Deliver Us From Evil

I saw the film today. Here is the trailer.

It is a powerful film. I have a long section on the abuser Oliver O’Grady in my forthcoming book:

“O’Grady was an equal opportunity pedophile, targeting males and females, with whom he variously engaged in oral and anal sex, masturbation, digital penetration, groping and fondling. This, while having illicit affairs with at least two of the children’s mothers.”

We see and feel the parents breaking down when they realize they have let their five year old daughter be raped night after night by O’Grady.

We see Roger Mahoney lying and lying and lying. He lied his way into becoming Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles, and I presume he thinks he can lie his way into heaven.

I have only a few disagreements with the film. I don’t think celibacy is a root cause of the abuse, because the Anglican Church has similar problems. It has married priests who have raped children, and married bishops who have covered up for them.

O’Grady, who agreed to be interviewed for the film, is a complete narcissist and sociopath, but differs only in degree from the bishops who enabled him. He is however atypical in being a pedophile who liked small children. Most abusers liked 12-16 year old boys, and therefore most of the abuse is connected in some way with a type of homosexuality, despite the film’s denial of this.

I hope its minor flaws do not prevent the film from having a big impact: first of all the resignation and jailing of Cardinal Mahoney and second the purification of the Church from the corruption that besets it (see previous post).

Comments

[Deacon John M. Bresnahan]

No argument--the Church needed (and still needs) to be purified. But when is the media's probing eye going to look into the public schools. Every independent survey says the situation in raw numbers is FAR, FAR worse there. But all these media hounds who claim their motive is not anti-Catholicism, but pro-child seem totally uninterested in where all the abuse action really is.

[Stuart Koehl]

Mr. Podles,

Right on the money as always. I wonder whether you have read Fr.Paul Mankowski's essay, "What Went Wrong", orginally presented as an address to the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy in July 2003? If so, what are your opinions on Fr. Mankowski's diagnosis of the problem and his prescriptions for its cure?

[Art Deco]

By the way Dr. Podles, you made this utterance on 27 October 2005:

The studies (which I will cite in my book) say that the typical molester of male minors has 250 victims; 250 is typical, not the extreme. Your argument is with the sociologists and criminologists who did the studies,

You never did provide your interlocutor with any bibliographic references. Will you do so now?

[Joe Mc Faul]

This article discusses different types of child molesters: http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/pedophiles/2.html

The article identifies a particular type known as a "preferential child molester" known for large numbers of victims, compared to the "schoolteacher model." Unfortunately, "preferential child molesters" seem to fit the "priest model."

Here's a quote from the article relevant to numbers of vicitms:

"In 1995, a child molestation case in Texas caused a national uproar when the suspect was due to be released from prison after serving a six-year sentence for the rape of a 6year-old boy. He told the police that he got away with abusing over 240 children before getting caught for molesting a single child and if released, would do it again(4). One long-term study of hundreds of sex offenders found that the pedophile child molester committed an average of 281 acts with 150 partners. These types of offenders wreak havoc upon society far out of proportion to their numbers."

Mr. Podles may have different information, but his figure is sadly in the ballpark, apparently.

[Art Deco]

Mr. McFaul,

That particular assertion in "Crime Library" has no footnote. The bibliography of that article lists no studies in academic or professional literature. It lists articles in the popular press, textbooks, and gives a link to a statistical clearinghouse of the federal Department of Justice. I have been spelunking about the Web and have found repeated assertions about or allusions to studies which putatively have established that men who molest boys rack up 100 to 150 victims during the course of their careers. However, I have not found such an assertion where the locus of publication of the studies were specified. I have been examining specialized databases, but so far no luck.

[Stuart Koehl]

The Association for the Treatment of Sex Offenders (ATSA) has the following on its web site (www.atsa.com/ppOffenderFacts.html):

Pedophiles

True pedophiles are motivated by their sexual attraction to children and are their offenses are directed toward vulnerable children whom they court or groom for the purpose of victimization.
Offenders who seek out children to victimize by placing themselves in positions of trust, authority, and easy access to youngsters can have hundreds of victims over the course of their lifetimes. One study found that the average number of victims for non-incestuous pedophiles who molest girls is 20; for pedophiles who prefer boys, over 100.

Predatory pedophiles, especially those who molest boys, are the sex offenders who have the highest recidivism rates. Over long follow-up periods, more than half of convicted pedophiles are rearrested for a new offense.

Pedophiles frequently are uncomfortable with adult intimacy and may spend their lives maneuvering to be near children. They may be extremely charming and skilled at manipulating adults, and they will use adult relationships to gain access to children.

The pedophile may spend years working his way up to a position of authority and trust within a church, school, or youth organization in order to have access to children.

Their offenses are usually predatory—directed towards children whom they engage in relationships for the purpose of victimization. However, pedophiles may also sexually abuse children in their own families.

Pedophiles are sometime referred to as "fixated," "preferential," " predatory," "extrafamilial," or "nonfamilial."

[John L]

From what I gather efforts to get Rome to replace pedophile tolerating bishops don't work well (cf. the present career of Cardinal Law). I think it would be a good idea for the faithful to start putting political pressure on for the civil prosecution of such bishops; if they are in jail they can't run their dioceses or have cushy Vatican jobs either.

[Art Deco]

I hear you Mr. Koehl, as I hear the others. Questions: in what journal was this study published, who conducted it, and what methodology did they use? I have consulted six databases of academic literature and so far a dry hole.

[Bruce C. Meyer]

I'm believing with minimal justification that Christ purifies the church before He brings judgment on the world--both in the ultimate order of things and in the short term. When 1987 came and went, with televangelist scandals, all liberal fingers were wagging; within a decade other wagging things of liberals of high office were being subjects of impeachment and such. The public schools probably are around the corner.

Just speculation. Wanna buy a prophecy book?

[Nick]

http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/library_two/han/hanson_98_text.PDF

This should at least get you started. It sites a number of studies that *may* contain that figure.

[Bubbles]

Art Deco,

My understanding is that Finklehor has done the most comprehensive examination of the demographics and practices of convicted pedophiles. You might want to cross-reference his name in your searches. The actual raw figure for average number of victims of a given pedophile is 12. However, men who molest boys and male adolescents average 27 victims. This curve overall, is seriously distorted because more tha 50% of child-molestation incidents involve a person who is not a "true pedophile" but is acting contrary to their own psychological makeup. True pedophiles have victims numbering in the hundreds whereas situational pedophiles tend not to have more than 6. And please understand that "situational" describes far mor than just means of opportunity.

[exporters]

nice
http://www.exportersinfo.com/

[skin care]

good
http://www.skincareinfo.us/

[Rich Leonardi]

Is not the anti-celibacy argument more than a minor flaw, coming as it does after a five-year campaign by dissidents that insists it is the source of our problems? I would think that many or most who watch the film will either be confirmed in their antagonism toward celibacy or perhaps even persuaded to adopt it.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Is not the anti-celibacy argument more than a minor flaw, coming as it does after a five-year campaign by dissidents that insists it is the source of our problems? I would think that many or most who watch the film will either be confirmed in their antagonism toward celibacy or perhaps even persuaded to adopt it.<<<

From the Eastern Catholic perspective, we would say that ordaining mature, married men would reduce the attactivness of the seminaries for homosexuals, and it was homosexuality, not pedophilia that was at the root of the crisis. Moreover, married men are a lot less likely to be "tames", to use the term coined by Fr. Paul Mankowski, SJ.

At a deeper level, we would also say that celibacy is a charism apart from that of sacerdotal ministry; that celibacy is a lot more than not being married and abstaining from sex; and we are deeply suspicious of celibates living in the world without the support of a structured rule of prayer. Which is why, in the Eastern Tradition, when it is not corrupted by Latin interference (as in the United States with the Eastern Catholic Churches) prefers parish priests to be married, and celibate priests to be monks.

[Bob Gardner]

"From the Eastern Catholic perspective, we would say that ordaining mature, married men would reduce the attactivness of the seminaries for homosexuals, and it was homosexuality, not pedophilia that was at the root of the crisis. Moreover, married men are a lot less likely to be "tames", to use the term coined by Fr. Paul Mankowski, SJ."

For the most part I think me and Stuart agree. When the scandals first started to become public a few years ago, I posited the notion that the West change its discipline to only allow married priest for a time. The Western Church had changed its discipline, after all, when it came to the distribution of the sacred elements. At one time forbidding both, and at other times requiring it in order to flesh out some disturbers of the peace (or heretics, whichever term you prefer). Alas my rather sage advise in this area has gone unheeded.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> Alas my rather sage advise in this area has gone unheeded.<<<

A prophet is without honor, and all that.

Here is the Mankowski essay, which I may have posted elsewhere, but which is the most insightful analysis of the problem I've seen so far:

What Went Wrong?
An Address to the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy

July 15, 2003

Paul Mankowski, S.J.

What went wrong, and why? Everyone in the room will rightly understand the question to refer to The Crisis, the daily revelation over the past eighteen months of numberless instances of priestly turpitude, Episcopal mendacity, and the resultant bewilderment and fury of the laity. My own take on the problem, which I offer for your consideration, is that the Crisis is chiefly surprising in how unsurprising it is. No one who has been fighting the culture wars within the Church over the past twenty years can fail to recognize his own struggles with a hostile bureaucracy and conflicted hierarchy in the struggles of those pleading for relief from sexual abuse -- notwithstanding the disparity in the attendant journalistic drama. In fact, I'd contend that the single important difference in the Church's failure regarding abusive clergy and the failures regarding liturgy, catechesis, pro-life politics, doctrinal dissent and biblical translation is this: that in the case of the sex abuse scandal we've been allowed a look over the bishops' shoulders at their own memos. Deviant sexual assault has accomplished what liturgical abuse never could: it has generated secular media pressure and secular legal constraints so overwhelming that the apparat was forced to make its files public.

What we read in those files was shocking, true, but to most of us, I suspect, it was shocking in its sense of dija vu. The housewife who complained that Father skipped the Creed at mass and the housewife who complained that Father groped her son had remarkably similar experiences of being made to feel that they themselves were somehow in the wrong; that they had impugned the honor of virtuous men; that their complaints were an unwelcome interruption of more important business; that the true situation was fully known to the chancery and completely under control; that the wider and more complete knowledge of higher ecclesiastics justified their apparent inaction; that to criticize the curate was to criticize the pastor was to criticize the regional vicar was to criticize the bishop; that to publicize one's dissatisfaction was to give scandal and would positively harm discreet efforts at remedying the ills; that one's duty was to keep silence and trust that those officially charged with the pertinent responsibilities would execute them in their own time; that delayed correction of problems was sometimes necessary for the universal good of the Church.

This picture was meant to describe the faithful's dealing with the normally operating bureaucracy, in which the higher-ups are largely insulated. Occasionally someone manages to break through the insulation and deal with the responsible churchman himself. In this case another maneuver is typically employed, one I tried to sketch eight years ago in an essay called "Tames in Clerical Life":

In one-on-one situations, tames in positions of authority will rarely flatly deny the validity of a complaint of corruption lodged by a subordinate. More often they will admit the reality and seriousness of the problem raised, and then pretend to take the appellant into their confidence, assuring him that those in charge are fully aware of the crisis and that steps are being taken, quietly, behind the scenes, to remedy it. Thus the burden of discretion is shifted onto the subordinate in the name of concern for the good of the institution and personal loyalty to the administrator: he must not go public with his evidence of malfeasance lest he disrupt the process -- invariably hidden from view -- by which it is being put right. This ruse has been called the Secret Santa maneuver: "There are no presents underneath the tree for you, but that's because Daddy is down in the basement making you something special. It's supposed to be a surprise, so don't breathe a word or you'll spoil everything." And, of course, Christmas never comes. Perhaps most of the well-intentioned efforts for reform in the past quarter century have been tabled indefinitely by high-ranking tames using this ploy to buy their way out of tough situations for which they are temperamentally unsuited.

What I've put before you are two scenarios in which complaints of abuses are brought to those in authority and in which they seem to vanish – the complaints, I mean, not the abuses. One hoped that something was being done behind the scenes, of course, but whatever happened always remained behind the scenes. As the weeks went by without observable changes in the abuse and without feedback from the bureaucracy, one was torn between two contradictory surmises: that one's complain had been passed upstairs to so high a level that even the bishop (or superior) was forbidden to discussit; alternatively, that once one's silence had been secured and the problem of unwelcome publicity was past, nothing whatsoever was being done.

Now the remarkable thing about The Crisis is how fully it confirmed the second suspicion. In thousands and thousands of pages of records one scarcely, if ever, is edified by a pleasant surprise, by discovering that a bishop's or superior's concern for the victim or for the Faith was greater than that known to the public, that the engines of justice were geared up and running at full throttle, but in a manner invisible to those outside the circle of discretion. Didn't happen.

I think this goes far to explain the fact that when the scandals broke it was the conservative Catholics who were the first and the most vociferous in calling for episcopal resignations, and only later did the left-liberals manage to find their voices. Part of our outrage concerned the staggering insouciance of bishops toward the abuse itself, but part, I would argue, was the exasperation attendant on the realization that, for the same reasons, all our efforts in the culture wars on behalf of Catholic positions had gone up in the same bureaucratic smoke.

I take issue, then, with commentators who refer to the Crisis as an ecclesial "meltdown" or "the Church's 9-11" or who use some similarly cataclysmic metaphor. Whatever there was to melt down had already done so for years, and that across the board, not just in priestly misconduct. Therefore, in addressing the question, "what went wrong, and why?" I need to try explain not simply the sex-abuse scandals but the larger ecclesial failure as well, weaknesses that existed even before the Second Vatican Council.

Paradoxically, one of the major factors in the corruption of clerical life at the end of the 20th century was its strength at the beginning of it. Here I quote from James Hitchcock:

A gloomy fact about clerical life is that, with the possible exception of the very early centuries, there was no time in the Church's history when such life was idyllic. The Middle Ages had their share of misbehaving priests, and the ordinary parish clergy were uneducated and part of a peasant culture which was in some ways still pagan. The Counter-Reformation made strenuous efforts to improve the state of the clergy, not least through the establishment of that institution which ought to have been obvious but for some reason had not been -- the seminary. Even despite these efforts, clerical scandals and various kinds of clerical incompetence long continued, amidst occasional saintly priests and many others of solid piety and zeal. In the United States the period cl900-l960 can be considered a golden age of the priesthood, not merely in modern times but throughout all the Catholic centuries. (This golden age was not confined to America but existed in other countries as well.) While priests of that era certainly had their faults, by all measurable standards there was less ignorance, less immorality, less neglect of duty, and less disobedience than at almost any time in the history of the Church. More positively, priests of that era were generally pious and zealous, and those who were not at least had to pretend to be.

Not only was the reality of priestly character in good shape, but the reputation of Catholic clergymen was likewise high. This brought with it several problems. First, being an honorable station in life, the clerical life provided high grass in which many villains and disturbed individuals could seek cover. I would estimate that between 50 and 60% of the men who entered religious life with me in the mid-70s were homosexuals who had no particular interest in the Church, but who were using the celibacy requirement of the priesthood as a way of camouflaging the real reason for the fact that they would never marry. It should be noted in this connection that the military has its own smaller but irreducible share of crypto-gays, as do roughnecks on offshore drilling rigs and merchant mariners ("I never got married because I move around so much it wouldn't be fair on the girl..."). Perhaps a certain percentage of homosexuals in these professions can never be eliminated. I further believe that the most convincing explanation of the disproportionately high number of pedophiles in the priesthood is not the famous Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers Theory, but its reverse, proposed to me by a correctional officer at a Canadian prison. He suggested that, in years past, Catholic men who recognized the pederastic tendency in themselves and hated it would try to put it to death by entering a seminary or a monastery, where they naively believed the sexual dimension of life simply disappeared. It doesn't disappear, and many of these men became active pedophiles. This suggestion has the advantage of accounting for the fact that most priests who are true pedophiles appear to be men in their 60s and older, and would belong to a generation of Catholics with, on the one hand, a strong sense of sexual mortal sin and, on the other, strong convictions about the asceticism and sexual integrity of priestly life. To homosexuals and pedophiles I would add a third group, those I call "tames," who are men incapable of facing the normally unpleasant situations presented by adulthood and who find refuge, and indeed success, in a system that rewards concern for appearance, distaste for conflict, and fondness for the advantageous
lie. In sum, the social prestige and high reputation that attached to the post-WW2 priesthood made it attractive to men of low character and provided them with excellent cover.

A second key factor in the present corruption is loss of the bishops' ability for self-correction. This problem has institutional and personal dimensions. The model of episcopal collegiality in place since the Council has not increased the mutual good-will of the bishops, but has, paradoxically, made the appearance of good-will obligatory in nearly all situations. Once more I turn to James Hitchcock. Speaking of the Church's necessary recourse to diplomacy in dealing with militarily superior nation-states, Hitchcock says:

It is ironic and discouraging that in the modern democratic era, when the Church enjoys the blessings of complete independence from political control, diplomacy still seems necessary, now often concentrated on internal ecclesiastical matters. It appears, for example, that the Pope is not free simply to appoint bishops as he sees fit, but that an elaborate process of consultation, of checks and balances, takes place, after which successful candidates are often people who have no highly placed enemies. The Holy See now appears to treat national episcopal conferences, and the numerous religious orders, almost as foreign powers. Scrupulous correctness is observed at all times, formal verbiage masks barely hidden disagreements, and above all potential "incidents" are avoided. ... This endemic practice of diplomacy within the Church has yielded small results. Abuses have been tolerated not for the sake of unity but merely for the appearance of unity, which itself soon becomes an over-riding concern.

Because what matters most in this mindset is perception, the appearance of unity, it has become virtually impossible to remove a bad bishop without prior public scandal -- "public" here meaning notorious in the secular sphere, through the mass media. When the scandal is sexual or financial, it seems the Holy See can move quickly to remove the offender. When the scandal is in the arena of heresy or administrative irregularity or liturgical abuse, there is almost never enough secular interest generated to force the Holy See's hand. Bishops Milingo and Ziemann and Roddy Wright have many brethren; Bishop Gaillot has few. Intermediate reform measures like seminary visitations are doomed to failure for the same reason; there simply is no possibility in the present disposition for a hostile inspection, where the visitators try to "get behind" the administration and find the facts for themselves. To do such a thing would be to imply lack of trust in the administration and hence in the bishop responsible for it, and such an imputation is utterly impossible. The same is true in bishops' dealing with universities, learned societies and religious congregations. The only permissible inspections are friendly inspections, where the visitators ask the institution under scrutiny for a self-evaluation, which, of course, will be overwhelmingly positive and which will render the chances of reform almost nil.

A priest official in a Vatican dicastery whom I trust told me that the needed reforms will never take place unless the Church undoes Pope Paul VI's restructuring of the Vatican curia, whereby the Secretariate of State has become a kind of super-bureaucracy -- no longer charged simply with the Holy See's relations to other nations but with de facto control over the relations of the Vatican dicasteries to one another of the Holy See to its own bishops. In practice the Secretariate of State not only sets the tone for the Holy See's dealings but often sets the agenda as well, ensuring that the diplomatic concern for appearances will prevail over the need for reforms involving unpleasantness, and exercising indirect influence over the selection of bishops, characteristically men of diplomatic demeanor if not experience. This profile goes far to explain why telling the truth is a problem for a large number of bishops, many of whom seem baffled and hurt when their falsehoods are not taken at face value. All embassies, moreover, have a high number of homosexuals in their staffs, and the Vatican diplomatic corps in no exception. The combination of the physical comforts attendant on diplomatic service, the skill at bureaucratic manipulation and oblique methods of pressure, the undercurrent of homosexual decadence, and the alacrity with which truth is sacrificed to expediency do not make an environment conducive to reform. The dominion exercised by the Secretariat of State means that many good-willed attempts to clean house go nowhere, and will continue to go nowhere in the future, being lost in its corridors or disfigured beyond recognition.

A third answer to "What Went Wrong?" concerns a factor that is at once a result of earlier failures and a cause of many subsequent ones: I mean sexual blackmail. Most of the men who are bishops and superiors today were in the seminary or graduate school in the 1960s and 1970s. In most countries of the Western world these places were in a kind of disciplinary free-fall for ten or fifteen years. A very high percentage of churchmen who are now in positions of authority were sexually compromised during that period. Perhaps they had a homosexual encounter with a fellow seminarian; perhaps they had a brief heterosexual affair with a fellow theology student. Provided they did not cause grave scandal, such men were
frequently promoted, according to their talents and ambition. Many are competent administrators, but they have time-bomb in their past, and they have very little appetite for reform measures of any sort -- even doctrinal reforms -- and they have zero appetite for reform proposals that entail cleaning up sexual mischief. In some cases perhaps, there is out-and-out blackmail, where a bishop moves to discipline a priest and priest threatens to report the bishop's homosexual affair in the seminary to the Nuncio or to the press, and so the bishop backs off. More often I suspect the blackmail is indirect. No overt threat is made by anyone, but the responsible ecclesiastic is troubled by the ghost of his past and has no stomach for taking a hard line. Even if personally uneasy with homosexuality, he will not impede the admission and promotion of gays. He will almost always treat sexuality in psychological terms, as a matter of human maturation, and is chary of the language of morality and asceticism. He will act only when it is impossible not to act, as when a case of a priest's or seminarian's sexual misconduct is known to the police or the media. He will characteristically require of the offender no discipline but will send him to counseling, usually for as brief a period as possible, and will restore him to the best position that diocesan procedures and public opinion will allow him to. Note: sexual blackmail operates far beyond the arena of sexual misconduct. When your Aunt Margaret complains about the pro-abortion teachers at the Catholic high school, or the Sisters of St. Jude worshiping the Eight Winds, or Father's home-made eucharistic prayer, and nothing is done, it is eminently likely that the bishop's reluctance to intervene stems from the consciousness that he is living on borrowed time. In short, many bishops and superiors, lacking integrity, lack moral courage. Lacking moral courage, they can never be reformers, can never uproot a problem but can only plead for tolerance and healing and reconciliation. I am here sketching only the best-case scenario, where the bishop's adventures were brief, without issue, and twenty years in his past. In cases where the man continues his sexual exploits as a bishop, he is of course wholly compromised and the blackmail proportionately disastrous.

A fourth element in the present corruption is the strange separation of the Church from blue-collar working people. Before the Council every Catholic community could point to families that lived on hourly wages and who were unapologetically pious, in some cases praying a daily family rosary and attending daily mass. Such families were a major source of religious vocations and provided the Church will many priests as well. These families were good for the Church, calling forth bishops and priests who were able to speak to their spiritual needs and to work to protect them from social and political harms. Devout working class families characteristically inclined to a somewhat sugary piety, but they also characteristically required manly priests to communicate it to them: that was the culture that gave us the big-shouldered baritone in a lace surplice. Except for newly-arrived immigrants from Mexico, Vietnam and the Philippines, the devout working class family has disappeared in the U.S. and in western Europe. The beneficial symbiosis between the clerical culture and the working class has disappeared as well. In most parishes of which I'm aware the priests know how to talk to the professionals and the professionals know how to talk to the priests, but the welders and roofers and sheet-metal workers, if they come to church at all, seem more and more out of the picture. I think this affects the Church in two ways: on the one hand, the Catholic seminary and university culture has been freed of any responsibility to explain itself to the working class, and notions of scriptural inspiration and sexual propriety have become progressively detached from the terms in which they would be comprehensible by ordinary people; on the other hand, few priests if any really depend on working people for their support. In a mixed parish, they are supported by the professionals; in a totally working class parish, they're supported by the diocese -- i.e., by professionals who live elsewhere. That means not only does father not have to account for his bizarre view of the Johannine community, but he doesn't have to account for the three evenings a week he spends in lay clothes away from the parish.

A related but distinct factor contributing to the Crisis is money. The clergy as a whole is enormously more prosperous than it was a century ago. That means the clergyman is independent of the disapproval of the faithful in a way his predecessors were not, and it also means he has the opportunities and the wherewithal to sin, and sin boldly, very often without detection. Unless he makes unusual efforts to the contrary, a priest today finds himself part of a culture of pleasure-seeking bachelordom, and the way he recreates and entertains himself overlaps to a great extent that of the young professional bronco. Too often, regrettably, the overlap is total. But even when a priest is chaste, by collecting boy-toys and living the good life he find himself somewhat compromised. He may suspect a brother priest is up to no good by his frequent escapes to a time-share condo, but if he feels uneasy about his own indulgences he is unlikely to phone his brother to remonstrate with him. My own experience of religious life is that community discussion of "poverty issues" is exceptionlessly ugly, partly because almost everyone feels vulnerable to criticism in some aspect or other, partly because there's an unspoken recognition that poverty and chastity issues are not entirely unrelated. As a consequence, only the most trivial and cosmetic adjustments are made, and the integrity of community life continues to worsen.

One more point, perhaps more fanciful than the others. I believe that one of the worst things to happen to the Church and one of the most important factors in the current corruption of the clergy is the Mertonization of monastic life. I may be unfair to Thomas Merton in laying the blame at his feet and I don't insist on the name, but I think you all can recognize what I mean: the sea change in the model of contemplative life, once aimed at mortification -- a death to self through asceticism -- now aimed at self-actualization, the Self has taken center stage. This change is important because, in spite of 50-plus years of propaganda to the contrary, the monastic ideal remains a potent ikon in any priest's self understanding. Simplicity of life, fidelity to prayer, and obedience have different orientations in the case of a canon, a friar, and a diocesan priest, obviously, but they are all monastic in transmission and all essential to the clerical life. Where monastic life is healthy, it builds up even non-monastic parts of the Church, including and in particular the lives of priests in the active apostolate; where it is corrupt or lax, the loss extends to the larger Church as well -- it's as if a railing is missing one side of a balcony. When I was preparing for priesthood my teachers lamented what they called the "monastic" character of pre-conciliar seminaries and houses of formation (fixed times for common prayer, silence, reading at meals, etc) complaining that such disciplines were ill-suited to their lives because they were destined not to be monks but pastors, missionaries and scholars. But looking at the lives of my contemporaries one of the things most obviously lacking is an appetite for prayer fed by good habits of prayer, habits which are usually the product of a discipline we never had. The same is true of asceticism and self-denial generally. When laypeople enter priests' living quarters today, they rarely seem to be impressed by how sparse and severe our living
arrangement are. They rarely walk away with the impression that the man
who lives here is good at saying no to himself. Yet monks are, or used to
be, our masters at saying no to the self. Something went wrong. Putting the same idea in another perspective, it's wryly amusing to read commentators on the sexual abuse problem recommend that priests be sent to a monastery for penance. What penance? Is there a single monastic house in the United States where the abbot would have the authority, much less the inclination, to keep a man at hard labor for twenty months or on bread and water for twenty days?

Let me sum up. I believe the sexual abuse crisis represents no isolated phenomenon and no new failure, but rather illustrates a state of slowly worsening clerical and episcopal corruption with its roots well back into the 1940s. Its principal tributaries include a critical mass of morally depraved and psychologically defective clergymen who entered the service of Church seeking emoluments and advantages unrelated to her spiritual mission, in addition to leaders constitutionally unsuited to the exercise of the virtues of truthfulness and fortitude. The old-fashioned vices of lust, pride, and sloth have erected an administrative apparatus effective at transmitting the consolations of the Faith but powerless at correction and problem-solving. The result is a situation unamenable to reform, wherein the leaders continue to project an upbeat and positive message of ecclesial well-being to an overwhelmingly good-willed laity, a message which both speaker and hearer find more gratifying than convincing. I believe that the Crisis will deepen, though undramatically, in the foreseeable future; I believe that the policies suggested to remedy the situation will help only tangentially, and that the whole idea of an administrative programmatic approach -- a "software solution" if I may put it that way -- is an example of the disease for which it purports to be the cure. I believe that reform will come, though in a future generation, and that the reformers whom God raises up will spill their blood in imitation of Christ. In short, to pilfer a line of Wilfrid Sheed, I find absolutely no grounds for optimism, and I have every reason for hope.

[Bob Gardner]

"A prophet is without honor, and all that."
It just seemed to me, as the article you posted points out, that the problem goes allot further than what has been reported. I think the roots of the issue is a homosexual problem in the seminaries, and just thought one way to counter it would be with married men (at least in the countries that had the biggest problems). This should not be read as condemnation of celibacy, and those heroic men who have served the church well in that state. Unfortunately, the reports of the percentage of homosexual priests aren't encouraging if one has an eye to reform, and maybe celibacy doesn’t have to be forbidden if married men would be allowed to pursue the priestly vocation because the seminaries then could afford to turn away some “questionable” candidates that are currently falling through the cracks due to the priestly shortage.

That, and perhaps, the west would get off our backs so we could follow the eastern tradition of married priests! :)

[dpence]

I am glad the Catholic Church did not take your sage advice. The development of an all male celibate clergy is an indispensable characteristic of the sacrificial priesthood and the sexual iconography of catholic culture. Our problem is not celibacy but a widespread agreement on the part of individuals in the late sixties and seventies not to practice celibacy. Our problem was not as the movie Deliver us from Evil says that we have an authoritarian hierarchy. Our problem is that individual bishops and vicar generals did not exercise their authority. All those individuals have names. They can and should be brought to either civil or ecclesial justice. See a website docsociety.org for a history of one diocese and its troubles as well as the "founding document" which answers the mainstream media narrative that the cause of pedophilia is an all male celibate authoritarian church.There are other essays on the nature of the male priesthood and a defense of celibacy as well as a good history of how vulgarity, psychology feminism and the adulation of male intimacy led to the crisis. Docsociety website then proposes that the problem is a loss of fatherhood which is a fruit of both faithful sonship and masculine fraternity. You are right that celibates have to live like monks in terms of some kind of communal life. Thus the site also sees the DIOCESE as the locus of reform with a diocesan fraternity under a eucharistic bishop as the starting point for a new masculine priestly relationship which will correct the incestuous criminality we now experience. The new Benedict for catholics will not start a new order but will renew the territorial diocesan priesthood as a communio of persons(This is central to the project of Vatican II.) Deliver us from evil is an important movie to see for its interviews--the so called explanatory analysis by fr thomas doyle is ludicrous. He was actually part of the problem along with michael peterson the psychiatrist-homosexual priest who "warned" the bishops in their Doyle-- Molton --Peterson report of 1985. dp

[James A. Altena]

Great article, Stuart. I would only question the assertion of the virtual disappearance of "blue-collar" Catholics. They now may be less well represented among the clergy, but are still the backbone of the laity. One doesn't exactly see large RC parishes being packed by members of the (supposed) modern intelligentsia.

[penced]

my remark about not taking "your Advice " is directed at Mr Gardner. i had not see the Koehl essay which is superb. dpence

[Bob Gardner]

"I am glad the Catholic Church did not take your sage advice. The development of an all male celibate clergy is an indispensable characteristic of the sacrificial priesthood and the sexual iconography of catholic culture."

Did you really mean to say indispensable here? Seems to me that something that was not mandatory till the 11th century cannot be said to be indispensable, or do you take issue with this analysis?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"I am glad the Catholic Church did not take your sage advice. The development of an all male celibate clergy is an indispensable characteristic of the sacrificial priesthood and the sexual iconography of catholic culture."<<<

Really? I guess John Ireland lives, after all!

[david pence]

Celibacy is Indispensable as in "we should not get rid of it" and if you listen to any major synods of catholic bishops you will hear no inclination in the global church to even consider the move. On the other hand the selective ordination of convert clergy who are already married is a laudable exception . Archbishop Ireland's disastrous decision about the married Eastern priests was a big mistake by a great souled bishop-priest. I grew up and was educated in his diocese and he still casts a protective and dynamic shadow over the the heart of Minnesota. One word for the perfection of the priesthood found in celibacy. What an iconic tribute to the foundational nature of the philia of Christ and his apostles. The men who enter that communion like Abraham before them deny an Issaac for future regeneration. For their testimony is that the way to eternal life is not through the old flesh but is found in this new sacrificial perfected brotherhood with the Son of God. dp

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Celibacy is Indispensable as in "we should not get rid of it" and if you listen to any major synods of catholic bishops you will hear no inclination in the global church to even consider the move.<<<

Like a lot of Roman Catholics, you seem to forget that there are 21 other particular Churches in the Catholic Communion that do NOT require celibacy from its presbyters. When Roman Catholics speak in this way, it simply infuriates us. The general implication is that our priests are somehow not as good or as holy as yours. I also find it both ironic and infuriating (again) that there are more married priests in the Latin Church here than there are in the Eastern Catholic Churches, again, as a result of the praestantia ritus Latni.

>>>Archbishop Ireland's disastrous decision about the married Eastern priests was a big mistake by a great souled bishop-priest.<<<

Look at it this way: the man is a candidate for sainthood in both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches--in the former for his work as Bishop of Minneapolis, in the latter as one of the "Fathers of Orthodoxy in America". Without John Ireland, the OCA would not exist, and Eastern Orthodoxy would be a little Greek ghetto.

>>>The men who enter that communion like Abraham before them deny an Issaac for future regeneration.<<<

From out perspective, that's the role of the monastic. By conflating celibacy with priesthood, the Latin Church has effectively devalued monasticism, which is part of the crisis it faces today.

[Bob Gardner]

David,
“Celibacy is Indispensable as in "we should not get rid of it" and if you listen to any major synods of catholic bishops you will hear no inclination in the global church to even consider the move.”

Are these the same bishops who fostered an environment that enabled predatory priests to continue in active ministry? The problem I have with current Roman apologetics is the knee jerk reaction to even the discussion of married clergy. While I agree that celibacy is a “higher calling,” that doesn’t mean that a celibate priest is more of a priest than a married one. Are the benefits to celibacy? Yes, but there are also benefits to being married. I understand the western discipline (and have defended it against protestant polemics), but I get the feeling that it has become more than just a matter of discipline in the minds of some. As I stated in my original post the west has changed its discipline in other areas in order to deal with infiltrations, so I wonder why required celibacy is not something that cannot even be discussed?

[david pence]

these are good reminders and i thank you. but arguing for celibacy as akind of perfection of the priesthood is not denigrating monastics or married priests. I am alayman but i think the philia of tha apostolic priesthood is a deeper sign of communion and holiness(closeness to God) than i have. A lot of women are also continually "infuriated" by distinctions of hierarchy. The monks are a sign to the diocesan priests--the reform of the catholic clergy wioll come diocese by diocese as bishops call the local prebyter intoa deeper communal life. Benedict's reform of monastic life was an engine of reform for the church and some similar phenomenon is going to happen amoung contenmporary catholics. Dont be mad at us catholics tring to renew a eucharistic centered episcopacy surronded by his local priests. That was the great clarion call of the orthodox--one bishop one eucharist one city. this has all become utterly incoherent as the orthodox charism of the local bishop centered on a territorial church is now obfuscated by a kind of ecclesial ethnic hereditary rule. I am talking on a typewriter so you can not see i am not being sarcastic--I am not. the orthodox teachers zizoulouas(sp) and schmemann(sp) and ware have all deepened the catholic understanding of where we are really trying to go with the great gift of the celibate diocesan priesthood.They have taught many of us the fruits of liturgical theology. Please dont be infuriated--we are typing not talking. What is praestantia ritus latini?

[david pence]

mr gardner there is a huge cry amoung "dissenters" in the catholic churhc to blame celibacy, heterosexism and male only clergy for the lavenderization of the priesthood and the abuse scandal. this is clearly the "narrative " of the film deliver us from evil which started our discussion. i would ask you to go to docsociety.org and i think you will agree that the approach of almost a hundred laymen in the archdiocese of st paul have taken in explaining and confronting both real cases of abuse and a renewal of priestly life is unique. we look at one diocese and explain its history and we name names--criminal churchmen not the spotless bride of Christ have to be accused and expelled. All of our essays and documents though are arguments for the the church as a whole. we think of this as tom wolfian journalism explaining the whole by reporting one part well. dp

[Bob Gardner]

mr gardner there is a huge cry amoung "dissenters" in the catholic churhc to blame celibacy, heterosexism and male only clergy for the lavenderization of the priesthood and the abuse scandal."

I blame none of the above, but I acknowledge the plain fact that there are groups (e.g. homosexuals) that are using the celibate priesthood as a beard to mask their deviant behavior. If that is the case then why not consider another, legitimate course?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I get the feeling that it has become more than just a matter of discipline in the minds of some.<<<

There is indeed a definite train of thought in the Latin Church--not one officially sanctioned by the hierarchy, but which includes some members of it--that tries to elevate clerical celibacy beyond the bounds of discipline to an "apostolic" and therefore "dogmatic" institution. Typical of this is a recent article by Fr. Ray Rylands (ironically, a married Latin priest) in the October 2006 edition of "Crisis", (http://crisismagazine.com/october2006/ryland.htm) a very conservative journal of Roman Catholic apologetics.

Rylands relies on some tendentious sources, most significantly Christian Colchini's "Apostolic Origins of Clerical Celibacy" and Fr. Roman Choliji's "Clerical Celibacy in East and West" (ignoring the fact that Choliji, at least, has recanted his hypothesis of married clergy as "innovation"). He also elevates some local Western councils to near-ecumenical status, and ignores the ecumenical status of the Quinisextunct Council (which he falsely claims was never accepted in the West).

Why these particular Latin Catholics should want so badly to make clerical celibacy a matter of dogma, against the express wishes and statements of the Holy See of which they are adherents is beyond me. I suppose its a peculiar form of integralism. In any case, it is a very unfortunate example of the provincialism of a Church that has pretensions to be "universal".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Benedict's reform of monastic life was an engine of reform for the church and some similar phenomenon is going to happen amoung contenmporary catholics.<<<

Benedict "reformed" monastic life? That's a new one on me. He regularized and codified the monastic rule in the West, but it existed before and Benedict drew heavily on John Cassian and Basil the Great. The original Benedictine rule was therefore an extension of long-existing Eastern monastic typica. But "reform"--you must be thinking more of Bernard of Clairvaux.

[Bob Gardner]

"Typical of this is a recent article by Fr. Ray Rylands (ironically, a married Latin priest) in the October 2006 edition of "Crisis", (http://crisismagazine.com/october2006/ryland.htm) a very conservative journal of Roman Catholic apologetics."

I have heard news of the article, but haven't taken the time to read it yet. Cardinal Alfons Maria Stickler also has a book "The Case for Clerical Celibacy," along the same lines. I'm not sure of the motivation behind it either. It seems like a gross overrction to the 'feminist,' wing of the RC Church.

[Dennis Martin]

For Rob Gardner, you mislead (unwittingly, I'm sure) when you state that celibacy was not mandatory until the 11th century. And this misleading trope has cause terrible confusion. The original discipline for both East and West was either celibacy or continence (abstinence) within marriage. Period.

The East relaxed this at Trullo in the 690s. But even then they retained celibacy for bishops and abstinence on a cyclical basis. This by itself is an acknowledgement that the original discipline for all was abstinence, either through celibacy or continent marriages. (It also acknowledges that the priesthood derives from the bishop by delegation--the relaxation was made for the priests but not for the bishops because they are the original sacramental ministers and governors of the Church, by Christ's authority--priests celebrate sacraments, bind and loose etc. only by delegation from bishops).

Ordination of married men was ruled out long before the 11thc but this mandatory celibacy (rather than permitting continent marriages) was not enforced. The Gregorian Reform enforced what was already on the books.

The story that Paphnutius stood up at the Council of Nicea and called for married priests to be permitted to end abstinence in marrage is a pious forgery. Even if the story were true, it would show that continence within marriage was the original discipline for bishops and priests. Since it is a pious forgery, it means that the relaxtion to permit not only married priests but to end continence within marriage was an innovation in the late 7thc.

Now, it may have been a good innovation. But one cannot use as an argument for its goodness the fact that mandatory celibacy was an innovation in the 11thc. Mandatory celibacy was an innovation only as a solution to non-compliance with the original discipline of abstinence within or without marriage and even then, this "innovation" predates the 11thc.

[Dennis Martin]

Mr. Koehl, precisely where are the tendentious errors in Coccinni? His is a dispassionate, thorough, critical examination of every shred of textual evidence. Where are his errors? Is it just possible that there might be some tendentiousness on the part of his critics? Tendentiousness is an equal opportunity employer.

[Dennis Martin]

Mr. Koehl,

Does Rylands want to make mandatory celibacy a matter of dogma? I'd be very surprised if he did, but please cite chapter and verse for me. He may very well wish to see it upheld as a matter of discipline, but that is not the same as calling for it to be made dogma. Are you being a bit tendentious here?

And the bishop of Rome did refuse to ratify the relaxation of clerical discpline in Quinisext. He may have ratified other provisions but he rejected those, so to imply that these provisions were received in the West strikes me as a tad tendentious.

And what do you mean by saying Rylands and others ignore the "ecumenical" nature of Quinisext? Surely you don't mean to say that it was an ecumenical council? Not even Eastern Orthodox consider it an ecumenical council, do they? Correct me if I'm wrong?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Does Rylands want to make mandatory celibacy a matter of dogma?<<<

Rylands is saying, along with Cochini and formerly Choliji, that clerical celibacy is an "apostolic institution". That certainly removes it from the realm of a "mere discipline".

<<

The canons of the Quinisextunct are included in Roman canonical lists, and in fact, until the issuance of a partial Code of Canons for the Eastern "rites" in 1917, the Quinisextunct was considered the normative source for Eastern Catholic marriage regulations (hence, until 1917, it was common practice for the Eastern Catholics to grant "second marriages" by economy to divorcees).

>>>And what do you mean by saying Rylands and others ignore the "ecumenical" nature of Quinisext? Surely you don't mean to say that it was an ecumenical council? Not even Eastern Orthodox consider it an ecumenical council, do they? Correct me if I'm wrong?<<<

The "Fifth-Sixth" Council's canons are considered to be ecumenically binding by the Eastern Orthodox, and also by Eastern Catholics.

Writing on Fr. Ryland's article, Ukrainian Greek Catholic Archimandrite Serge Kelleher made the following comments:

Me thinketh the married priest doth protest too much! The assertion that matrimony is no advantage whatever to a married priest is, er, "fantastic" - that is to say, based on sheer fantasy.

The argument of Father Ryland, such as it is, is based upon two authors: Christian Cochini and Roman Cholij. Roman Cholij has since recanted his position, particularly in the light of the present Code of Canonos of the Eastern Churches. Cochini's work is a textbook example of "special pleading". The argument deliberately ignores or dismisses all evidence which the adamant supporters of coerced celibacy find inconsistent with their position.

That the Catholic Church does not recognize the Council in Trullo is quite simply false.

A bit of reductio ad absurdum might help: one of the arguments for the requirement of complete continence for subdeacons, deacons and priests is the reminder that at any time any of these clerics could be called upon to perform a Baptism. But so can any baptized lay person (except of course an infant). Does Father Ryland seriously wish to tell us that EVERYONE is therefore bound to lifelong celibacy?

Since the time of Saint Pius X (no doctrinal relativist, incidentally), the Church has strongly encouraged frequent, even daily, reception of Holy Communion. Do we take it that in Father Ryland's view this means, or must mean, a requirement of perpetual continence for the laity?

The same foolishness applies across the board.

Father Ryland appeals to John Paul II's Pastores Dabo Vobis. I rest my case, for the moment, on John Paul II's Code of canons of the Eastern Churches, Canon 373:

"status clericorum matrimonio iunctorum praxi Ecclesiae primaevae et Ecclesiarum orientlium per saecula sancitus in honore habendus est."

I gave that in Latin for a particular reason: the phrase "in honore habendus est" has a strong meaning in canon law.

Fr. Serge

Another distinguished Eastern Catholic scholar, Anthony Dragani (who writes on Eastern Catholic subjects for EWTN), has the following essay on the web: "Critical Consideration of the Case for Clerical Celibacy" (www.east2west.org/Celibacy.htm), which originally appeared in Eastern Churches Journal. His main concern was not Ryland's article, but a book by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler, "The Case for Clerical Celibacy". Anthony does an excellent job of analysis here, and you will find most of my arguments recapitulated and documented.

As to what is intended by Stickler's book (and Rylands article), Dragani puts it thus:

"Very early in the text Cardinal Stickler cites a myth that he wants to dispel: “that clerical celibacy was introduced only at the beginning of the second millennium, above all by the Second Lateran Council in 1139.”[3] This is the view that is commonly disseminated by secular historians. Other historians, he remarks, date the origins of clerical celibacy to the fourth century. The Cardinal intends to prove a much bolder claim. Specifically, that mandatory clerical celibacy is an apostolic tradition that was “demanded by the apostles” themselves."

He then looks at the sources used by Stickler, and lo! we are back to the same ones used by Rylands:

"In making this claim, the Cardinal realizes that he has to contend with a large body of apparent evidence to the contrary. The documentation for married priests and bishops in the primitive Church is overwhelming. However, he argues that from the moment that these married men were ordained as deacons they immediately ceased all sexual relations with their wives, and lived as brother and sister.[5] This is not celibacy as we understand it today, but in the broader sense of the term, an obligation “not to marry and, if previously married, not to use the rights of marriage.”[6]

Thus, Cardinal Stickler claims that the apostles taught that deacons, priests and bishops who are married have to live in absolute marital continence.[7] He derives this thesis from recent studies of the history of celibacy, two of which are of primary importance: The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Christian Cochini, S.J., (1981), and Clerical Celibacy in East and West by Roman Cholij (1988).[8] He is heavily indebted to both authors, and draws most of his information from their books. The Cardinal laments that “these studies have either not yet penetrated the general consciousness or they have been hushed up if they were capable of influencing that consciousness in undesirable ways.”[9] In writing his own book it is clear that the Cardinal hopes to popularize their findings. "

As to why this is dangerous, Dragani notes:

"The Cardinal’s labors have apparently borne some fruit. Increasingly, certain outlets in the Catholic press are treating the Cardinal’s claims as established facts. On March 13, 2000 the National Catholic Register ran a cover story that presents clerical celibacy as an apostolic tradition, from which the Eastern Churches have deviated. The story does not even mention that most church historians would disagree with such an assertion. More recently, the same publication stated that in the ancient Church the wives of priests and bishops were required to take “a vow of celibacy as their husbands embarked on a second career in ministry.”[10] This highly disputable contention is portrayed by the author as being a recognized historical truth. "

Dragani goes into detail regarding the Cardinal's sources, his claims, and his methodology. I highly recommend reading through it all, but it is too long for this forum. I will thus skip to Dragani's conclusions:

"Cardinal Stickler attempts to prove far too much. If he were to successfully demonstrate that mandatory clerical celibacy is indeed an apostolic tradition, would this mean that it is beyond the authority of the Church to change the discipline? The reality is that the Catholic Church has already modified this discipline significantly. Today the Roman Catholic Church routinely ordains married men to diaconate. These men are in no way required to abstain from marital relations, yet all of the fourth century texts that the Cardinal sights call for absolute marital continence by deacons and their wives. Moreover, these same texts claim that this is part of the apostolic tradition. Also, in recent decades the Roman Catholic Church has ordained hundreds of former Episcopal clerics as Catholic priests. And again, these men are not required to cease sexual relations with their wives.

Likewise, the Catholic Church has officially recognized the full legitimacy of the Eastern tradition of a married priesthood.[66] For evidence of this one needs to look no further than the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which was promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1990. Canon 373 authoritatively states that “the hallowed practice of married clerics in the primitive Church and in the tradition of the Eastern Churches throughout the ages is to be held in honor.”[67] The legitimacy of the Eastern discipline is also affirmed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph no. 1580.

Thus, clerical celibacy is clearly a discipline that the Church has the authority to regulate and govern. This fact bears witness against it being a tradition “demanded by the apostles.”[68] So is clerical celibacy “really necessary and indispensable to the priesthood?”[69] The answer is a resounding no."

[Bob Gardner]

"For Rob Gardner, you mislead (unwittingly, I'm sure) when you state that celibacy was not mandatory until the 11th century."
Dennis, apologies, I meant the 12th century, altough it began, more or less, in the 4th for the Western Church.

"The East relaxed this at Trullo in the 690s." That is exactly correct, but that is the theory being espoused by advocates of mandatory priestly celibacy. For more on that you can check out this article http://east2west.org/Celibacy.htm

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Mr. Koehl, precisely where are the tendentious errors in Coccinni? His is a dispassionate, thorough, critical examination of every shred of textual evidence. Where are his errors? Is it just possible that there might be some tendentiousness on the part of his critics? Tendentiousness is an equal opportunity employer.<<<

I recommend reading the article by Anthony Dragani that I linked in my previous post. If you have a subscription or can get to a library, there are several reviews and critiques of Cochini in Eastern Churches Journal. Among Cochini's more tendentious claims is that the Eastern Churches have misunderstood ancient conciliar acts, that the Apostles demanded celibacy of their followers, and that celibacy was the norm not the exception in the Western Church of the first millennium. Dragani sums up the problem nicely:

"After examining the evidence from the Christian East, Cardinal Stickler concludes that “the tradition of the Catholic Church of the West remains the genuine one. The fact is that it can be traced back to the apostles and is founded on the living consciousness of the entire early Church.”[52] It seems to me that this statement is far from proven. As one of Cochini’s critics observed, “when clerical celibacy is at issue, historical objectivity turns out to be an elusive commodity.”"

[Bob Gardner]

I see that Stuart already gave the link to Anthony's article. Apologies for double dipping.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"The East relaxed this at Trullo in the 690s." <<<

Backwards, Rob. The Latin Church attempted to impose a new discipline; Trullo was a rebuke, restating the ancient discipline in its fullness.

[Bob Gardner]

">>>"The East relaxed this at Trullo in the 690s." <<<

Backwards, Rob. The Latin Church attempted to impose a new discipline; Trullo was a rebuke, restating the ancient discipline in its fullness."

I did not say, that. I was quoting Dennis, and responding to him, but I saw later that you had already done so.

[Dennis Martin]

Mr. Koehl, you are the poster boy for tendentiousness. Sorry, but dogmatic has a specific meaning and discipline has a specific meaning and Rylands is not claiming dogmatic status. He knows what he's talking about; your careless use of the term and even more imprecise defense of your use of it indicates, quite apart from the rest of your post--based entirely on onesided, shall we say, "tendentious" sources, indicates that there's little point in discussing the matter. But at least I know that Rylands didn't make the foolish error of claiming dogmatic status for the discipline of mandatory clerical celibacy.

[Dennis Martin]

Mr. Koehl, just curious. Have you ever laid eyes on Cochini's book or is your knowledge of it limited to Dragani? See, you originally labeled Cochini as "tendentious" and then when I asked for evidence, you cite Dragani to me and a host of reviews in Eastern Church Journal and so forth.

Just so we don't fall into any tendentiousness here, how about you doing two things for me: (1) actually read Cochini's book and (2) do a bit of research and find a dozen reviews of it in standard scholarly journals. I don't mind if you include St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly as long as you also include the reviews of it in the leading Western journals (Theological Studies etc.). But simply to cite Dragani and Eastern Churches Review at me won't do. So far, you are the one who is tendentious.

Now, perhaps Cochini is all wrong. But give me a fair, across the board selection of reviews from respected scholarly journals who don't have a dog in this fight (Zeitschrift fuer Kirchengeschichte--German, secular, deracinated Protestant; Church History--same thing in English; Journal of Ecclesiastical Histtory and Journal of Theological Studies--both Anglican and throw in Theological Studies--liberal Catholic--and Catholic Historical Review for variety) and see what the consensus is.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Have you ever laid eyes on Cochini's book or is your knowledge of it limited to Dragani? See, you originally labeled Cochini as "tendentious" and then when I asked for evidence, you cite Dragani to me and a host of reviews in Eastern Church Journal and so forth.<<<

I've read it, and also Choliji, but I have neither book in my personal collection, therefore I am unable to give you direct citations, but rather went to two authorities whom I know personally, Anthony Dragani and Archimandrite Serge. With a little more time, I could probably dig out some quotes from Archimandrite Robert Taft.

The consensus of the Catholic Church is that Cochini is wrong--historically, theologically and ecclesiastically. The documents issued by the Holy See concerning the institution of married priesthood in the Eastern Churches is unequivocally positive, and in none of them refer to clerical celibacy as an apostolic institution. Moreover, there aren't even any apostolic or subapostolic documents that support his position--he invents a tradition that the married apostles remained celibate--and he ignores the consistent presence of married presbyters, bishops and even popes. Since some of these bishops were in their turn the sons of bishops or priests, all it requires is a little math to see that they were conceived after their fathers' ordinations. Gregory of Nyssa, for instance, was a married bishop, the son of a bishop in his turn. There are numerous Western equivalents.

I doubt you will find very many Protestant sources bothering about this controversy. After all, if you either don't accept the sacramental nature of ordained priesthood, or your orders are not valid, what matter if your ministers are celibate or married?

[James Kabala]

I actually would like to know how much influence Archbishop Ireland really had on the course of Orthodoxy in America. Where I come from (central Massachusetts), the Orthodox generally are from groups that were Orthodox in the Old World (especially Greek, Albanian, and Armenian) and the Lebanese Maronites are largely still Catholic. Where and when did this alleged big exodus from Eastern Catholic to Eastern Orthodox occur, and what ethnic groups would be involved? (I guess the leading candidate would be the Ukranians, but would they really switch when Catholic vs. Orthodox was such a bloody issue in the homeland? Wouldn't that be like Catholics from Belfast turning Protestant?)

[Stuart Koehl]

I also refer you to "Married Priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches: A Report to the Australian Bishops Conference" in Eastern Churches Journal Vol.9 No.1, Spring 2002, which provides background on the status of married clergy in the Eastern Catholic Churches of North America and Oceania, and the eirenic and enlightened response of the Australian bishops as opposed to their North American brethren.

[stuart Koehl]

Some articles from a variety of sources critical of both Cochini and Choliji:

Robert Slesinski, "Lex Continentia: The need for an Orthodox response", SVS Theological Quarterly, 37 No.1 (1993), p.96

Rodger Balducelli, "The Apostolic Origins of Clerical Continence: A Critical Appraisal of a New Book", Theological Studies 43, No.4 (1982) p.693.

J. Kevin Coyle, "Recent Views on the Origins of Clerical Celibacy: A Review of the Literature from 1980-1991", Logos 34 (1993) p.499

[stuart Koehl]

>>>I actually would like to know how much influence Archbishop Ireland really had on the course of Orthodoxy in America. <<<

First, in the late 19th century, all the Orthodox in the U.S. regardless of ethnicity, were under the omophorion of the Russian Orthodox North Amerian Mission. This was limited mainly to the West Coast and to a handful of parishes on the East Coast. At the time, there were very few Greek or Antiochian Orthodox in the country. Most of the Orthodox were Russians or Aleuts, and there weren't very many of them, either.

When the celibacy crisis broke, approximately 250,000 Greek Catholics, both Carpatho-Rusyn and Ukrainians, entered the Russian Orthodox North American Mission. Numerically, they became the single largest group of Orthodox in the U.S. They extended the Orthodox presence into the Middle Atlantic and Midwesten states where it had not been previously. More importantly, the former Greek Catholics quickly rose to positions of prominence in the Orthodox Church, providing priests, monastics, and eventually bishops. If one goes up to St. Tikhon's Monastery in South Canaan, PA (where Alexiander Schmemann and St. Alexis Toth are both buried), and wanders around the cemetery, one is immediately struck by the fact that the majority of names on the headstones are Greek Catholic. The architecture of the chapel is Greek Catholic, too.

Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA (Ecumenical Patriarchate) repeatedly notes that, but for the former Greek Catholics, his jurisdiction would not exist at all.

And, of course, the Carpatho-Rusyn Archdiocese came into existence through the second round of the celibacy controversy in 1930. In all, then, Greek Catholic defections provided the Orthodox Church in the United States with more than 325,000 members directly, which, combined with their descendants, means that the bulk of the Slavic Orthodox in the United States trace their roots to the Greek Catholics in one way or another.

[Dennis Martin]

Mr. Koehl, you seem to confuse two distinct issues. When you say that the consensus of the Catholic Church is that Cochini is wrong and then cite the validity of non-abstinent married priests in Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, you are not addressing Cochini's historical scholarship but rather the use that others might make of it.

Look, I'm not opposed to non-abstinent married priests in Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Rite Catholic churches. You can defend the decision to relax the ancient discipline in 692 in a variety of ways. No one disputes that the code of canon law for Eastern Rite Catholics accepts that relaxation as fully valid.

But the other issue, the main point of Cochini and Stickler and Stefan Heid and many others, is quite distinct: was the original discipline one of strict continence for bishops and by derivation for priests, with any possible exceptions being ad hoc concessions under some special circumstances or was the original discipline to permit ordination of married men together with the proper use of the marital act? Was the decision of Trullo a relaxation of an ancient discipline or a restoration of an ancient discipline?

I asked for evidence that Cochini's (and Heid's and others') interpretation of the ancient texts is wrong and you come back with evidence from present practice of Eastern Rite Catholics.

If Cochini and others are right in their thesis that the original discipline was sexual abstinence within marriage (and perforce outside of marriage), it still might be true (as I allowed in my first posting) that the decision of Trullo was a good one and the Western decision to stay with the ancient discipline was a bad one. One can argue that on both sides (I have plenty of arguments to make about why a married priesthood (with full use of marital relations and raising families) is not a good discipline and those who take the opposite have their arguments.

But that is distinct from the question of what the ancient, apostolic, subapostolic etc. discipline was. On that score, just because those committed already to the rightness of Trullo say Cochini is tendentious is not convincing. He may be, but so far your evidence is not very persuasive because you cite what are obviously tendentious authorities claiming Cochini is tendentious.

I just think it would help all of us to keep the historical question about the practices of the first 7 centuries distinct from the question of what the best discipline for priests today, East or West, would be. That's why I get a bit annoyed when people overstate the case, e.g., by saying that mandatory celibacy first arose in the West in the 12thc or marshall the half truth that bishops and priests in the first centuries were married--of course they were. Cochini recognizes that. But the evidence that these married priests were permitted the normal use of the marital act--I don't see any solid documentary evidence of that at all and I do see considerable evidence for the taken-for-granted discipline of continent married bishops and priests. But those who find strong evidence to the contrary are free to make their case. Let's just not mix apples and oranges--historical questions about the first 7 centuries with the issue of what the best practice today would be.

I don't wish to prolong this

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>would they really switch when Catholic vs. Orthodox was such a bloody issue in the homeland?<<<

I neglected to respond to this part.

What you need to understand is how the ban on married priests was seen as a direct attack on the integrity of the Eastern Christian Tradition. The Treaty of Brest (1596) which created the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, specifically calls out the preservation of the married priesthood as a condition of union--and the violation of that provision is specifically identified as releasing the "uniates" from their allegience to Rome. Moreover, Cum data fuerit, the Papal directive that banned married priests in 1896, also banned infant communion and required the Greek Catholics to separate Chrismation from Baptism in the same manner as Roman Catholics. This was such a direct attack on the integrity of the rite that many Greek Catholics felt the only hope of preserving the Tradition was to leave the Catholic communion (it was so bitterly resisted by those who remained that Rome never really attempted to enforce the latter provisions; the ban on married priests was also evaded in various ways, leading to the issuance of a "constitution" for the Greek Catholics in 1930 (Ea Semper) that resulted in a second schism).

In their place, I would have done the same.

That said, the two schisms left a very bitter aftertaste, mainly because of the ensuing disputes over ecclesiastical property, which ended up in court, and which split families, parishes, and even entire towns. Now that the people directly affected are dying off, some of the bitterness is fading, but there is still a lingering shadow because of it.

Which, by the way, makes me very sympathetic to the plight of the Continuing Anglicans and other conservative Episcopalian groups.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But the other issue, the main point of Cochini and Stickler and Stefan Heid and many others, is quite distinct: was the original discipline one of strict continence for bishops and by derivation for priests, with any possible exceptions being ad hoc concessions under some special circumstances or was the original discipline to permit ordination of married men together with the proper use of the marital act? Was the decision of Trullo a relaxation of an ancient discipline or a restoration of an ancient discipline?<<<

The historical consensus is that Cochini, Stickler, Choliji and Heid are all wrong, and that the discipline of the Eastern Churches predates Trullo (a council that involved only the Byzanine Church) and is held by Eastern Churches that not only did not participate in or accept Trullo (e.g., the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Church of the East), but which were not talking to each other throughout this period, and which all claim that their Tradition with regard to married clergy has been theirs since the times of the Apostles. Cochini, Stickler, Choliji and Heid all dodge this issue, as well as the fact that these Trullan canons were direct rebukes to a Latin innovation in Church discipline that Rome was attempting to impose on the East, which had maintained all along a very different discipline.

In any case, I suggest that you read some of the reviews and articles I cited.

For my part I care not whether Rome's priests are celibate or not. But please, maintain your discipline based on your own internal requirements and stop trying to prove that Rome maintains the pristine theologia prima, and that we poor schlubs are getting by on a dispensation.

[Dennis Martin]

Okay, I have to respond to this: "he invents a tradition that the married apostles remained celibate."

First off, Cochini does not claim the apostles remained celibate but that they remained continent. It's very important to keep the distinction between continence in marriage and celibate refraining from marriage.

Second, it is very true that there's no smoking gun text from the NT or subapostolic documents stating that the maried apostles remained continent. But then there's equally not smoking gun text of the same period stating the opposite. We have a classic argumentum ab silentio. One decides cases of documentary silence by employing whatever tangential and circumstantial evidence is available. To say that Cochini "invents" his claim overstates what he does and whatever he does, you do exactly the same.

The documentary evidence than any of the apostles except Peter were married is slim--the one passage about the "sisters" that accompanied some of the apostles can be argued both ways. We don't even have any hard evidence that Peter's wife was alive after he began his apostolate--we know his mother-in-law was alive when Jesus healed her but even the existence of Peter's wife has to be deduced from the existence of his mother-in-law. Now I have no doubt that bishops in the early church were married--there we have smoking gun documentary evidence. But we have no clear statement anywhere that they had marital relations with their wives after ordination. And we have only the slimmest of evidence of any sort about married apostles.

If one then claims the opposite of Cochini--that the apostles and their successor bishops in the early church who were married engaged in normal marital relations and raised families after ordination, one is "inventing" a thesis that has no clear basis in documentary evidence. It's a possible hypothesis, but given the evidence that continence was required of priests and bishops by the 4th century and zero evidence that bishops and apostles and priests were sexually active with their wives either before the 4thc, I'd say those who favor the "sexually active married bishops" position have the harder time of it. And apart from the Paphnutius story we have little (really no) evidence for the sexually active thesis before Trullo.

So to accuse Cochini of invention with regard to the apostles--well, it takes one to know one, I guess.

Or have I missed something? Where is the evidence that any of the Twelve were sexually intimate with their deduced-from-indirect-evidence wives? The one apostle who directly confronts the issue makes it clear that he chose celibacy because of the demands of his apostolate. He affirms marriage for the Corinthians in general but he is silent about whether the other apostles are married and whether if they are they are sleeping with their wives.

[Dennis Martin]

Mr. Koehl, you accuse me falsely. Please reread all my posts. Where did I ever say that you poor schlubs are getting by on a dispensation? You see, you assume that I am arguing the way you argue. You believe that whoever wins the historical battle over which discipline is more ancient, continence or sexually active thereby wins the battle over whether Eastern Christian priests today should be permitted to be sexually active.

But I never made that jump. Indeed, I repeatedly affirmed exactly the opposite: from the start I said that the Trullo relaxation may have been a good thing. I do not argue from what I believe to be the more historically accurate claim that continence was the original discipline to the claim that therefore today Eastern Rite or Orthodox priests should be continent.

But for you, apparently, the practice of the first six centuries is a major, crucial weapon in your arsenal, without which you feel vulnerable. And you spread your way of thinking over me, despite my clear explanation that I don't think that way.

Look, it may be true that the relaxation at Trullo was the right move. I've said that at least three times now. Marshall your arguments in favor of it; I have mine against it--I do believe that there are good prima facie reasons for a celibate priesthood. (Continence within marriage didn't work well--you and I just might agree about that much :). But Trullo drew one conclusion from the failure of continence within marriage--that it was better to retain permission to ordain married men, while not letting umarried priests marry or let married men be bishops. The West drew another conclusion from the failure of continent clerical marriage: better not to let married men be ordained at all.

Now each of these ways of dealing with the failure of continent marriage has arguments in its favor. That's where the debate needs to be.

If it could be shown beyond any doubt that non-continent clergy were common in the first six centuries, then all bets are off. But it can't be shown. Those who take issue with Cochini's evidence for the opposite reading of the first six centuries do not have a superior, smoking-gun clear pile of evidence for the first six centuries to the contrary. Indeed, I would go so far as to label their arguments a tad tendentious! But calling each other tendentious is not really going to help resolve the historical question of the first six centuries and trying to resolve the question whether Trullo was the right solution or the Western discipline was the right solution by clubbing people with tendentious readings of the historical evidence for the first six centuries is also not likely to help very much.

I retain an open mind and will take a look at the TS review and a few of the others when I get a chance. I will do so keeping the two distinct questions clearly in mind.

Finally, I have said repeatedly that I have no problem with Eastern Rite or Orthodox Christians have married priests. You accuse me wrongly. I am not trying to get you to change your discipline when I say that I believe the evidence of the first six centuries points to the expectation of marital continence. But you seem to be trying very hard to get the Latin discipline changed to conform to Trullo. Is that really necessary?

You can flail away at John Ireland all you wish but I'm not John Ireland and whatever might have been good or bad at the time he did what he did, I certainly am not trying to interject into the present in North American Eastern Rite Catholic discipline.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Where is the evidence that any of the Twelve were sexually intimate with their deduced-from-indirect-evidence wives?<<<

Proving a negative? No thanks.

In any case, it is my firm belief that the demand for clerical celibacy in the Gregorian papacy of the 11th-12th centuries had more to do with cooties than with Tradition.

And yes, I am mocking you.

[Dennis Martin]

Mr. Koehl, I did not ask you to prove a negative. I simply pointed out that if Cochini "invents" continence for married Apostles, then those who claim to know that whatever apostles may have been married also were sexually intimate with their wives is inventing a claim for which no evidence exists at all.

You are right to note that it's unlikely that such evidence could ever exist because early Christian sources are not likely to state explicitly that the apostles enjoyed their wives sexually. This means that those favoring the sexually active thesis almost necessarily are forced to rely on assumption.

But that's not the same as proving a negative. I'm simply pointing out that evidence for a sexually active married apostles doesn't exist but has to be inferred (to use a bit nicer word than pure speculation), just as Cochini infers the opposite. The issue is then which of the two inferences is more plausible.

I'm sorry you find it helpful to mock me.

[Bob Gardner]

"But that's not the same as proving a negative. I'm simply pointing out that evidence for a sexually active married apostles doesn't exist but has to be inferred (to use a bit nicer word than pure speculation), just as Cochini infers the opposite. The issue is then which of the two inferences is more plausible."

Dennis,

In light of the 'silence,' why wouldn't you assume the norm? It is the classic cases of the dog that doesn't bark.

"But I never made that jump. Indeed, I repeatedly affirmed exactly the opposite: from the start I said that the Trullo relaxation may have been a good thing."

I think the point of departure is that we (Eastern Catholics) don't view Trullo as relaxing anything. You do. Therefore the burden of proof shifts back to you.

[Bob Gardner]

And Dennis, just to clarify my previous posts, I have no interest in changing the Western discipline either. I just thought that given the circumstances of the day that it could be honestly discussed, and if it was still found wanting then that would be the end of it. What I have found though is the West is averse to even doing that much.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Mr. Koehl, I did not ask you to prove a negative. I simply pointed out that if Cochini "invents" continence for married Apostles, then those who claim to know that whatever apostles may have been married also were sexually intimate with their wives is inventing a claim for which no evidence exists at all.<<<

It's a more historically plausible claim than the invented "tradition" that they didn't. It would be consistent with first century Jewish practice; it would be consistent even with the teaching of St. Paul, who does not accept permanent continence in marriage. It would be consistent with the earliest sets of Church canons (Hyppolitus, Canons of the Holy Apostles, etc), which have lots of regulations about ordained ministers, but which say nothing about married clergy abstaining from sex with their wives. It would be consistent with the practices of those Oriental Churches which separated from the Chalcedonian Churches long before Trullo (the Assyrians were off on their own well before the end of the fifth century). And, of course, if anyone bothered to look at the birth and death dates for the hosts of married bishops who had children, one would have to conclude that either there was a lot of "illicit" sex going on (by Cochini's reckoning) or that parthenogensis was the rule rather than the exception in such families.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I think the point of departure is that we (Eastern Catholics) don't view Trullo as relaxing anything. You do. Therefore the burden of proof shifts back to you. <<<

There are a few things on which ALL Eastern Catholics agree. This is one of them.

>>>And Dennis, just to clarify my previous posts, I have no interest in changing the Western discipline either. <<<

As I said, I personally don't care what the Latins do within the confines of their own jurisdiction. However, there seems to be a strain of thought within the Latin Church that feels clerical celibacy is an essential part of the Latin identity, but which also feels that, in light of present circumstances, it cannot be maintained without the sanction of "apostolic" origin. If it's "just a discipline", at some point the discipline might change--and for some Latins that's just unbearable. Unfortunately, that train has left the station. There are presently about 80-100 married Latin priests in the U.S. alone; due to the priest shortage and the crisis in the Episcopal Church, that number is likely to rise in the coming years. If celibacy is "essential", then of course, it cannot be dispensed. Moreover, the Latin Church does not insist that these married priests cease sleeping with their wives. It doesn't insist that married deacons stop sleeping with their wives, either. But the canonical strictures that Cochini, Stickler and Choliji cite apply to all the major clergy. So, either celibacy is "just" a discipline of one particular Church, and therefore not apostolic; or it is apostolic, and the Latin Church has seriously departed from its own deposit of faith. It would appear that the Latin Church holds to the former view--and a good thing, too.

[Dennis Martin]

The Jewish "norm" you think so obviouslyl the way to fill in the silence is actually 180 degrees opposite of the real "norm". Jewish priests abstained from marital relations while serving in their rotation at the altar. See Luke 1. There is actually real evidence for the continence discipline and no evidence, zero, nada, for your "norm."

But why let evidence get in the way of speculation? I won't post again on this. You already know all the answers.

[Bob Gardner]

If these comments are directed at me I will answer that what I meant as the 'norm,' for married life is the NT teaching given by St. Paul.

If it is insisted upon that it is an Apostolic Tradition, I agree that it proves too much. Either it was, and Rome is currently violating that Tradition, or it wasn't and Fr. Ray Rylands is wrong.

I must say this debate seems like a digression from the question of if allowing married priests would help the current vocation & "pedophile" crisis. I assume that you think that it would not? That's fine. But I haven't seen a reason put forth other than celibate priests are somehow better than married ones. Thus, the Eastern Tradition is looked down upon as being of lesser value than the Western one.

God bless,

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The Jewish "norm" you think so obviouslyl the way to fill in the silence is actually 180 degrees opposite of the real "norm". Jewish priests abstained from marital relations while serving in their rotation at the altar.<<<

So, you are saying that the Apostles adopted Jewish ritual purity law in its entirety, and that they saw service at the altar as being wrapped up in that. Strange, but both Peter and Paul say that Christians are absolved from ritual purity laws, although I do concede that when Latin theologians argues for clerical celibacy in the 11th-12th centuries, their arguments were heavily premised on ritual purity concerns (I told you it was about cooties). But as Christians, I do not think ritual purity applies to us. The Eastern Christian Eucharistic fast is not a matter of ritual purity but of ascetic discipline. Sex is not impure in any case (as even the Latin Church now teaches), so the point is moot. And of course, as the Orthodox priest told the married seminarian, "Why do you think God made afternoons?"

>>>But why let evidence get in the way of speculation? <<<

It certainly never stopped Cochini.

>>>I won't post again on this. You already know all the answers.<<<

Good of you to recognize it.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I must say this debate seems like a digression from the question of if allowing married priests would help the current vocation & "pedophile" crisis. I assume that you think that it would not? That's fine. But I haven't seen a reason put forth other than celibate priests are somehow better than married ones. Thus, the Eastern Tradition is looked down upon as being of lesser value than the Western one.<<<

We have digressed somewhat, Bob. But I think that over time the argument of whether married or celibate priests will work for the Latin Church will resolve itself. More and more married men are being ordained into the Latin Church every year (would that WE could say the same!), and most of them have proven to be exemplary pastors. Whether this is because they are married, or because, being zealous, orthodox converts from the Episcopal or Lutheran churches, or a combination of both, we can't tell at this point. What we do know is that the Latin attitude towards married priests is changing. From being an impossibility, it became a rare exception. From being rare, it became more common. From isolating married priests and precluding them from being pastors, they are now being thrust into parish settings. The sky didn't fall. The earth did not split asunder and swallow the Church. And the people like them, find that they have more in common with them, and understand their daily problems a lot better than many celibate priests. So I think they are here to stay.

Now, as to whether more married priests will solve the sex problem, that's an open question. Married priests tend to have a different kind of scandal, albeit fairly rare. But then, the number of transgressing celibate priests is also fairly rare. The difference, I suppose, is that when a married priest has an affair, it's usually with a grown woman, and the number of people involved is usually just two, not dozens or hundreds. Not that this makes the matter OK, just that the scope is more limited.

On another front, I think Dennis also needs to recognize that throughout most of the second millennium, the pledge of clerical celibacy was violated with considerable regularity and with the tacit concurrence of the Latin hierarchy, so long as the parties were discrete. It may not have been so here, in the U.S., where circumstances contrived to make the behavior of the clergy more upright, but it was (and likely still is) different in the Mediterranean countries that are the heart of "Catholic culture". Or, as my Sicilian great grandfather used to say, "A priest is a man whom everyone calls 'Father', except for his own children, who must call him 'Uncle'".

[Bob Gardner]

"Now, as to whether more married priests will solve the sex problem, that's an open question."

My thought here is that it would enable the seminary's vocation director to be a bit more discerning. Not that there is a one to one correlation between celibacy and deviant sexual behavior.

[david pence]

Let me direct this to Mr Koehl. This conversation began with a suggestion that the criminal behaviour of sexual predator priests and negligent bishops might be less likely if the Catholic church would reconsider its celibacy discipline.This is a strong narrative in the film proposed by thomas doyle butressed by modern psychologists that there is something intrinsically disordered with the purity codes and hierarchal structure of the all male celibate church. In vigorously contesting that significant aspect of the film, I argued that celibacy is indispensable to the priesthood and that a reform of the diocesan priesthood will reiterate the icon of the preistly brotherhood under an authoritative bishop and that band of brothers will not tolerate homosexuality in their own ranks(as incest). Celibate priests will deepen the brotherhood that shapes fatherhood and conform themselves more perfectly to Christ and the love which is the ultimate guarantee of eternal life. The brotherly love of celibate men is a sacramental perfection of the apostolic fellowship which the priesthood continues through history. In arguing this with dissidents, eastern brothers hear the argument and jump the catholic apologist for dissing married priests. Then follows a good discuission of differnet sources and references to many works discussing continence celibacy and the history of the dicipline. One thread that does get lost is that the priesthood is an icon of brotherhood and many remarks are made that seem snide mocking and girlish. Sharp argumentation and good wit are very necessary--there is even a good natured devastating mock that is part of brotherhood--but that isnt quite what we did here. I would argue again that a deepening of the celibate diocesan priest fraternity around their diocesan bishop is going to be one of the great fruits of vatican II and the only relationship powerful enough to expose and expel the lavender pretenders that now pollute the catholic priesthood. This is no time to get married but to gird our loins and fight. When david's soldiers were hungry and came for the temple bread the priest allowed them their bread as long as they had not been with women. david told them that his men had been fighting and thus were purified. A celibate priesthood is a dramatic eschatological icon of the waiting army for christ who comes the second tiome not as a baby but as a king. As a catholic i apologize to my fellow christians and the widows and orphans that the catholic fathers are such masqueraders--but as someone very involved in the reform i ask my eastern christian brothers to let us deepen our purity codes not jettison them. A renewed apostolic celibate fraternity will be sign unto the nations (and even to friendly Orthodox) if we can get it right. Lastly to Mr k I didn't confuse Benedict with Bernard because i hardly know anything about Bernard. Benedict as you rightly say did not found monasticism. What i remember is that he was out as a hermit for several years and men came to him. he was asked to head a existing monastary and the monks tried to poison him because of the rigorousness of his rule. he then started many monastaries with a regular rule and especially introduced the notion of stability. In marriage laws and the trent reform of keeping bishops local that has always been an important element of Church reform--love the one you are with. So i called benedict a monastic reformer---Cut a bro some slack. finally it seems no disparagement for a catholic man to tell feminists and homosexual activists that the problem with the catholic church is not that we have an all male celibate clergy. indeed "The development of an all male celibate clergy is an indispensable characteristic of the sacrificial priesthood and the sexual iconography of catholic culture." dp mer of

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>My thought here is that it would enable the seminary's vocation director to be a bit more discerning. <<<

That assumes, of course, that the vocation director's idea of discernment is congruent with ours. In a lot of cases, not so much--as Mr. Podles can attest. The article by Mankowski posted above speaks to the failure of seminary directors--and their bishops--to maintain good order and discipline because, being products of the loosey-goosey seventies, they themselves are deeply compromised. The "long march through the institutions" applies to the seminaries as well as to secular institutions, and in the end only the extinction of the Baby Boom generation will bring it to an end. Unfortunately, at this particular moment, the Boomers are at the peak of their power, but mortality is right around the corner, and the next generation, having seen the destruction wrought by their elders, are swinging in the opposite direction. When they take over there will be some changes made.

>>>Not that there is a one to one correlation between celibacy and deviant sexual behavior.<<<

I think the first thing that ought to happen is that celibacy in the context of the Church is redefined as something more than not being married and abstaining from sex. Those are both negative characteristics of celibacy, but Christian celibacy is something more, something positive. But for this aspect to come out, there really has to be a resurgence of monasticism.

And I think this applies to the Eastern Catholics as well as the Latins. In this country, the vast majority of our priests have been celibates (and we have seen the problems that causes as much as the Latins have), but if we are to restore married priests to the parishes, we need our celibate monastics to provide us with balance, an example, and a source of spiritual guidance.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"The development of an all male celibate clergy is an indispensable characteristic of the sacrificial priesthood and the sexual iconography of catholic culture."<<<

So we come back to this once more: I take this at face value, then neither Bob nor I are actally "Catholics", our Churches are not fully "Catholic", and the culture that our Churches foster is not really "Catholic Culture". Which means the old joke is right: RC means "Really Catholic", BC means "Barely Catholic".

So this old "spiritual helot" will just shuffle on back to the plantation and tell our married priests that they lack an "indispensible characteristic" of the sacrificial priesthood. They'll be glad to know that.

[david pence]

well put Mr K and i will leave the conversation at that dp

[Bob Gardner]

"well put Mr K and i will leave the conversation at that dp"

So much for your reliance on Vatican II which said, "The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers (1) and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church...
They (the Eastern Churches) are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16, 15) under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff."
Here is the complete document

[Bob Gardner]

"They (the Eastern Churches) are consequently..."
My addition maybe confusing, the point the document makes is that the east and west are equal in dignity.

Perhaps more importantly how can Vatican II state that our ecclesiastical traditions come from the apostles if we allow married priests, that fulfill their "marital duty" to their wives?
Was the council in error?

[Gene Godbold]

For the sake of intelligibility, I would plead with Mr. Pence to

1) Use commas
2) Break your thoughts into paragraphs
3) Use the preview pane to check your writing

I'm interested in this discussion. (If anyone cares, I think that Stuart and Bob G are producing the more compelling arguments.)

[James A. Altena]

Dennis Martin's last post about the continence of Jewish priests during their rota at the altar actually unwittingly refutes his argument.

First, per the epistle to the Hebrews the Christian priesthood is descended from the priesthood of Melchizedek, not the OT Aaronic Levitical priesthood, which immediately undercuts the analogy.

Second, the analogy also breaks down unless one assumes that the Aaronic OT priesthood was also celebrating the Eucharist.

Third, unlike Christian priests, the OT Jewish priests served at the altar in a rota; they were not celebrating the sacrifices every day. Thus once again the analogy breaks down, for on DM's argument either one must:

a) count the OT priests as truly being priests only when serving their rota (which would then devolve the Cathoic priesthood into a Protestant conception of the ministry such as held by e.g. many Lutherans, wherein there is no inhering permanent grace of ordination and a minister reverts to being a layman if he doesn not hold and exercise an official pastoral office);
b) argue that Jewish priests likewise were permanently continent (which the OT shows is false); or
c) endorse married priests who procrate, if the OT Aaronic priesthood is truly to be a precursor for the Christian priesthood here as the type to the NT Christian priesthood antitype.

While celibacy is a most estimable calling for those who have it, I as an Anglican Catholic am very happy with option c), and take great comfort in knowing that my parish priest sleeps chastely with his wife (and has three very fine teenage children by her), rather than with who knows what else and when and where and how.

[Dragani]

I heard through the grapevine that my name was invoked here. :)

I don't really have time to get drawn into a long discussion, as I'm in the middle of a super-heavy load this semester, teaching 15 credits. I'll just add my quick 2 cents and move on.

I have no dog in this fight. I fully support the Latin discipline, and don't think that relaxing it would necessarily solve anything. I got interested in this question because Fr. Ryland was one of my grad school professors, and I wanted to explore his arguments further. So I spent some time digging up everything that I could find on the subject.

Basically, here's what I arrived it:

1) In the West, there certainly was a push for clerical continence from pretty early on, at least dating to the fourth century. Whether or not this discipline goes back much earlier is up in the air. There certainly isn't much evidence either way. Just because Pope Siricius says that this was an ancient discipline doesn't necessarily mean that it was.

2) There is no evidence that this was universally (or even largely) followed in the West. Certain popes and bishops pushed for it from time to time, but there is no evidence that it was ever followed to any real extent. Again, mostly silence.

3) There was never much of a push for this discipline in the East. It was a topic of discussion on certain rare occassions, but generally it was not a priority for anyone. This would seem to indicate that mandatory clerical continence was not a universal discipline that faded in the East, but was something that originated in the West.

4) Trullo was not a relaxation of an earlier discipline in the East. It was a reaffirmation of what the East had always done. If it was altering an ancient discipline, there would have been some cry of protest within Eastern Christianity itself. The Oriental Orthodox Churches (so-called Monophysites), who despised the Byzantine Church (back then) and took every opportunity to denounce it, would have jumped on the chance to attack a relaxation of discipline.

5) Trullo only involved the Byzantine Church. None of the other Eastern Churches had anything to do with it. Yet they all have the same discipline, and there is no evidence of clerical continence ever being mandatory in their histories... but there is lots to the contrary.

St. Gregory the Illuminatory, for example, was succeeded as bishop by his son, who was succeeded by his son, etc., for many generations. It was a family dynasty, and none of the other patriarchs complained about it. If this situation was violating some ancient discipline, surely somebody, somewhere, would have protested?

Anyhow, in summary, Cochini and Cholij overstate their case. Yeah, the West did push for clerical continence early on. But was this a universal discipline? It doesn't appear to be so.

Check out my article, which has already been cited a couple of times in this thread. I provide the documentation from the councils that back this up (although the footnotes seem to have gone missing in the online version).

Peace out,
D.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I heard through the grapevine that my name was invoked here. :)<<<

But not in vain!

>>>Check out my article, which has already been cited a couple of times in this thread. I provide the documentation from the councils that back this up (although the footnotes seem to have gone missing in the online version).<<<

It also looks like it was redacted from the ECJ version. Perhaps you can upload a fresh copy?

If I was going to add anything to your insightful and succint intervention, it would be to mention that in the Assyrian Church at least, clerical celibacy was not even applied to bishops, and many are married even in this day and age. Since the Church of the East was effectively outside of the Oikumene and isolated from the middle of the 5th century onward, this would seem to indicate that at the time of their separation, and probably long before that, the discipline of the Church in the East accepted married clergy as a matter of course. The insistence on monastic bishops included at Trullo was the culmination of a long push within monastic circles and pointed to the triumph of monastic influence within the Byzantine Church.

[Lee Podles]

Interesting discussion, but I am closing comments.

The book will be out in the Spring; it has full bibliographic citations.

As to celibacy: it has value, but I think the Pope should allow the Eastern Churches complete freedom to have married clergy in all countries.