| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 21.673
Post: 4.308 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Master | |
|
Whatever the reason or occasion, Ignatius Insight ran this post today, and it's very welcome. It does pay to go back over the three earlier books transcribing interviews given by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to note the answers he gives to 'perennial' issued in the Church, such as priestly celibacy.
Dec. 11, 2010
From Salt of the Earth:
An Interview with Peter Seewald (Ignatius Press, 1997)
"The poorer an age is in faith, the more frequent the falls."
Curiously, nothing enrages people more than the question of celibacy. Even though it concerns directly only a tiny fraction of the people in the Church. Why is there celibacy?
It arises from a saying of Christ. There are, Christ says, those who give up marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and bear testimony to the kingdom of heaven with their whole existence.
Very early on, the Church came to the conviction that to be a priest means to give this testimony to the kingdom of heaven. In this regard, it could fall back analogously to an Old Testament parallel of another nature.
Israel marches into the land. Each of the eleven tribes gets its land, its territory. Only the tribe of Levi, the priestly tribe, doesn't get an inheritance; its inheritance is God alone. This means in practical terms that its members live on the cult offerings and not, like the other tribes, from the cultivation of land.
The essential point is that they have no property. In Psalm 16 we read, You are my assigned portion; I have drawn you as my lot; God is my land. This figure, that is, the fact that in the Old Testament the priestly tribe is landless and, as it were, lives on God — and thereby also really bears witness to him — was later translated, on the basis of Jesus's words, to this: The land where the priest lives is God.
We have such difficulty understanding this renunciation today because the relationship to marriage and children has clearly shifted. To have to die without children was once synonymous with a useless life: the echoes of my own life die away, and I am completely dead.
If I have children, then I continue to live in them; it's a sort of immortality through posterity. For this reason the ultimate condition of life is to have posterity and thereby to remain in the land of the living.
The renunciation of marriage and family is thus to be understood in terms of this vision:
I renounce what, humanly speaking, is not only the most normal but also the most important thing. I forego bringing forth further life on the tree of life, and I live in the faith that my land is really God — and so I make it easier for others, also, to believe that there is a kingdom of heaven.
I bear witness to Jesus Christ, to the gospel, not only with words, but also with this specific mode of existence, and I place my life in this form at his disposal.
In this sense, celibacy has a christological and an apostolic meaning at the same time. The point is not simply to save time — so I then have a little bit more time at my disposal because I am not a father of a family. That would be too primitive and pragmatic a way to see things.
The point is really an existence that stakes everything on God and leaves out precisely the one thing that normally makes a human existence fulfilled with a promising future.
On the other hand, it's certainly not a dogma. Couldn't the question perhaps be negotiated one day in the direction of a free choice between a celibate and a noncelibate form of life?
No, it's certainly not a dogma. It is an accustomed way of life that evolved very early in the Church on good biblical grounds. Recent studies show that celibacy goes back much farther than the usually acknowledged canonical sources would indicate, back to the second century.
In the East, too, it was much more widespread than we have been able to realize up until now. In the East it isn't until the seventh century that there is a parting of the ways. Today as before, monasticism in the East is still the foundation that sustains the priesthood and the hierarchy. In that sense, celibacy also has a very major significance in the East.
It is not a dogma. It is a form of life that has grown up in the Church and that naturally always brings with it the danger of a fall. When one aims so high, there are failures.
I think that what provokes people today against celibacy is that they see how many priests really aren't inwardly in agreement with it and either live it hypocritically, badly, not at all, or only live it in a tortured way. So people say ...
... it ruins them ...
The poorer an age is in faith, the more frequent the falls. This robs celibacy of its credibility and obscures the real point of it.
People need to get straight in their minds that times of crisis for celibacy are always times of crisis for marriage as well. For, as a matter of fact, today we are experiencing not only violations of celibacy; marriage itself is becoming increasingly fragile as the basis of our society.
In the legislation of Western nations we see how it is increasingly placed on the same level as other forms and is thereby largely "dissolved" as a legal form.
Nor is the hard work needed really to live marriage negligible. Put in practical terms, after the abolition of celibacy we would only have a different kind of problem with divorced priests. That is not unknown in the Protestant Churches. In this sense, we see, of course, that the lofty forms of human existence involve great risks.
The conclusion that I would draw from this, however, is not that we should now say, "We can't do it anymore", but that we must learn again to believe. And that we must also be even more careful in the selection of candidates for the priesthood.
The point is that someone ought really to accept it freely and not say, well now, I would like to become a priest, so I'll put up with this. Or: Well then, I'm not interested in girls anyway, so I'll go along with celibacy. That is not a basis to start from.
The candidate for the priesthood has to recognize the faith as a force in his life, and he must know that he can live celibacy only in faith. Then celibacy can also become again a testimony that says something to people and that also gives them the courage to marry.
The two institutions are interconnected. If fidelity in the one is no longer possible, the other no longer exists: one fidelity sustains the other.
Is that a conjecture when you say that there is a connection between the crisis of celibacy and the crisis of marriage?
That seems quite apparent to me. In both cases the question of a definitive life decision is at the center of one's own personality: Am I already able, let's say at age twenty-five, to arrange my whole life? Is that something appropriate for man at all? Is it possible to see it through and in doing so to grow and mature in a living way — or must I not rather keep myself constantly open for new possibilities?
Basically, then, the question is posed thus: Does the possibility of a definitive choice belong in the central sphere of man's existence as an essential component? In deciding his form of life, can he commit himself to a definitive bond?
I would say two things. He can do so only if he is really anchored in his faith. Second, only then does he also reach the full form of human love and human maturity. Anything less than monogamous marriage is too little for man.
But if the figures about the breakdowns of celibacy are correct, then celibacy collapsed de facto a long time ago. To say it again: Is this question perhaps one day negotiable in the sense of a free choice?
The point is that, in any case, it has to be free. It's even necessary to confirm by an oath before ordination one's free consent and desire. In this sense, I always have a bad feeling when it's said afterward that it was a compulsory celibacy and that it was imposed on us. That goes against one's word given at the beginning.
It's very important that in the education of priests we see to it that this oath is taken seriously. This is the first point. The second is that where there is living faith, and in the measure in which a Church lives faith, the strength to do this is also given.
I think that giving up this condition basically improves nothing; rather, it glosses over a crisis of faith. Naturally, it is a tragedy for a Church when many lead a more or less double life. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that has happened.
In the late Middle Ages we had a similar situation, which was also one of the factors that caused the Reformation. That is a tragic event indeed that calls for reflection, also for the sake of the people, who also really suffer deeply.
But I think that, according to the findings of the last synod of bishops, it is the conviction of the great majority of bishops that the real question is the crisis of faith and that we won't get better and more priests by this "uncoupling" but will only gloss over a crisis of faith and falsely obtain solutions in a superficial way.
Back to my question: Do you think that perhaps one day priests will be able to decide freely between celibate and noncelibate life?
I understood your question. I simply had to make it clear that in any event, at least according to what every priest says before his ordination, celibacy is not a matter of compulsion. Someone is accepted as a priest only when he does it of his own accord.
And that is now the question, of course: How deeply do priesthood and celibacy belong together? And is not the wish to have only one [without the other] a lower view of the priesthood? Nor do I think that in this matter it's enough simply to point to the Orthodox Churches and Protestant Christianity.
Protestant Christianity has per se a completely different understanding of office: it is a function, it is a ministry coming out of the community, but it is not a sacrament in the same sense; it is not priesthood in this proper sense.
In the Orthodox Churches we have, on the one hand, the full form of the priesthood, the priest monks, who alone can become bishops. Alongside them are the "people's priests", who, if they want to marry, must marry before ordination but who exercise little pastoral care but are really only liturgical ministers. This is also a somewhat different conception of priesthood.
We, on the other hand, are of the opinion that everyone who is a priest at all must be so in the way that the bishop is and that there cannot be such a division.
One ought not to declare that any custom of the Church's life, no matter how deeply anchored and well founded, is wholly absolute. To be sure, the Church will have to ask herself the question again and again; she has now done so in two synods.
But I think that given the whole history of Western Christianity and the inner vision that lies at the basis of the whole, the Church should not believe that she will easily gain much by resorting to this uncoupling; rather in any case she will lose if she does so.
Can one say, then, that you do not believe that one day the Catholic Church will have married priests?
At least not in the foreseeable future. To be quite honest, I must say that we do have married priests, who came to us as converts from the Anglican Church or from various Protestant communities. In exceptional cases, then, it is possible, but they are just that — exceptional situations. And I think that these will also remain exceptional cases in the future.
Mustn't celibacy be dropped for the simple reason that otherwise the Church won't get any more priests?
I don't think that the argument is really sound. The question of priestly vocations has many aspects.
It has, first of all, to do with the number of children. If today the average number of children is 1.5, the question of possible priests takes on a very different form from what it was in ages when families were considerably larger.
And there are also very different expectations in families. Today we are experiencing that the main obstacles to the priesthood often come from parents. They have very different expectations for their children. That is the first point.
The second point is that the number of active Christians is much smaller, which means, of course, that the selection pool has become much smaller. Looked at relative to the number of children and the number of those who are believing churchgoers, the number of priestly vocations has probably not decreased at all. In this sense, one has to take the proportion into account.
The first question, then, is: Are there believers? And only then comes the second question: Are priests coming from them?
This is what he said briefly about this issue in LOTW:
It always seems that celibacy is to blame for everything, whether It’s sexual abuse, the exodus from the Church, or the priest shortage. Regarding the last point, we should perhaps say that there are more, not fewer, priests today in proportion to the number of those who attend Mass. In Germany, at least, there are actually twice as many priests in relation to Catholics who still practice their faith than there were in 1960.
And yet we have reached a point where even bishops recommend that we exercise “the imagination” needed R]to “enable the service of married men as priests alongside the basic form of celibate priesthood”.
I can certainly understand that bishops would reflect on that, given the confusion of the times. But things get complicated when it comes time to say what such coexistence of the two forms would actually be supposed to look like.
I believe that celibacy becomes a very meaningful sign, and above all becomes possible to live, when priests begin to form communities. It is important for priests not to live off on their own somewhere, in isolation, but to accompany one another in small communities, to support one another, and so to experience, and constantly realize afresh, their communion in service to Christ and in renunciation for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven.
Celibacy is always, shall we say, an affront to what man normally thinks. It is something that can only be done, and is only credible, if there is a God, and if celibacy is my doorway into the Kingdom of God. In this sense, celibacy is a special kind of sign.
The scandal that it provokes consists precisely in the fact that there are people who believe these things. By the same token, this scandal has a positive side.
How he answered the question at the Prayer Vigil before teh conclusion of teh year for Priests last June:
Holy Father, I am Fr. Karol Miklosko, from Europe, Slovakia in particular, and I am a missionary in Russia. When I celebrate Holy Mass, I find myself and I understand that in it I discover my identity and the root and energy of my ministry.
The sacrifice of the Cross shows me the Good Shepherd who gives everything for his flock, for every sheep, and when I say, "This is my Body... This is my Blood" given and spilled in sacrifice for you, then I understand the beauty of celibacy and obedience which I freely promised at the moment of ordination.
Even with its natural difficulties, celibacy seems obvious to me, looking at Christ, but I am bewildered by reading so much worldly criticism for this gift. I ask you humbly, Holy Father, to enlighten us on the profundity and authentic meaning of ecclesiastical celibacy.
Thank you for both parts of your question - the first which shows the permanent and vital foundation of our celibacy; the second, about all the difficulties in which we find ourselves in our time.
The first part is important, namely, that the center of our life should really be the daily celebration of the Holy Eucharist, in which the words of the Consecration are central: "This is my Body... This is my Blood" - when we speak 'in persona Christi'.
Christ allows us to use his "I", we speak of the "I" of Christ, Christ draws us into himself and allows us to unite with him, he unites with us in his 'I". Thus this action, the fact that he 'draws' us into himself so that our "I" is united to his, realizes the permanence and uniqueness of our priesthood - he is truly the only Priest, and yet he is very much present in the world becaus he draws us into himself and thus makes his priestly mission ever present.
This means we are drawn to God in Christ: this union with his "I" is realized in the words of the Consecration. It is also in the words "I absolve you" - because none of us can absolve sins. Only Christ's "I", the "I" of God, can absolve.
This unification of his "I" with us implies that we are also drawn into the reality of the Resurrected One, that we are going forward in the full life of Resurrection about which Jesus speaks to the Sadducees in Matthew, Chapter 22: It is a new life, in which already, we are beyond matrimony (cfr Mt 22,23-32).
It is important that we allow ourselves to be penetrated ever anew by this identification of Christ's "I" with ourselves, of being drawn forth towards the world of the resurrection. In this sense, celibacy is an ancticipation: We transcend our time and go forward, we draw ourselves and our time towards the world of the resurrection, towards the newness of Christ, towards the new and true life.
Celibacy is thus an anticipation made possible by the grace of the Lord who draws us to himself towards the world of the resurrection - he invites us ever anew to transcend ourselves, to transcend the present, towards the 'true present' of the future which becomes present today.
Here we come to a very important point. A great problem of Christianity today is that people no longer think of the future with God - when only the present of this world seems to suffice, when we mean to have only this world, to live only in this world. And so, we close the doors to the true grandeur of existence.
The sense of celibacy as an anticipation of the future serves to open these doors which make the world much greater, which shows the reality of the future which we can live as if it were already present.
To live this way in witness to our faith: truly believing that there is a God, that God has everything to do with my life, that I can base my life on Christ, and therefore on the life of the future.
We know the worldly criticisms you referred to. It is true that for the agnostica, who say God has nothing to do with their world, celibacy is a great scandal - precisely because (it shows that) God is considered and lived as a reality.
In the eschatological [oriented towards the end of time] life of the celibate, the future world of God enters the reality of our time. But this, the critics say, must not be! It must disappear!
In a sense, this continuing criticism of celibacy is surprising in a world where it is becoming more fashionable not to marry! But not marrying is totally and fundamentally different from celibacy, because it is based on the desire to live only for oneself, not to accept any definitive bond, to have a life that is fully autonomous at all times, that can decide freely at every moment what to to do and what to take from life. It is a No to any ties, No to any definitiveness, simply having life for oneself alone.
While celibacy is the exact opposite: It is a definitive Yes, allowing oneself to be taken in hand by God, giving ourselves over to God, to his "I" - therefore, it is an act of faithfulness and trust, an act which is like the faithfulness of matrimony. It is the precise opposite of the No that characterizes the autonomy that refuses to be obliged, which refuses to be bound by any ties.
Celibacy is the definitive Yes that presupposes and confirms the definitive Yes of matrimony - the matrimony that is the Biblical kind, the natural form of matirmony between a man and a woman, the foundation of Christianity's great culture, of the great cultures of the world. If it disappears, then the root of our culture would be destroyed.
Celibacy thus confirms the Yes of matrimony with its Yes to the world of the future. That is why we wish to go forward and keep present this scandal of a faith in which everything rests on the existence of God.
We know that besides this great scandal which the world does not want to see, there are also the secondary scandals of our own insufficiencies, of our sins, which obscure the true and great scandal, and make others think, "But their life is not really based on God!"
But there is much faithfulness to God othewise! Priestly celibacy, as its critics demonstrate, is a great sign of the faith, of the presence of God in the world. Let us pray to the Lord that he may keep us free of the secondary scandals in order to make visible the great scandal of our faith - fidelity, the strength of our life, which is based on God and Jesus Christ.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 12/12/2010 02:57] |