Aggie And Vinnie

The last few days has seen the Church celebrate the feasts of three of the martyrs of the Great Persecution - those who were killed under Diocletian. Sebastian, Agnes and Vincent of Saragossa - a Milanese, a Roman and a Spaniard, revealing how widespread that persecution was. Of course they also reveal the variety of people who chose to die rather than renounce Christ, people from various walks of life. Sebastian was a soldier,a man of the world; Agnes was a young girl from a noble and wealthy Roman family, from a generation usually cossetted and taken up with frivolities, Agnes was precocious in her faith and her commitment to Christ. Vincent, a deacon, spending his life, and himself, in the service of the Church. All three lived in the world, would have been happy to live their lives in the midst of the world; but those lives would have been immersed in Christ and the Gospel, and the world, and its secular powers, was threatened by that.  I have been thinking about Agnes and Vincent in the context of where we are now. 

Agnes chose the way of virginity: she is a virgin martyr dying as much for her virginity as her faith - indeed for her the two were so intimately connected they could not be separated. In other times she may have been a consecrated religious, but not necessarily - there are those who are called to live the virginal life in the midst of the world. Agnes refused to marry, her suitors, offended at being turned down, denounced her as a Christian to the authorities, she was arrested and interrogated. If she agreed to give up her virginity, give in to the sexual mores of Roman society, she would have been spared. She refused and she was killed.

Agnes's witness in terms of her virginity is twofold. While she did not demean marriage, she discerned it was not her calling. As a Christian she understood her relationship as being one of total gift to Christ, of virginal consecration. This witness is beautiful but also challenging, it reveals to all of us that our being disciples of Christ will require a commitment which will effect the way we live our lives - to be a real Christian we have to allow the Gospel soak into our flesh as well as our souls, minds and hearts, and that will have consequences for how we live our lives. Our lives, even the intimate aspects of our lives, may well have to change. 

Agnes's witness to virginity also reminds us of something else: sex is not everything. We live in a society that has idolized sex, so much so that there are many people, Christians among them, who cannot understand how anyone can live without having sex, usually on a regular basis. Attacks on priestly celibacy usually emerge from this opinion, not from any concern for individual priests and their lives. There is also a certain Gnosticism attached to sex: having sex regularly, seems in the views of some, to confer a singular wisdom, an insight into reality which is denied to the virginal, the celibate and the chaste. Hence as priests we often hear people tell us we know nothing about real life because we are not married or we are virgins. Even in the context of marriage sex is not everything - the commitment is deeper than that. If a marriage is based on sex alone, or it is the most important aspect of the marriage, that marriage might not last, one of the spouses may well begin to feel that they are nothing more than a slave for the desires of the other.

Agnes, however, teaches us otherwise. She was a confident, free and wise young woman. She was courageous and strong even though she was so young when she was killed. She teaches us that we need to rethink our attitude to sex - it is not the be all and the end all. Of course it is important, it is a gift of God, but must be approached in its proper context (marriage), aware of its proper ends and the powerful passions which attach to it. The desire for sex can become one which can overpower us, and I think we see that clearly in society as morals, laws and the very fabric society is now being dismantled to cater for sexual desire. Lust, if raised to the level of a master and a judge, quickly becomes a tyrant; when given free reign it will never be a servant and will eventually destroy. God gave us reason and virtue to help us control our passions, he gave us the Commandments and the Gospel to assist our reason and help us form our virtues, and we should take account of this. We must also remember that the greatest act of love the world has ever seen was not a physical act of intimacy between lovers but rather the sacrifice of the God-man on the cross. 

St Vincent's example is one of fortitude in the midst of tremendous suffering. Like Agnes he would not conform to the desires of his persecutors who wanted to wipe out his virtuous adherence to the Gospel by renouncing his faith. If only Vincent had conformed he would have had it all, they lamented. They tried persuasion, as they usually do: how happy and fulfilled he would be if he followed their way of life. Yet, they were not happy, they were ensnared in vice and greed. The faithful deacon said no, and so they inflicted pain: he will give in if we keep torturing him - we will wear him down, he will have no choice but to renounce his faith and then our consciences will be eased. But Vincent did not give in: it was not stubbornness, it was the grace and strength of God - Vincent's persecutors forgot that they were not just attacking a man, they were attacking God and he has ways and means to resist that attack. We are told in the account of his martyrdom that Vincent was serene in the midst of his sufferings - the Lord he loved was supporting him. And so he died, falling, not into the pit of his enemies, but into the arms of his Saviour.

In the coming months we in Ireland are going to face something of what Vincent faced. The ungodly fury of those who hate our Christian faith will be unleashed as they try to force us to endorse what we know to be wrong. First they will try to persuade, tell us that to be really Christian and kind we have to go along with them. If we resist that, they will turn on us, attack us, and who knows what after that. Vincent's example should inspire us to remain steadfast and serene. We cannot endorse what is wrong nor should we facilitate others in doing what is wrong. 

May these holy martyrs watch over us in these times, assist us their prayers, and come down from heaven to stand by our sides in the midst of tribulation.

Bonkers And Bonkers

I believe the Church, as well as being a communio, is a family, one established on blood kinship, not our blood - that which we inherit from ancestors, but a family established in the Blood of Christ and the waters of baptism. Because this is my view, I would see that the members of the Church must form a deep relationship with each other. As members of a family we should love each other, and as members of a family we should also be able to talk about things in a way that is familial. I often sense that many members of the Church who can only speak about the Church in an negative and angry tone, and are often dismissive, probably fail to see the bond of kinship that should exist between us.

Anyway, why this? Well it seems the former President of our Republic, Mary McAleese has launched another attack on the Church, this time the Synod of Bishops on the Family. Given her views in the past, it is not surprising to learn that she is rather dismissive of the Synod as it is being planned, and said that is "completely bonkers" that "celibate men" will be discussing the various issues. She feels that women should have a vital part to play in the process. Fair enough I suppose, there is a case to be made. But then I sense it would depend on the women: would orthodox, prayerful women who respect, live and defend the Church's teachings, in particular the moral teachings, be acceptable to her?

However, given the tone of McAleese's statements and taking her approach, and following her lead I would have to wonder, as a celibate priest, why she takes it upon herself to talk about priesthood and celibacy (which she has many times in the past)?  If bishops are not qualified to talk about family life (remember they are members of families themselves) then she as a married woman is not qualified to talk about celibacy. 

Sometimes as a priest you get  little cheesed off having to listen to people lecturing to you about celibacy and how we priests should be allowed to marry. When you disagree with them they attack you - as if you know nothing about the subject and they are the experts, when in reality the opposite is the case. Let us be clear: when a man is studying for the priesthood he knows that if he goes the whole way he will be required to live a life of celibacy, it is not sprung upon him at the last minute when it's all too late.  He begins this life the second he enters seminary. His seven years of training are to include living the celibate life to help him discern if this is for him: can he live a celibate life? I know some guys thought they could continue to have girlfriends and needed only to give them up when ordained deacons, but these guys had problems later on. Celibacy is not easy, but it is harder when a priest does not foster an intimate relationship with God and healthy relationships with good people. I stress good people because a priest needs honest, moral and sensible friends who will form not only a support group around him, but a spiritual family.

I think Pope Benedict teaches us this in his life. When Francis became Pope he eschewed the Papal Apartments and took up residence in an institution, the Domus. To be honest, I did not think that was a good idea for a number of reasons and I continue to believe that as I hear of problems which have emerged for the usual residents of the Domus Sancta Martha and the Roman locals living around it. Benedict, however, moved in humbly to the accommodation which was provided (and it is not lavish - the Papal Apartments are pretty spartan), but there he gathered a spiritual family around him. We heard the term "Papal family" used during his pontificate and some may have scratched their heads and wondered what this was all about. Benedict's made a spiritual family of his friends and staff, they took care of him and supported him, as he served them in his papal and fatherly ministry. That, I think, should be the model for secular priests. Such a model is possible when we remember the bonds that unite us. 

As a priest I have my family, but also many acquaintances, friends, and then close friends (men and women) who form my "spiritual family". With my own family this spiritual family supports me, prays for me and keeps an eye out for me. It is in this context that I live my celibacy, and with a life of prayer and work, and many interests, celibacy is not a burden but allows me the freedom to carry out the ministry I was called to. Some might say I can only speak for myself - true, but many thousands upon thousands of priests from the Apostles down to the newly ordained today can testify in the same way. Some will say I am bonkers, well if so I hope to be a fool for Christ's sake as another (happy) celibate once said - St Paul.

And let us not forget the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Living priesthood is living a vocation which has been made a sacrament and in this God gives his grace to help the priest live a faithful life - including celibacy. Prayer is vital here, for in prayer the priest's soul is opened to receive the grace of the sacrament and he is strengthened by the very gift of life from Christ the High Priest. Now when I mean prayer I mean authentic, heart to heart prayer, alone with the Lord in adoration and solitude. The first priority for a priest must be the time he sets aside to be alone with God. When a priest abandons prayer even for the noble excuse of ministry, he is opening the door for problems ahead and may well be closing the door to grace. A dry well gives no water. 

All that said, thanks to the members of my spiritual family, my close friends who have always been there for me. 

Musings

There is a saying that those who wed themselves to the spirit of the age are quickly widowed, and how true it is.  It seems that as I write there are many who are entering the state of widowhood, among them many priests, religious, and even bishops.  One of our bishops who is determined to remain wedded to Christ is Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.  In a recent interview he has responded publicly to the revolt of some of his priests who want a “reform” of the Church, reform being, in their lexicon, an abandonment of fundamental Church teachings and practices in order to embrace the spirit of our secularist age. As the Cardinal rightly points out if he were to do this he would break communion with the Church and he is not prepared to do that. 

This raises an interesting question – right back at them: have they broken communion with the Church (though they insist “We are the Church”)?  Indeed is it not time for them to reconsider their position and make formal what they are already informally?  May it not be time for those who will not accept the teaching of the Catholic Church to consider a denomination which holds as its teachings what they already believe themselves?  St Dominic Savio’s famous motto, “be true to yourself”, may be the one they need to adopt for themselves. 

We often hear the word “reform” bandied about by those who, in reality, do not want to bring us back to the purity of Christ’s message, but rather a new secularised version which in reality detracts from what the Lord intended to do.  The canon of dissident is normally made up of sexual issues proving time and time again that care of the human spirit tends to come second to the desires of the body.  Instead of trying to embrace a life of balance and chastity, following the example of Christ, our erstwhile “reformers” want to tinker at Christ’s teaching in order to facilitate sexual desire, not in a healthy sense, but in a permissive sense.  Jesus never said “anything goes as long as you love each other”, but our modern thinkers relying on the broadest, most relativist interpretation of the one piece of Christian teaching they accept, “God is love”, have managed to crowd in everything and anything so they can justify any aberration.

They say the Church is obsessed with sex – not so, they only think that because they are the ones obsessed with sex.  If you listen to these reformers when in one of their attacks on the Church you do not have to wait very long before sex pops up in the debate as they decry the Church’s ban on contraception, pre-marital sex, divorce and remarriage and now, homosexuality. 

Even the debate on married priests is not too far away from sex. A friend of mine, who has had more than his fair share of debates with these reformers, has come to conclusion that the debate about married priests is about sex: “They just want the priest to be having sex so then he is no different from anyone else”.  After much thought I think his conclusion is correct.  Celibacy serves as a sign in the modern world to another life, a life of purity and grace.  Celibacy teaches all of us that sex is not the be all and end all of life: it is one part of life, but not all of life – there is more to the human person than sex.  That contradicts the ideological thinking of many, those who see untrammelled sex as the great sign of liberation and freedom – the triumph of “MY will” over the world.  Ultimately it is another expression, the most powerful expression today, of the non serviam.

This is why Bishop Edward Daly, with all due respects to him, is wrong: celibacy is important because it reminds the world that the priest is a man set apart.  While he has the same difficulties and temptations as everyone else – sometimes more, he must strive to become what he has promised to be – his promise of celibacy is the potent sign of this.   A priest is not to be like other men, he is different.  A priest is not his own, as Archbishop Fulton Sheen reminds us, he belongs to God and the Church – so he must never belong to another human being exclusively be it a wife or children. 

Some will say the celibacy rule is already undermined by former Anglicans who are ordained or Eastern Rite priests, but these exceptions do not undermine the rule, but rather draw our attention to it.  These priests do great work, but their first responsibility is to their wives and families, as it should be: the Church, though, needs men whose first responsibility is to a lifetime’s service of the Church: men who even in their own bodies, conform themselves to Christ the High Priest whose bride and only spouse, is the Church.  Call that idealistic, unrealistic, unworkable if you want, but when the critics of celibacy roll out the hard cases to prove their point, the Church can point to millions of celibate, holy and happy priests who devoted their entire lives to the selfless service of the people of God, to prove her point.

It has also been said that the rule of celibacy is preventing many young men from considering the priesthood, and so the Church is being deprived of their ministry.  I disagree with that: if a young man is deterred from priesthood because of celibacy, then priesthood is not for him: it is a life which requires a radical dying to self and so when a man is considering priesthood he has to be prepared to let everything else go. Those priests who are struggling with celibacy are struggling with living their vocation, as all who have embraced a vocation struggle.  Married couples struggle and their struggle can be, at times, worse than that of a priest. 

It is said that the loneliness is too much for a man, he needs a life’s companion.  There are many who live alone and who must deal with loneliness – that single life is not always chosen.  There are people in marriage who are lonely.  A priest must order his life and his day so as to deal with that loneliness.  As for a life companion – the priest should already have one – Christ.  A priest must pray: in prayer he will come to know and love his Lord as his spouse.  Unfortunately some priests put prayer way down the agenda – they are too many other things to do: but prayer must be a priority.  A psychologist priest I know, who has decades of experience of working with priests in crisis, once said to me that when a priest comes to him with a vocational crisis and is thinking of leaving, the first question he asks is: “When did you stop praying?”  Inevitably, he says, prayer has been absent or scarce for many in this situation.

It has been said that a priest should have a family to call his own: he does – it’s called the Church.  One of the joys of priesthood is that you are a member of many families, all of whom take you to their hearts and love you.  Whenever I go out on visitation I am welcomed by my parishioners and others, and they take you right into their homes and their lives.  They trust you, confide in you, love you, because you are their priest – the one who has chosen to offer his life in service for them and is there for them whenever they need him.  That is the way it should be.  A priest has many children whom he must love and care for – when a priest is struggling with celibacy, he should also remember his people who love him for the sacrifice he has made for them.

I have had many debates on this issue, and this stage I remind the critics of the above and then turn to the pragmatic argument: are they prepared to up the offerings in order to provide their priest with an income to support his wife and many children (after all, we’ll be good Catholics, there will be no contraception!)?  When I list out the amount necessary and then the fact that he will not be as free for them as he was when celibate, they go strangely quiet.  The theoretical argument has set them on fire, but when reality hits and it means digging deeper into their pockets, funnily, things don’t seem as simple then. 

Today In The News...

Just when you think things can't get any worse, a new front is opening on the assault on the Church, this time courtesy of the retired Bishop of Derry, Dr Edward Daly.  In his new book he advocates for a change to the rule of celibacy in the Church.  We'll see where that goes.  Given what we are dealing with at the moment, this is most unhelpful.

I was watching last night's Frontline programme on RTE 1, hosted by Pat Kenny.  The topic was the Seal of the Confessional, and it was a most desperate production.  It should really be called "Flatline" because the atmosphere was deadening.  The usual suspects were there advocating that the Church should disregard the Seal: Minister Frances Fitzgerald was leading the attack, with Gina Menzies, Andrew Madden and a guy called Brendan with rearguard action.  On the other side were notables such as Fr Vincent Twomey, David Quinn and Rosemary Swords, leader of the Elijah Fellowship Community in Dublin, whose intervention was powerful and disarming.   Some legal voices were also heard and they pointed out that any legislation which sought to compel priests to reveal confessions would be unconstitutional and thrown out of court.  So at least it was good for the Minister to hear that fact.

Meanwhile another blow has been dished out to Enda Kenny by former Taoiseach Brian Cowen.  He has said that the Vatican was trying to assist the government in its investigations, but the commission established by the government used the wrong channels.  When told what channels to use the commission decided not to use them, and then accused the Vatican of refusing to cooperate.  It seems to me that there may have been another agenda at work here, and perhaps, it seems to me, an opportunity was "created" to show the Vatican in a negative light so as to embellish the report's critique of Catholicism.

In other news, it seems David Norris is thinking of getting himself back into the race for the park - to become the next President of Ireland.  It seems the people of Ireland want him to resume his campaign.  Ironic given recent events: another indication that there is a most unsavoury double standard at work in Ireland today.

Should Priests Marry?



There is an excellent post by Fr Dwight Longnecker on his blog dealing with the question of married priests in the Catholic Church.   He reminds us that there is a difference between priests marrying and married men being ordained.  As a former Anglican priest who converted, he was ordained a priest for the Church while having a wife and children, so his reflection is very interesting - from the inside you might say.  And he has a few interesting things to say, things which will dispel the rosy view many calling for married priests have. The paragraph on practical problems will make them quite uncomfortable methinks.  

In Ireland today you often hear the call for married priests, and it is seen by many as the solution to many of the Church's problems (they are not following what is going on in the Anglican communion - lots of problems there).   

At the beginning of the Year of the Priest, I decided to dedicate a few homilies throughout the year to the priesthood.  In one of them I touched on the call for priests to be allowed marry.  I briefly explained the theology behind it - I could see a few faces in the congregation tighten up - they were determined not to be convinced. 

Then I got on to a few practical points, same as those Fr Dwight raises.  Well, the reaction was amazing!   When they realised that THEY would have to support the priest and his family, the looks on their faces changed - reality was hitting.  "You would need to give perhaps three or four times more to bring the priest's salary up to a decent rate to support his wife and children" (their mouths opened).  "As we will follow the Church's teachings on all things, there will probably be a lot of children to support" (indignant look - it seems they will want their priest to be contracepting with the rest of them).  "And remember, a priest will have to put his marriage first, so if it comes to a decision between your needs and his family's needs, you'll have to take second place" (ie they'll pay more, less availability). 

To be honest I was smiling inside.  Many who argue for priests to marry, as Fr Dwight alludes to, are not very realistic, even a touch naive - they really do not consider all the issues.  Personally I favour the continuance of the discipline in the Western Church which dates to apostolic times (we need to tackle the false history that claims celibacy only came in around the 12th century).   Celibacy makes a priest available to his flock and symbolises his total dedication to Christ.  As one who lives and acts in persona Christi, when the priest is celibate he is living a life more imitative of Christ who was celibate himself.   That said, I have no problem with the exceptions which are made for those former Anglican clergy who convert - I trust the Church will be careful in its decision and prudent in appointments: the exception does not nullify the rule. 

Permanent Deacons and Perpetual Continence

Ed Peters, renowned canon lawyer, is creating a bit of a storm which may have universal consequences.  According to a thesis he wrote five years ago, and being discussed again, he maintains that Canon Law requires that permanent deacons must refrain from sex with their wives after ordination.  He is discussing canon 277 of the 1983 code.  Here is the canon:

§ 1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity. § 2. Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful. § 3. The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation.

At the moment it is understood that men ordained to the permanent diaconate, may continue normal relations with their wives, but if their wives should die before them, then they are bound to celibacy, ie they may not marry again.  Peters is saying that while permanent deacons are dispensed the rule of celibacy (they may remain married), they are not exempted from the rule of continence (refraining from sexual relations with their wives).  This rule may even apply to those former Anglican ministers who are ordained priests.

He has come to this position having studied the practice of the early Church and the rule of law in the Church since then.  In the early Church those ordained to service in the Church in the clerical state, if married, were required to live a life of continence.  Clerical continence and celibacy have been part of the Church's life from the beginning, contrary to what progressives teach.   It seems Peters has a point if we are to argue from history. 

It will be interesting to see how this one will pan out.  Ed Peters's thesis is here.  His son covers the story here on his blog.  An interesting reflection by Fr John Boyle on his blog.  Here is one deacon's reaction.  This is an area the Church is going to have to address.