blueskies8 asked how priestly celibacy can help the laity. That’s an excellent question! As some pointed out in their initial comments and in Part 1, celibacy frees a man up for complete, 24/7 ministry to those he is sent to serve. So if a lay person needs the priest for whatever reason at whatever time, odds are that the priest is available, imitating as best as humanly possible the complete and utter availability of Christ. I think also there is the hope that the priest’s dedication to God and the way he lives out his priesthood is an inspiration for lay people to live their lives with the same dedication. Priestly celibacy and marriage are not opposed to each other, but complimentary, for both are a total dedication to another out of an all-encompassing love for that other. Just as marriage is symbolic and participates in the reality of Christ’s love for the Church, His Bride, I see a priest’s celibacy as representing a similar total-gift and dedication to that same Bride. Being as that Bride is a spiritual one (with a physical reality, certainly), it would be very different from marriage to a human person, especially as regards sex.

One way that helps me to understand this is to look at the Virgin Mary’s life, since she remained a virgin even after Jesus’ birth. What helps me to understand her perpetual virginity is to look at her life in the context of marriage. Her heart would belong most to the father of her child, would it not? She is the mother and God is the Father; not Joseph. Thus her fidelity lies foremost to God, who appoints Joseph to be caretaker of His household and all within it (like Joseph of the Old Testament in a way), but since her true “husband” is not a man but God, there is no sex (though even in virginity there is life and fruitfulness), and to even have sex with Joseph (technically her husband by law) would be to have sex with someone other than the Father of her child, someone other than He to whom she is already wed. Does that make sense? It helps me at any rate, looking at her life and her spiritual marriage to God as a way of understanding celibacy. So regarding the laity, hopefully a priest’s dedication to their own marriage (their complete and total dedication to the Church for love of God) inspires in them a similar devotion to their own married life and their own relationship with God. If this wasn’t helpful at all, please do ignore it…

mortimerZilch stated that “for the priest [guilty of abuse] to continue saying Mass without repentence…that…completely invalidates that person’s entire ministry…”

Not so! Because the priest does not exercise his own priesthood but rather Christ’s, it is Christ who says the Mass, baptizes, etc. Thus no sin or shortcoming of the priest limits or invalidates the sacraments he offers. This was something dealt with by the Church regarding the Donatists. There was a terrible persecution of the Church at the time and many people denounced their faith or turned over copies of the Scriptures in order to save their own lives; even priests were guilty of these things. After the persecution had ended, many of these people wanted to return to their Christian communities, but some communities told them they would have to be baptized again and receive all the sacraments a second time because they had lost them. Even priests would have to be reordained, and any priest who was guilty of any sin, really, could not offer a valid Mass, etc. The Church, however, condemned all of this as heresy, because it is Christ who ministers the sacraments through the priest, not the priest himself. So no matter how sin-ridden, drunk or otherwise inept a priest may be, his Mass is valid because it is Christ, not the man, who offers and is the sacrifice, and both are perfect.

He also raised the question of trying the Pope or “the Church” as an international criminal organization, though not to convict either. I suppose I would respond initially with, “Then why bother trying if there will be no conviction?” and continue with asking why not try the United States for all the terrible things it does internationally, or any other country for that matter? The Catholic Church is not a criminal organization, bent on swindling people out of money, smuggling illegal goods, or sexually abusing children. The idea that the entire Church is behind child abuse is a gross inflation, a fire that has been generously fanned by the media. The number of priests guilty of abuse is considerably small, and the number of bishops guilty of intentionally hiding these priests is even smaller. But because so many people trusted the Church so much, discovering this (in spite of its limited scope) shakes the world. What if the Red Cross admitted that some of their volunteers were guilty of smuggling, theft or abuse? Should we take them to court as an international criminal organization? 

Please understand this is not necessarily directed at you, but presented more as a response to many similar issues raised; this idea was proposed my many media sources too.

theramblingman raised the issue of the Pope seeming to do too little, stating that the Church “needs new blood that is willing to stamp down on child abuse; actions are louder than words.” I would offer firstly that the Pope is not like a king or a president; he isn’t intricately involved in the micromanagement of the Church, which is a world-wide organization with well over a billion members. That is why the Church is divided into diocese, with each diocese being led by a bishop, who answers to Rome and ultimately to the Pope. The Pope leaves local matters to the local bishops, involving himself with matters that concern the worldwide Church, getting involved in the details only when necessary, such as the abuse crisis we are discussing now. While the media has been criticizing the Pope for seeming to do too little, there are many people who think he is doing a very good job, considering the scope of the problem. In fact, while meeting with abuse victims in Malta, one victim stated that the Pope’s visit “was truly a most beautiful gift, after all this suffering, we all cried, even the Pope.” Later the victim stated, “I did not have any faith in priests. Now, after this moving experience, I have hope again. You people in Italy have a saint. Do you realize that? You have a saint.” (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/abuse_victim_in_malta_pope_benedict_xvi_is_a_saint/)

Finally, Winsa asked a few questions, first wondering about priestly celibacy in light of Scripture, I am assuming 1 Timothy 3, which refers to deacons and bishops. At the time this was written, I imagine that the understanding of the priestly vocation was understood differently and, more likely, the Church herself was quite different. A bishop/priest’s task would be quite different serving a Church that consisted solely of Eucharistic celebrations that occurred in the privacy of people’s homes before sunrise on Sundays, whereas the Church in latter times, as membership rose and large structures were built to accommodate a large number of worshippers and a more involved administrative structure was required to see to the needs of the growing Body, the services of the bishops and priests had to change. They likely noticed that those priests and bishops who were unmarried were better able to meet those demands, whereas those who were married struggled and were often forced to divide their lives between their families and their Church. Eventually celibacy became the norm, though there are yet several rites within the Catholic Church that allow for married priests (though bishops, I believe, must be celibate), and even in the recent dialogue with the Anglicans and the guidelines for entire parishes of Anglicans entering into communion with Rome the Church is permitting those priests entering into communion to continue serving as priests, even if they are married, and those future men who are Anglican and in communion with the Church who are married and wish to serve as priests may do so. The Church is not opposed to married clergy, but the Latin Rite (the most prominent rite or “expression” of Catholicism) has a strong tradition of celibate clergy and finds it to be the most effective way of living the priestly life as it is understood today. That may change in the future, and it may not, who knows?

She also asked about the command to “be fruitful and multiply,” which is something many people bring up regarding the idea of priestly celibacy. I would respond with the question, “What do you mean by “fruitful” and “multiply?” Certainly there is the understanding of “have children, and often!” but then we remember that it was to a virgin that God came and asked of her one child. Was God “bending” his own command? Likewise we think of Christ, who was unmarried; was God disregarding His own commandment? Yet would anyone accuse Christ of not being fruitful? Nonsense! There is a physical kind of fruitfulness, as revealed in the begetting of children, but there is also a spiritual fruitfulness; this is the way that the celibate priest and chaste religious live. 

This is connected with your comment, “I would think that strong men such as yourselves would WANT to raise sons in the way that you learn/are. ” (thank you for your kindness, btw!) There is a reason why Catholic priests are referred to as “father,” not as a substitute or stand-in for God the Father, but because priests do live out a spiritual fatherhood, raising, providing for and defending the Children of God, born in the Church through baptism. 

Personally, I have felt called to being a father and a husband since the sixth grade (fourteen years ago or so), so when I was in the novitiate I very much struggled with the thought that God had planted that deep desire in me, yet in the end called me away from it. How cruel! But once I surrendered that desire to Him to fulfill, returning it to the Giver, He began to show me how HE planned to fulfill it, doing so in a more complete way than I could ever have imagined, bringing to me a joy that I have never known and never thought possible. I reflect upon it more in this past post: http://ancient-scribe.xanga.com/674382543/blessed-art-thou-amongst-women/  Basically, though, the priest is fruitful by his labor for God and by bringing more and more people into the Church by that work. Through baptism he brings new Children of God into the world, and because of his priestly role he has a duty and responsibility to them as though they were his own children (and they are, in a spiritual sense), and thus he is yet fruitful and multiplying, keeping the commandment and fulfilling it as Christ did.

I hope that these thoughts have been helpful! If I didn’t answer your question specifically, it was because your question was similar enough to another’s question that both could be answered simultaneously. Still, if you feel like you didn’t have your question answered, let men know in the comments and I’ll see to it immediately! As always, feel free to continue asking whatever questions you wish. God bless, and please keep praying for me and all priests! We pray for you and the whole world every day.

My favorite Catholic synopsis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6qZd_xP1w

Watch this AWESOME video on the priesthood:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqtOvt7d490

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnwodBiLq1g

Thank you all for your patience; it is a crazy part of the semester! But it has passed for the most part, and I finally have the time I need to answer your questions with the consideration I feel they deserve. I would like to remind everyone that unless I am specifically quoting the Catechism or another source, these are my own personal thoughts (though definitely informed by and hopefully in conformity with the teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church, certainly!), and I hope that they are found to be helpful. Please also understand that while I have been living a vow of chastity for nearly two years (and have not so much as kissed a woman in nearly six), it cannot be reasonably expected of me to know everything about priestly celibacy/chastity, no more than one could expect a married couple by their second anniversary to know everything about marriage and children. I will do my very best to answer your questions and respond to your comments as thoroughly and honestly as I can.

liferemainsbeautiful really asked the first question(s); FoliageDecay and squeakysoul just offered very appreciated support and, in the case of my dear sister, her own brief thoughts on the matter (though she could certainly message me her concerns/questions regarding women and the priesthood if she wishes).

“Why does the Catholic Church require priests to be celibate at all?”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

“1579: All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church (the most well-known “rite” of the Church), with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 19:12). Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to “the affairs of the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32), they give themselves entirely to God and to [his people]. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church’s minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.

1580: In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders (ordination) can no longer marry.”

This is the official, brief explanation of the Church, which I think does a good job of condensing the most important aspects. Priestly celibacy is biblical (despite many claims to the contrary) and while there were married apostles and priests in the early Church and even into the Middle Ages, priestly celibacy is a tradition and practice with roots as ancient as Christianity itself, and it seems there came a point when the Church realized it was the best way of proceeding regarding the exercise of priesthood and eventually made it a requirement. As BigToePeople and Umnenga pointed out, as well as St. Paul in 1 Corinthians, the unmarried priest is able to devote not merely his 9am-5pm to his flock, but his 24/7, just as Christ devotes himself. The unmarried priest is also ready to be missioned anywhere at anytime, without having to leave his wife and children for extended periods, miss out on important events in their lives, or move around from place to place and constantly uprooting them. Also there are some missions that are dangerous to a priest’s life; could you imagine being a married priest in a city where your parish was in a dangerous neighborhood? I have met some priests from Jamaica, for example, who are safe only because one of the powerful gangs in the area happen to be mostly Catholic, and they protect the parish and the rectory, as well as the priest, from other gangs.

When I was in my own discernment, one thought that occurred to me is that because I believe both marriage and priesthood are full-time commitments, I could not do both. I could either be a really great priest and a terrible husband/father, or a really terrible priest and a great husband/father, or just be “ok” at both. None of these are acceptable to me, and because I love God first before myself, and because I felt so strongly that God was asking me to give my whole life to him as a priest, I decided that I would take up my cross and follow him.

Ultimately, and at least this is the case with the religious vow of chastity, the priest seeks to model his own life after that of Christ, and for reasons perhaps Christ alone fully understands, he was not himself married. To expect a priest to divide his heart and time between serving the Church and serving his family is entirely unfair; could you imagine if your wife was in labor and at the same moment one of your parishioners was on their death bed needing Last Rites? How does a man like that choose?

“I would think that having a family would make the priest a better spouse of the Church and of Christ, a better father for the whole congregation, essentially eliminate the roots leading to “child molester” issues…and level the priest’s minds down to earth to prevent them from becoming prideful in their given position.”

I do not offer this as a bash against marriage (heavens, never!), but there is a great deal of well-researched data that reveals the vast majority (I’ve seen figures in the eighty-percentile range) of sexual abuse against minors is committed by married people, and often times by family members. So, actually, married clergy in the Latin Rite (because the diocesan priesthood within the Latin rite is very different in its execution than the execution of the priesthood in the Eastern rites that permit married clergy) may actually magnify the problem in the long run.

Regarding pride, though, I don’t think marriage would combat that in the slightest; think of all the CEOs, national leaders, politicians, etc. who are married!

Moving on to emilita213′s question: “When a priest/church official is found to be guilty of molestation/harassment/etc., why can’t they simply be de-frocked as a priest?”

Because when it comes to the sacrament of Holy Orders, it isn’t so simple! Like baptism, a deacon/priest/bishop’s ordination can’t be undone since he is “a priest forever, like Melchizedech of old”; rather, because of a priest’s promise of obedience and the authority of the Church, someone is laicized (made a lay-person, sort of) and ordered not to exercise their priesthood any more. They are no longer permitted to minster the sacraments or engage in public ministry, things like that. Depending also upon the magnitude of the crime, the man might be sent to live in a secure community/house (not a jail or anything) where he is closely monitored and limited in his ability to travel and leave the premises, lest he commit a similar crime again. Some men, again depending upon the severity of the crime, are indeed sent to prison. But to remove a priest from his ministry is a very serious matter and is not something done at the drop of a hat or for every mistake a priest makes. Should priests found guilty of serious abuse be laicized? I think the most serious cases should certainly.

As phantomFive pointed out, the current issue isn’t so much that children were being abused, but that the Church appeared to be hiding it. To this I can only offer three thoughts:
1) Be very, very wary of the mainstream media when it reports on the Catholic Church; they have a historical anti-Catholic bias that can be very subtle. For some very good breakdown and reflection upon a lot of the big stories regarding the recent media coverage of the scandals, see the relevant entries at http://arnobius-of-sicca.xanga.com/archives/2010/3

2) I have noticed that most of the abuse allegations are from the late-50s to mid-80s, and while I am no psychology expert, I imagine that things like pedophilia and such were not really understood by anyone and, in many popular modes of thinking during the 60s and 70s, it may even have been seen as OK (goodness, the crazy things that were deemed so then…and today, really…). Without a good understanding of the mental illness-aspects of pedophilia and similar behaviors, I imagine that the Church rather saw it in the classic light of temptation and sin. For example, it is only in fairly recent times that alcoholism has been recognized as a disease. In the past, people thought it was merely a matter of temptation, that some people were especially tempted by alcohol and often fell to that temptation and drank themselves silly. The thinking was that if you just keep that person away from alcohol (the source of their temptation), they wouldn’t have a problem. Time and time again, however, you’d see the former drinker doing whatever they could to sneak some alcohol into their life, going to ridiculous and sometimes dangerous lengths to satisfy the craving they could not help.
Again I am not an expert, but I imagine that many officials in the Church at the time saw the abuse problem in a similar light. They receive a report that Fr. So-and-So abused a child, so they believe that the priest experienced some kind of temptation regarding the child (never, ever to blame the child of course) and, being a sinner, fell into sin. The solution is to remove the priest from the occasion of sin, from the source of temptation, and everything will be fine. The connection was not made that Fr. So-and-So isn’t just tempted by that particular child, but by a certain kind of child in general. I also imagine that as more research was done into the nature of these kinds of disorders, officials began to realize that moving the troubled priest away from the perceived source was not enough and began to isolate them more by placing them in secure locations where they could be closely monitored. By this time, likely unknown by officials, the man may have harmed more than just the two or three the diocese was made known about.

That is one of the great tragedies of abuse like this, is that it invokes so much shame in the victim, especially when the perpetrator is a man whose role in society commands so much respect, that the crime is buried in silence for decades before it is brought to light. Were it not so and a crime were brought to light immediately after it happened, I am sure that officials, realizing that the problem wasn’t going away, would have canned such dangerous men far more quickly. Again, I do not blame the victims for their silence, but I also do not have the sense that the Church as a whole or church officials and bishops in as many numbers as the press would have us believe were engaged in some sort of massive cover-up, and to accuse the Pope of such a thing is beyond preposterous without hard evidence.

Could some bishops and church officials have been engaged in such a thing? I suppose it is possible, and I can imagine a few bishops being so afraid of the possible legal and Church repercussions regarding his priest’s actions that he would try and sweep it under the carpet. But I think these cases were few and far between and that the whole issue is far more complicated than any media source would take the time and energy to report.

Again these are my thoughts; they are not official Church answers for these questions. Since there were many questions that take a long time (and text!) to offer thoughts on, I will try and offer more in several days. Otherwise you would have to dedicate a great deal of time to reading it all!

Please feel free to ask more questions if you wish, and don’t be shy of asking questions that might be personal. While I wouldn’t necessarily answer every question you asked about myself (a question like you might find asked on Mancouch or Datingish, for example…), I am willing to answer most of those “if I could ask a celibate person any question, I’d ask…” kinds of questions. God bless, and keep praying for Christ’s Church! It is wonderful that the Romans aren’t killing us any more, but the Church is always under siege in some way or another, from within or without or both. But as Fr. Corapi said yesterday, “We’ve read the last chapter of the Book, and we win. Be not afraid!”