Howsoever Fiona Lynch (Letters, 10 May) may seek to explain the state of celibacy required of candidates for the priesthood, it is, of course, mandated. Church law states it as a sine qua non for ordination. (We know of the exceptions that provoke obvious questions.) The law became binding at Lateran II in 1139. Further, canons 277 and 1042 state the matter very clearly. Benedict XV in an allocation in 1920 called it a “sacred and salutary law”. Paul VI also reaffirmed it.
The law was imposed by human authority, not by Jesus during his ministry; both Jesus and Paul commended but did not command celibacy. The institution of the Church made celibacy mandatory for all priests, and it has had a long and punctured history. Fiona Lynch allows the same authority to this situation as to that of fidelity in marriage! How can this be so? Fidelity is of the essence in Christian marriage (we note this is a counter cultural idea today),for priesthood,however, celibacy is not of the essence. Indeed, it has been asked whether the law makes for a better priesthood, or does it,in our times, point only to many flawed ideas. Fidelity in marriage was not something decided because of a particular culture of the times,that urged church leaders to impose it on believers. Her ideas on celibacy refer more to a state 'freely chosen', and as such, would be accepted as that persons choice of witness to the love spoken
of by Jesus.
Confusion has arisen because attribution of divinity to church organisation, which it does not have, has become part of tradition, such that it is almost impossible to think outside of the box. Calvin once said of the Council of Trent,"should anyone have attempted to change one tittle of their customs, they hold him already condemned." Mandatory celibacy has caused many a “long wintry season' for too many genuine and sincere men.
Peter Cunningham, Coventry
Loading ...
