Priests marrying in haste is no answer
Thursday October 28 2004
Why the difference? Could the answer lie in the refusal of the Catholic Church to ordain married men and to even consider the ordination of women?
A survey of 1,187 diocesan priests conducted by The Irish Catholic newspaper has found that 57pc of priests want the rule of celibacy changed. Oddly, given the experience of the Church of Ireland, only 37pc believe that abolishing the rule would increase vocations. The priests were not asked about women priests although 74pc believe the role of women in the Church is not great enough.
This Pope will not abolish the rule of celibacy. His successor might, because a rule is all it is. It is not a dogma and so can be changed. In the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which are the closest theologically to the Catholic Church, married priests are permitted and always have been. Only monks and bishops are not allowed to be married.
However, if the Church does abolish the rule it will not be out of consideration for the impact if might have on vocations. The effect of that would probably be fairly minimal. Although the Church of Ireland has a relatively healthy number of vocations, it is still far lower than it once was indicating that other factors are at work apart from celibacy in driving down the vocations' rate. The chief one is almost certainly the secularisation of society.
For the Church, the main consideration is whether, as Fr Tom Stack points out, celibacy still retains its 'witness value'.
Within living memory many people believed that the celibate life was of a higher order than married life.
This was because of the sacrifice involved. Precisely because sex is such a powerful drive, and because the need to find someone to spend our lives with is so strong, the celibate life was seen as something great and altruistic. Priests, and nuns let's not forget, were celibate for the Kingdom of God.
But now both the Second Vatican Council and the sex revolution have taken place. The Second Vatican Council gave a greater status to marriage, while the sex revolution tells us that denying ourselves sex is psychologically damaging.
In this kind of context, what is the 'witness value' of celibacy?
Instead of viewing priests as having a higher calling, do we instead pity them, suspecting they might be unhappy deep down? Do we suspect that, being single, they can't really know much about the lives of ordinary people with families?
If the witness value of celibacy has been turned on its head, then wouldn't it be sensible to make it optional, and not compulsory? Defenders of the rule point out that celibacy is to be found not only in Catholicism, but is also widespread in Hinduism and Buddhism.
They say that the spiritual value of celibacy has been lost. They say that vocations outside of the Western world are healthy. They also say that even within the West, certain dioceses and certain religious orders are bucking the trend.
Finally, they say that changing the rule now would send out all the wrong signals to a society unhealthily obsessed with sex. Now more than ever society needs to be learn that it is possible to live a fulfilling life that does not involve sex. It needs to know that the life of service is still worth such a sacrifice.
Will the rule be changed? Even if a new Pope was inclined to do it, it would not happen overnight.
Practical as well as theological considerations also apply. What would be the financial cost to a parish of supporting a married priest and his children, for example? The Church of Ireland already does this, but it isn't easy.
Perhaps it is practical considerations such as this one that might, in the end, defeat attempts to have the rule dropped.
- David Quinn
