On Marriage & Celibacy

For quite a while now I have with great intent been following the articles concerning married clergy in the Catholic Church being published from time to time in your paper ("The Prairie Messenger", Saskatchewan, Canada). I have been waiting and waiting, hoping someone would notice the flaws in the arguments used for a married Roman Catholic clergy, yet, since this has to date not happened, I feel somewhat compelled to write the following:

The first argument we hear all around us is, that we have such a lack of priests, and allowing a married clergy would alleviate this problem. It is true, that there would probably be a "rush" on the priesthood, yet this "rush" would be short-lived. Following common logic, the solution to a problem lies in its roots. The root to the lack of priests is not celibacy, or even a lack of vocations. This could not be. God provides enough vocations. The root of the problem is that these vocations are not recognized, or, having been recognized, rejected and suppressed. Allowing a married clergy would not solve the problem, for the vocation to married life is suffering a similar crises as the vocation to the priesthood and to celibacy. One need just take a look at the number of divorces, reports of abuse, etc. The priesthood will not be spared this fate. This leads us to the second argument:

"I would rather talk about my marital problems with a married priest. He will understand better." This may be so. Yet it may also be a mistake. First of all, would you take advice from a priest who is abusive? Or who, because of an incapability to handle his own difficulties has become an alcoholic? - I very much doubt it. On the other hand, would you not seek advice from a priest who is leading a life of holiness and integrity and who has a reputation of giving good advice? You probably would. My point is this: Just because a priest is married does not mean that he can give good advice about marriage (or anything else, for that matter), and, on the other hand, from celibacy does not follow an automatic incapability to give sound advice. The human being has the faculty of speculative and abstract thought. This, for example, gives us the capability to fully comprehend and understand all the horrible consequences of, let us say, a 300 km/h impact with a concrete wall. It would be somewhat difficult to discuss that one with an "experienced" individual. When someone visits a psychiatrist, or a psychologist, is it relevant that the doctor is married or not? No. Relevant is, that they know what they are doing. That is why they spend so many hard years studying.

Another common argument is, that there would be less abuse by priests. This argument also does not stand scrutiny. Nowhere in any serious publication have I come across a statement saying that celibacy is a cause of abuse. We are told it goes far back to a persons childhood and family surroundings. Now, telling a potentially abusive person to get married is de facto letting him loose on innocent individuals and, at the same time, giving him a cloak to hide under. I hear that argument so often: "Oh, if they could marry, there wouldnąt be so much child abuse by clergymen." The logical conclusion from such a statement is, that we should give wives to child abusers. How sensible! Poor women..... Furthermore, statistics show, that abuse by unmarried individuals is about equally as common as abuse by married people. It is just easier to hide if you are a) not a priest, and/or b) if you are married.

Last but not least, there is the material side of things. The infrastructure of the Catholic Church is not ready for a married clergy. Health, dental and pension funds would have to be completely revised, or, in many cases, created. Salaries would have to be reformed and a family equity established. People often live with the illusion that priests make a vow of poverty. They donąt. Monastics do. Now, a celibate priest may make such a vow and live a life of poverty. This would be very commendable, yet, for a married man to make such a vow may even be sinful, for he would be depriving his family of things they have a right to have, causing maybe even severe psychological problems for his children and, ultimately, marital breakdown. Therefore, when polls are taken about how many are for a married clergy, the question should also be asked how many faithful are willing to, on average, triple their contributions to the church, or, in other words, give 10 % of their total family income (which is, by the way, more than just suggested by Jesus Christ himself). A married priest should receive at least what is the national average for a family with however many children.

One may say I am against married clergy. Far from it. I am a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Priest. I am happily married and have two adorable children, and I would not, for anything in the world, want it to be otherwise. In the Ukrainian Catholic Church, we are, maybe, lucky. I cannot and do not wish to mix into problems of the Roman Catholic Church. This would be wrong. After all, we do not like the Roman Catholic Church mixing into our internal affairs, yet so much I can say: The Church - and with that I mean the faithful - must be careful. Choose your arguments well. And remember: Married clergy is not better than celibate clergy, nor is celibacy better than marriage. Both are necessary and God given gifts. When God gives someone something, it is always the best, it is always perfect. He does not give or create "lesser" things. God created marriage yet in paradise and for paradise, for mutual support and procreation as part of the divine life. He did not create marriage because "after the fall, we would need it". God does not create anything "because we are going to need it because of our sins". Celibacy is also a gift, and, although intrinsically linked with marriage, it cannot be compared therewith. Just as marriage is a remnant and a reminder, one may say, of the original order of things before the fall of humankind, the way it was meant to be, one of the only things that we could take with us when we were thrown out of the Garden of Eden, so celibacy is part of the "New Creation", given to us through life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. One could say that marriage has received a new and deepened meaning through celibacy. Just as an unborn child has no and cannot have any concept of warm, because it knows nothing else, so also our understanding of marriage lacks without the example of faithfully and heroically lived celibacy. In the same breath we have to turn this statement around: Celibacy is meaningless without the example of faithfully and heroically lived marriage, "for the better and the worse, in health and in sickness, until death do us part", and maybe even beyond..... The point is, we cannot use one as an argument against the other. That is equal to cutting at the branch we are sitting on. Marriage and celibacy are both vocations, given by God who knows what is best for each individual. The choice is not between marriage and celibacy, but for or against what God has already chosen for us, and the quest is to find that. This is a personal quest, and an all-important one. It would be tragically wrong for a person called to celibacy to get married, or the other way around. A celibate who says: "I should have married, how much better that is", has either missed his vocation, or, in other words, made the wrong choice, or he fails to understand and fully accept his vocation. The same is valid for the married person who wants to be celibate or get out of a given marriage.

Another great problem is that we see celibacy as something negative, as, so to speak, a permanent sacrifice. Were it so, the Catholic Church would really be in a sad state. Obviously, sacrifice is necessary and is an integral part of celibate life, yet, as we know from the Gospel, every sacrifice we offer for our Lord is repaid a hundredfold and more. In other words, the joys brought about by the sacrifices far outweigh the sacrifice itself. This must be so, for the sacrifice can not be an end in itself, just as the suffering of Jesus Christ was not an end in itself, but the means for our salvation. The married person has a lot to sacrifice, too. Just as the celibate sacrifices himself for the Lord, so also does the married person do so. A married person must, just as the celibate, completely lose him or herself in the Lord. If the married cannot give themselves up completely to the Lord, both as individuals and as one flesh, then their union with each other can and will never be perfect and as willed by God. Giving oneself up for another is the essential sacrifice demanded of all of us, and this is sacrifice for the Lord, sacrifice in order that His will may be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Whosoever does not seek to give him/herself to the Lord completely and fully, risks his/her salvation.

Another view causing a lot of trouble is, that marriage and priesthood are seen as somewhat mutually exclusive. Both, naturally, demand complete attention and sacrifice: so complete, that they exclude each other. Yet this is only true in as much as marriage and priesthood are two separate and distinct vocations, as is the case for the majority of humankind, yet the vocation to a married priesthood does not fall under that category, because it is but one vocation, not two. Two sacraments does not automatically mean two vocations, just as reconciliation and holy communion are not two vocations, although two distinct sacraments. A priest and his wife are one in marriage, and their marriage is priestly service to the universal church, and the marriage becomes part of the priestly obligation.

But back to our examination of celibacy: What we are dealing with is the concept that celibacy means sacrifice, and this sacrifice is all too often defined as "abstinence from sex". We also, correctly, say, a celibate must live a chaste life. Now, when we put these three things together without too much thought, here is what we get: celibacy = chastity = abstinence from sex. The logical conclusion of that statement is then: marriage = having sex = unchaste. Disgusting, isnąt it? Yes, it is true, if a celibate person has a sexual relationship, it is wrong, sinful and unchaste, yet at the same time, if a married person permanently and without any reason at all refuses his or her spouse, then this, too, is unchaste, wrong and sinful. The point is this: chastity is for absolutely everyone, not just for the celibate, and chastity does not necessarily mean not to have sex. It includes that for the unmarried. I lived a celibate life for 26 years, and I thank the Lord every day for helping me. The rewards are uncountable. Yet at the same time, although I remained "abstinent", I cannot say I was always chaste. That would be equivalent to saying: "I did not sin". Who can say that? Chastity means faithfulness to God, especially in what he gives us: our vocations, and it includes all aspects thereof, not just sexuality. The conclusion is this: before we start any discussion on married clergy, we must examine marriage and celibacy as such and recognize their significance for our salvation. There are so many misconceptions around, that I can hardly say we are ready. Proof of this is the disastrous state of the family, which most families will not even admit to: abortion, euthanasia, divorce, contraception (as opposed to Natural Family Planning), etc., all fall on the state of the family, and, therefore, marriage. This is the real problem, and a married clergy will not solve it, especially not because it is married. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say we cannot barter with divine merchandise, the gifts of God, and at the same time not expect the consequences to be overwhelming. Are we prepared to carry them?

Fr. Nikolaj Hornykewycz