The various opinions of those advocating the status quo [around married clergy, The Tablet, 11 July] seem to be marked by a blinkered arrogance. Surely the chief criterion is discerning whether a person has been called by God to serve the Trinity and God’s people as a priest. All else is secondary.
The arrogance shows up in the belief that God is only calling single men or widowers in the Roman Church. God’s call is not restricted in the Eastern Rite Churches, in the Orthodox, and other Christian denominations. Neither is the call restricted in non-Christian religions. The vocation to celibacy or marriage is a separate and unrelated matter. The Roman Rite Church made itself unique by introducing the requirement. Bishop Byrne [The Tablet, 18 July] refers to “the ancient tradition of celibacy” but the length of the ancient tradition of married priests is far longer.
The fact that bishops, saints in our calendar were married men, eg Gregory of Nyssa and significantly Hilary of Poitiers was not only married but had a daughter when he was elected bishop. Bishop Byrne also refers to celibacy as “jewel in the crown of the western church”.
If it is such a jewel does he not wonder why it is limited to the Roman Church. Crowns usually have a variety of jewels complimenting each other. Bishop O’Toole refers to the beauty of celibacy – is not marriage beautiful too?
Ann Lardeur, Chaldon, Surrey
Please let’s not speak of celibate or married or women priests as if they must be alternatives. We need all three. And please, let us not cite the priest shortage as the main reason we want them. They would add significant positive value, in their own right, to what we already have; relieving our shortage, important though that is, should be only a secondary reason.
To ask for a married priesthood does not diminish celibacy. It could even enhance it. Celibacy is a vocation freely entered into, and as such clearly has its own value (although arguably, if it is enforced, that value may be weakened). But the vocation of marriage also brings its own value, different and additive; there is no obvious reason why one should trump the other.
It is never clearly explained why marriage and priesthood must be exclusive. The most we ever hear is a vague proposition that somehow marriage would inhibit a person being able to devote him/herself fully to God. Reasons for this view are never given. I believe the proposition is false, and also insulting, because it implies that marriage is a "second class" vocation, necessarily creating an impediment to God. A more realistic view is that both the marital and celibate vocation, if entered upon with a true heart, are equally open to God’s fullness; God’s presence within each of us is not to be limited by our own definitions. To allow priesthood to coexist with marriage as well as with celibacy would, I believe, greatly enrich the priestly vocation, and therefore all of us.
As a first step, we should allow those who have had to leave the priesthood to marry to return to their ministry if they so wish. Not to do so is foolish, pointless and unjust.
Colin McDonald, Camberley, Surrey
The hierarchy is guilty of sinful clericalism and scandal in denying Catholics their right to the Eucharist insisting on a celibate male clergy. Praying for vocations is all well and good as long as those wearing the mitres begin to acknowledge that the vocations are all around us - men, women, married, unmarried, celibate or not and previously ordained and now married. No wonder Catholics walk away from the Church when they see such gross mismanagement.
Mary Louise Hartman, Princeton, New Jersey, USA
I was surprised and disappointed that the arguement in favour of married clergy centred around "filling the gaps" rather than emphasising the maturity and experience of family life that married priests would bring to the priesthood. Qualities that are sadly currently missing.
Howard J Curtis, Formby, Liverpool
Loading ...
