too think/know, in my view while much good can be found in believers much harm comes from any faith, it is my view the Catholic Church is dying, it has not handled the pedophilia thing well at all, the Pope in fact should face the same charges as his South Australian Bishop, ending what can only be seen as a reason some came in to the service of this Church ,celibacy, would have shown the Church was willing to change, good thread Foxy

Dear Belly,

I have a deep and personal belief. However I don't
want to convert anybody or preach to anybody.

Does the Catholic Church have a future? - I don't
know. Speaking to my Catholic friends - many of them
increasingly find it hard to relate to images of God
in heaven who watches over us, distant and separate,
an all-powerful being whose arbitrary decisions are
incomprehensible.

What the church needs is genuine leadership and a
willingness to confront both the difficulties and the
opportunities that the church faces. Whether it will
be able to do that - only time will tell. Catholicism
does have a remarkable staying power and I suspect that
it's survived this long because of its ability to adapt
and change. Whether it continues to do that we shall
have to wait and see.

Some good history and good points. Thanks for bringing this topic up Foxy.

Dear NNS,

Thank You for your kind words.

I'm no Pollyanna about the Church - but it is
embedded in my identity, which means that I
know all too well where it falls short. However
I personally can't imagine my life without it.
There are serious challenges facing the Catholic
church. Obviously the aging of priests, the
apparent lack of new candidates, the resistance to
drawing back married ordained men, and dealing
with loss of trust regarding the clergy - all
these devastating facts could amount to a
perfect storm on a pretty-close horizon. Yet
inducing hopelessness is not my aim - personally I am
optimistic that things will work out in the end.

Dear Foxy,

«as far as I know there seems to be no theological or doctrinal reason why the church cannot ordain - suitably qualified married men.»

There may or may not be theological/doctrinal reasons (I am not that familiar with the theology/doctrine of the Catholic church), but I can see one GOOD reason: so that clergy provides a personal example of celibacy. You wrote so yourself: "What the church needs is genuine leadership".

Celibacy is a high ideal, well beyond where most of us currently are, so it is difficult to find enough candidates who are, or willing to be, TRULY celibate.

The church's mistake was in preferring quantity over quality. It must now become smaller, but purer!

Yuyutsu,
Celibacy isn't a high ideal because it's far from ideal.
A happy and faithful marriage is the ideal. Celibacy is at best a poor second.

Dear Aidan,

The context of this discussion is the church.

While others may have different ideals, the purpose of the church is to help people to reach God. While this discussion covers the Catholic church's numerous failures, this is still its stated ideal.

In this context, worldly pleasures are a distraction: reaching God requires full concentration and devotion of one's time and energy, so indulging in pleasures diverts one's time and energy away from God. If children result, then even more time and energy is required to feed and cloth them, etc., so practically none remains for God.

Nevertheless, a happy and faithful marriage is not inconsistent with celibacy, so long as this marriage is not consummated. It is quite possible for a man and a woman to share their life and support each other on the spiritual path, yet remain celibate. A perfect example are Shri Ramakrishna (1836-1886) and his wife, Sarada Devi (1853-1920). This is what he had to say to those already married:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NLmeYC-bWI

To Foxy. I get what you mean. I'm not Catholic, but I'm Christian, and see where things have fallen short and then do the same thing a while later. My figuring is that the Catholic Church, like Christian groups as a whole, will survive this. If I remember it correctly, Jesus said the gates of hell will fight against Jesus's kingdom, (current, not the future hopes of a kingdom promise fufilled), but that the church will not not fall. Take heart in that. God promised the same thing that Israel will always be His people, and though they've lost their country and now have it back, throughout history Jewish heritage never died off. I think the same promise is there among the churches of the world. Though I'm sure they can all be disciplined, like Israel was in the Old Testiment, I don't think they will die off.

Just my reasoning and encouragement that the Catholic Church will survive this.

Thank You so much to everyone who has continued this
conversation. I am grateful for all of your opinions.

Personally I am optimistic that Catholicism will
survive. If you've been around for thousands of years
surely you will have learned a few things. That doesn't
mean that the church will be perfect or that parts of it
won't wither and die, or that it won't make mistakes.
Some things will have to change - and hopefully they will
with more commitment and genuine leadership and a willingness
to confront both the difficulties and opportunities that
the church faces.

Again, Thank You for all your comments.
They are deeply appreciated.

Yuyutsu,
If we try to reach God by our own efforts, it would indeed take all our time and energy. Even so, what you see as distractions are more accurately seen as a core part of God's purpose for us. Parenting in particular is the closest we can experience to giving love in the way God gives us love. And God certainly doesn't want our ives to be devoid of pleasure.

Fortunately we don't have to try to reach God by our own efforts, for God reaches out to us.

Dear Aidan,

We cannot reach God by our own efforts, but we can turn towards Him and remove those obstacles that we placed ourselves on the way to Him. The more addicted we are to keeping those obstacles, the more difficult it is to get rid of them, but the more we love God, the easier it is to discard them. Also by loving others, we forgive ourselves and allow ourselves to remove those obstacles that we placed out of guilt.

We should not confuse our own desires with God's purpose: pleasures can happen by God's will and that is fine (pain too), but it is the desire for pleasure (and for avoiding pain) which is a problem, rather than pleasure itself - and that desire is ours alone, we alone are responsible and must not blame God for it. So long as we seek pleasures - the pleasures of the flesh and the pleasures of the mind, God will not stop us, yet those pleasures compared with the eternal bliss of uniting with God, are like the light of a firefly compared with the light of the sun.

If we have children then parenting is a duty. While living we have many duties which we should carry out - and we should do so lovingly. By directing this love to God and fulfilling our duties without expectations, we can remove those obstacles that we placed on the path. The rest will occur by God's grace alone.