Here is an excellent commentary on Henry Karlson's article on Paphnutius below from @peterdavids. Sounds like he is an Ordinariate priest with Eastern Rite faculties. Wow! Talk about catholicity.
I highlighted the part that caught my eye the most. As usual, like most Ordinariate priests, of course, he will not disparage the Latin celibacy norm. He will not bite the hand that feeds him, so to speak, which is different when a baptized and confirmed Latin Rite Catholic reflects on mandated celibacy as the modern norm.
I hate to phrase it like this, but if those who insist on celibacy-continence for married deacons and married priests where they "have to" refrain from conjugal rights with their wives, then Father's analysis applies: "Unification with the Orthodox as a whole would be a lost cause" and attracting Anglican/Episcopalian priests would also be "problematic" and thus not draw Anglicans, Episcopalians et al. to the Ordinariate and home to the Catholic Church. The Ontologicalists are those who say, "Well, married priests, okay, but they *have to* be continent." To insist on celibacy-continence as essential or ontological to the priesthood and diaconate is like another embarrassing Ed Peters debacle after 2005 that married Latin rite permanent deacons had to endure. Well, that was short-lived, from 2005 to at least the 2009 Ordinariate creation where celibacy-continence was not expected of converts to the Catholic priesthood. No one, no one among the married Anglican/Episcopalian clergy, among the married Orthodox clergy, among the married Latin Rite clergy (i.e., permanent deacons) would in their right mind want to embrace continence of their own choosing which is just another disingenuous, backdoor sneaking in of celibacy for married clergy as ontological and then calling it apostolic tradition after making a "bit of a stretch" argument which only goes back to Pope Siricius in 385 A.D.
If God does will Viri Probati married priests to return to the Latin Rite, then it was necessary for these debates to emerge so that the truth of the priesthood may shine all the more brightly for a Church united according to the mind of Christ. Thank goodness that Henry Karlson and Fr. Davids see through the Ontologicalists.
That SOME married priests had to be continent in the first centuries does not mean ALL married priests had to be continent in the first centuries.
That SOME local bishops legislated continence for married priests does not mean ALL bishops universally required continence for married priests.
That SOME Jewish priests were continent in the Old Law does not mean that ALL Christian priests need to be continent in the New Law. The celibacy-continence debates in the Church today are similar to the heated circumcision debates of the early Church.
The very fact that celibacy-continence is debatable and not a closed theological issue shows that it is not universally held Apostolic Tradition for all time and for all places.
A non-continent married priesthood is immemorial tradition.
Married priests are the ancient Latin norm. Mandated celibacy-continence is the modern Latin norm.
Mike Lewis wrote, "+Sarah's writing might tap into some venerable ideas, but from a practical/disciplinary standpoint, they're of little relevance to the current situation" (2020).
It makes those who insist on celibacy-continence among married clergy "look foolish."
As Dr. David Howard observes, they "fight for a discipline like it's Dogma" (2021).
Discipline does not determine theology. Theology determines discipline.
So forward. Forward to a fuller expression of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ understood as Celibate and Married.
As Fr. Davids wrote, "If [celibacy-continence] were essential to Holy Orders, then both the Pastoral Provision of Pope St John Paul II and the Personal Ordinariates of Pope Benedict XVI would have been problematic...Unification with the Orthodox as a whole would be a lost cause."
Source: Peter Davids's (@peterdavids) commentary on https://www.patheos.com/blogs/henrykarlson/2020/01/clerical-celibacy-not-essential-to-orders/ (citation cut and downloaded on 04/01/2023)
Interesting, and true. If it were essential to Holy Orders, then both the Pastoral Provision of Pope St John Paul II and the Personal Ordinariates of Pope Benedict XVI would have been problematic, for both allowed married non-Catholic clergy to come into the Catholic Church and be ordained as priests. Likewise the various Orthodox communities who have unified with Rome (I have faculties in the Byzantine Catholic Church, for instance, although ordained in the Latin Rite) who have an unbroken tradition of ordaining men who were married previous to their ordination (although bishops must be celibates) would be illegitimate. Unification with the Orthodox as a whole would be a lost cause. Finally, not only do we have the historical discussion above, but the fact (at least according to St Paul) that Peter and "the other apostles" were married and their wives traveled with them. Thus it was not essential for them. But, given that, I and many, perhaps all, other married Ordinariate clergy I have talked with, am/are strong supporters of the discipline that normally priests should be celibate. While thankful for the provision made for us who came late to this vocation, we realize (and in my case and others with whom I have talked, our wives as well) that to be a married Catholic priest means being married to two "women," the Church and one's wife. Paul wisely points to the stresses that that would create in 1 Cor 7. We had to count the cost and then live with the cost afterwards. When Cardinal DiNardo, in the recessional after he ordained me, stopped by my wife's pew, kissed her on both cheeks, and said, "Thank you for giving your husband to the Church." He expressed what we would later live. I live in thankfulness for the unusual privilege that I have and I would not change my response to God's call to ordination in the Catholic Church even if I could. But I also advise those who might qualify under the pastoral provision or the Personal Ordinariates to look seriously and soberly at what ordination in the Catholic Church would mean and, together with their wives, to count the cost. And, when the conversation comes up with my celibate brother priests, I encourage them to be thankful for the blessing of their celibacy, that they heard the call as Catholics and early enough that they could respond within the discipline of celibacy, despite its admitted hardships. I am glad that with disciplines (versus with something that is the essence of a sacrament) there can be exceptions, relatively rare though they are, but I am thankful that the normal discipline arose, both because of the historical problems it addressed when it became the norm in the Latin West, and because of the practical blessings that it brings.
No comments:
Post a Comment