Priestly celibacy.

A wide variety of people, including Catholics, remain confused by two widespread errors. One is the idea that celibacy wasn't introduced until sometime in the 11th or 12th century and then only in the Latin-rite Church. The other, related to the first one, sees celibacy as a mere disciplinary matter which Church authorities could change overnight with a snap of the fingers, if only they wished to do so. Parties interested in changing mandatory celibacy in the Latin (Roman) rite Church make much of these points, especially dissenters such as the "We are Church" -- "Catholics of Vision Canada" groups (see C.I., Jan-Feb. 1997, p. 20).

Furthermore, there are also many faithful Catholics who repeat these errors or who rely on them in their argumentation and thinking, especially those who pin their hopes on married priests as the solution to the current shortage of priests in Europe and North America. `It's just imposed by the Church', it is said, as if it were a matter of rules for the regulation of a devotion, or an administrative rule of minor significance. Yet, as we have shown in the article "Celibacy, a precious gift" (Sept. '96), it is not this kind of bureaucratic rule at all.

Part I: Canada today

There is another reason why the history of celibacy should be set forth in this journal and, I believe, we should begin with it. Among those who have called for changes in celibacy, Canadian bishops have played a special role. Our episcopal delegates to the International Synods in Rome, or the regional groups of bishops visiting Rome on their ad limina visits, have repeatedly asked the Vatican for married priests and the abolition of obligatory celibacy. Indeed, one may almost speak of "badgering" Rome, because the record of these requests now stretches over a 30-year period, from the sixties into the nineties. During this entire time the Popes, from Paul VI and his encyclical On priestly celibacy issued in June 1967, to John Paul's negative response to the latest Canadian request in 1996, have not ceased to defend celibacy as a value of the highest order.

So let us first examine the state of affairs in Canada, not because of petty fault-finding but in the spirit of Pope John Paul's November 1994 encyclical On the Coming of the Third Millennium where, in Section 34, the Holy Father asks individuals as well as groups to examine our consciences to see whether or not we are building obstacles to the coming of the Kingdom. The forthcoming regional Synod on the Americas is also asking us to examine what factors are causing significant divisions in the Church and how they can be overcome (O.R., Sept. 18, 1996, p. 11).

The following is based on a study and analysis of the "interventions" (or addresses) of Canadian delegates at the Roman Synods (CCCB photostats) and other source materials as well as secondary sources.

Background

International or Roman Synods, as they are often called, bring episcopal delegates from the world's regions or nations to meet in Rome every two or three years. Representation is mostly, but not exclusively, by nationality. The Pope selects the topic beforehand. An initial draft or outline is then circulated among national episcopal conferences which, in turn, solicit comments and reactions to help them select and emphasize their own points of view. The various opinions are presented by the delegations to the Synod in short speeches, usually of eight minutes' duration, with simultaneous translation in Latin, Spanish, French, English and German. The addresses are summarized by "relators." Then the bishops meet in language groups of their choice for more informal discussion, the results of which are also summarized for the benefit of the whole Synod.

There is no real debate, neither time (usually four weeks) nor numbers (300-350 individuals) permitting prolonged exchanges. At the end of the session the more prominent ideas are listed. From this a report is sent to the Church abroad. During the first five synods (1967-1977) the assembly itself drafted this final report. This proved unsatisfactory for various reasons, so from 1980 onwards it has been left to the Pope to produce a letter addressed to the entire Church. So far there have been eleven synods: 1967, 1969, 1971, 1974, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1990 and 1994.

Post-Council period

The celibacy issue had been raised already during the Council itself, but Pope Paul VI removed it from the debates, reserving it for a later commentary. This appeared in the summer of 1967 as the encyclical On Priestly Celibacy.

Shortage of space does not permit us to sketch the turbulent events of the post-Vatican Council period of 1965 to 1970. Suffice it to say that the Western world witnessed an almost unbelievable exodus of priests and sisters abandoning their calling to the celibate priesthood and sisterhood. This shook the confidence of many clergy and faithful, not least because the media consistently interpreted the many departures in Europe and North America as progress away from obscurantist fundamentalism. Canadian Catholics were deeply affected by this propaganda, as became clear in 1971.

The Canadian position was put forth most strongly at the International Synod of 1971 by the four delegates, Archbishops Paul Gregoire of Montreal, Joseph-Aurele Plourde of Ottawa, Maxim Hermaniuk of Winnipeg and, above all, by Bishop Alexander Carter of Sault-Ste-Marie, then president of the Bishops' Conference. The theme of the gathering was Priesthood and Justice.

Metropolitan Hermaniuk of Winnipeg, representing the Byzantine-Ukrainian rite in Canada, found fault with the Synod's preparatory document because of its exclusive emphasis on priestly celibacy. He noted that it said "absolutely nothing about the affinity of marriage and ministry," a grave omission because, in his view, the affinity of priesthood and marriage is equal to that of priesthood and celibacy. In the West, in the Latin rite, he thought the question of a celibate or a married clergy should be left to national conferences of bishops, each country deciding for itself what was best. Archbishop Hermaniuk's sentiments were echoed by the others.

Archbishop Paul Gregoire argued that these "problems" demanded a re-examination of the priestly theology itself in various aspects, such as celibacy, its permanent character (in view of the many priests leaving), and its relationship to the priesthood of the faithful and that of the bishops. Bishops, through their national episcopal conferences, should be given wider authority over the life and ministry of the Church, he thought.

Ottawa Archbishop Joseph-Aurele Plourde made an even stronger pitch for more episcopal autonomy. If pastoral action is to be "an expression of ecclesiastical communion," as the pre-Synod document states, he observed, then it should be understood that this unity is not dependent on uniformity of discipline. In fact "uniformity in discipline is no longer possible in the Church" and the very credibility of the Church is at stake "unless greater freedom of decision is left to episcopal conferences." This is necessary, he argued, because of the "needs of peoples who are extremely different in culture, mentality and life-style."

A brief reflection shows that these suggestions were very radical. After all, who had ever heard of challenging the permanency of priestly ordination? (The Church teaches that the Sacrament of ordination leaves a permanent mark like baptism: once a priest, always a priest).

A bombshell

Bishop Alexander Carter's presentation was a veritable bombshell. It provided the most explicit picture of how deeply Canadian bishops and some of their priests had been influenced by sociological trends.

While priestly celibacy was not one of the central issues of the Synod, the bishop said that the continued agitation in Europe and America demanded a frank discussion. The Synodal text seemed to have "an unhealthy preoccupation with celibacy"; it hadn't even bothered to provide "arguments against celibacy!"

Meanwhile, sociological research, he stated, showed that priests' motivation for accepting celibacy was not what it should be, making it clear, therefore, that it should be optional. The Canadian bishops had discussed all this with their priests over the previous two years. Now they proposed the following:

1. Ordain married men even independent of need, "because we are convinced that married men who have the experience of family life and of life in the heart of the secular world, have a new and valuable dimension to bring to the priesthood."

2. Reinstate dispensed priests now married as soon as the faithful understand that celibacy is purely optional. He added: "a minority of the bishops and probably a majority of the priests want to proceed at once, without waiting any longer."

3. Give complete freedom to national episcopal conferences to determine pastoral needs and discipline, including perhaps the ordination of single men who might want to marry later.

These positions, Bishop Carter noted, had been "democratically reached," and reflected the views of both bishops and priests. The only thing the majority of Canadian bishops and priests were not willing to do, he said, was to introduce the option of marriage for those presently ordained.

Bishop Carter's intervention became an international news story overnight and this for a very good reason. It stood the traditional theology of the celibate priesthood on its head. No one in 1500 years had suggested that priests should be allowed to marry after ordination; this is prohibited even in those Eastern rites which do have married priests.

The proposal to reinstate priests who had broken their vows and had married showed no understanding of the impact this would have had on the remaining priests and the Church at large. As for the suggestion that married men may make better priests than celibate ones, it was presented without any proof whatever. Moreover, it had been voted down (38-31) by the Canadian bishops in their previous September 1971 Ottawa meeting, when they wanted it tied to "where the need is very urgent." At that time they did vote in favour of ordaining married men, 61-12.

International response

How were these radical proposals received? The CCCB's own press officer, Sister Ella Zink, reported from Rome that "the stature of the Canadian bishops in the eyes of the international press is extraordinary." There were over 800 reporters, she said, and the press corps "appears to have a deep respect for the Canadian prelates. . . They are in great demand for interviews. . . ." In other words the "progressive" Canadians were the toast of the town. (1)

Despite this, it was clear from the wind-up report at the end of the first two weeks that the synod bishops did not agree. According to one report, more than half of the bishops felt that the Canadian proposal would not only fail to solve the basic problems besetting the priesthood but would create other, even worse, ones. A long report from Associated Press showed that the rejection of the Canadian position was more profound even than that.

"Briefing officers," it said, "read to reporters excerpts of reports on the priesthood by 10 to 12 synod discussion groups. Some groups showed near unanimity in rejecting any change in celibacy rules. In others a small minority favoured letting the Vatican decide when and if married men should be ordained. There was only minuscule support for allowing bishops' conferences to decide this issue." The report continued: "Fairly typical was the vote taken in the English-language Group B: eleven for no change in celibacy; seven for letting the Vatican decide exceptions; one for letting bishops' conferences decide if they want married priests; one abstaining."

There was likewise scant support for proposals to admit women to the ministry or to allow priests to take on full- or part-time secular jobs. "Bishop Alexander Carter of Sault Ste. Marie, Canada, a leading exponent of changing the celibacy rule," the report stated, "admitted his hopes were doomed." (2)

Pressure continues

On December 9, 1971, after the close of the Synod, Pope Paul VI solemnly restated the need for celibacy. But the national Federation of Priests' Senates of English-speaking Canada announced that many priests were not convinced; it would, therefore, "undertake a study." For several years thereafter, the Western Conference of Priests faithfully passed resolutions calling for the abolition of mandatory celibacy.

I was present at one such meeting, in Victoria, B.C., in 1973. Towards the closing of the three-day session, a series of "approved" resolutions were read over the microphone, including one calling for the abolition of mandatory celibacy. These must have been approved by executive decision, because no debate or vote on celibacy had been held during the three days. The press lapped it up as "the views of Western Canadian priests." But less than half of these priests had even attended the conference, and those who did, as noted, never discussed it at all!! Those responsible for this sleight-of-hand abandoned the priesthood not too long thereafter.

The call for married priests continued in Canada as well as elsewhere. Cardinal Suenens of Belgium was one prominent bishop who continued to oppose mandatory celibacy. While Bishop Alexander Carter had indicated in his 1971 interview that he certainly would adhere to the voice of the Synod, it did not prevent him from bringing the subject up from time to time, including a call for ordaining married men among Canadian native Indian people as late as 1984, two years before his retirement. (CNT, June 3, 1984)

Quebec bishops, 1973: celibacy's pastoral value

In the spring of 1973 the Quebec bishops issued a letter on celibacy for Holy Thursday on request of their Council of Priests. (3)

They acknowledged that at the 1971 Synod proposals had been made to ordain married men and abolish compulsory celibacy. But now they wished to set forth a different view.

Public opinion, they thought, brings forward two main reasons against celibacy. First, people claim that celibacy is harmful to the well-balanced development of the person and that every man, therefore, should live in the conjugal state. Secondly, celibacy is said to prevent the priest from sharing the family responsibilities common to the majority of the people.

In answer, the bishops related their own experience. Celibacy, they stated, has great pastoral value because for a priest "It is the means of deepening his love for the church." He is able to live already in this world "something that is characteristic of the eternal, and of the kingdom of God: belonging to God without the intermediate moment of marriage and a whole life devoted to testifying to this."

As for sharing family responsibilities, the apostolic mission given the priest at the moment of ordination, they said, "asks him to love the people that has been entrusted to him with all the love with which he could have loved a family of his own." In an age of consumerism "in which even love is often associated with products that are bought and sold, celibacy, lived in availability and in total donation to others, becomes a challenge to a world closed in upon itself, threatened with spiritual asphyxia and a form of quiet despair."

The 1970s

Canadians continued to push for married priests, though from the mid-seventies onwards the woman's ordination issue began to take precedence, with the "married priests" issue attached as its shadow. Meanwhile, at the 1974 Synod on evangelization London Bishop G. Emmet Carter wondered whether "centralism" wasn't "violating the relative and rightful autonomy of the local churches and episcopal conferences. . ."

The 1977 Synod dealt with catechetics and adult education, neither subject lending itself to ideological positioning on celibacy. But with the 1980 Synod on the Family the Canadian delegation returned to the fray on behalf of local autonomy and innovations in the sacrament of marriage as well, such as approval for divorce based on regional and "contemporary experience" (Archbishop Henri Legare). Local experience and "pastoral care," the Canadian delegates thought, required granting greater autonomy to episcopal conferences in matters touching marriage and family life, to which they appended a list of the most radical suggestions (October 13).

Speaking on women seeking equality, on October 14, 1980, Bishop Robert Lebel (Valleyfield, P.Q.) accused "the Church" (read Rome) of "discrimination" and "a sexist attitude," charges delivered without evidence but duly creating headlines at home: "Rigid Pope disappoints liberal bishops" read the October 27, 1980, headline of the Edmonton Journal, for example.

The 1980s

The issue of feminism throughout the 1980's and the attitude of Canadian bishops, especially those from Quebec, towards it, has been sketched earlier (See "No, No, No. Addendum to the Church in Quebec," C.I. August 1993, pp 6-8). The "No, No, No" was the Pope's reaction in 1993 to the Quebec bishops' suggestion on their ad limina visit to Rome for married and female priests.

As for the Synods, in 1983 the Canadian spokesman was Archbishop (later Cardinal) Louis-Albert Vachon of Quebec, who spoke of the "ravages of sexism," "cultural deformation" and "archaic concepts of womanhood" as supposed characteristics of the Church. In 1987 Bishop Jean-Guy Hamelin of Rouyn-Noranda called for the ordination of women and an end to "discrimination" against them (Oct. 9, 1987). In 1990 Bishop Henri Goudreault (then of Labrador-Schefferville) expressed his regret that the Synod had "firmly closed the door" on permitting married priests, while Bishop Martin Veillette of Trois-Rivieres claimed that in Canada people would see no difference between celibate and married priests and readily accept both.

The 1990s

All these addresses caught the attention of the press as, for example, Bishop Hamelin's "Time for women priests, Quebec cleric tells synod," Toronto Star, October 10, 1987. Occasionally they were reprinted in Origins, the documentary weekly of the NCCB in Washington, for wider distribution among Catholic priests and scholars in the English-speaking world. Yet on the whole the radical nature of the Canadian proposals was practically unknown because of poor reporting or no reporting in the press. I remember being amazed in 1988 when I read through the entire collection of photostatted "interventions" from 1967 to 1987.

I was amazed at how far the bishops had gone in accommodating popular pressure in favour of relaxing this or that point of traditional teaching, and how insistent they had been in seeking Canadian autonomy in settling these questions. This spirit clearly flowed from the events in Winnipeg in September 1968 when the bishops had struck out on their own. There, in the midst of turmoil, they had decided -- for pastoral reasons it was said -- to correct the Chief Pastor of the Church Pope Paul VI by "reinterpreting" (term used by Bishop Alexander Carter) the July 1968 encyclical On Human Life (Humanae vitae). They practically, if not theoretically, exempted Canadians from its prohibition of contraceptives. (4)

In 1993 the Canadian bishops visited Rome in four successive regional groups, all on their required five-year ad limina visit. They spoke on behalf of married priests once more, with their requests and the Pope's response reported in the newspapers, summarily in the daily papers, in somewhat more detail in the Catholic weeklies.

The Quebec bishops were the first to go, in July. The conference of Western bishops followed in September. The latter did not ask for the abolition of celibacy. They asked for an exception to the general rule for cultural reasons, namely an exception for the Inuit and the Dene, according to Bishop Denis Croteau of Yellowknife. But Bishop Paul O'Byrne of Calgary spoke of "particular areas of some of our dioceses," as if this might apply to his diocese as well. The basis for the request clearly was a perceived pastoral need, namely a shortage of priests.

But shortages of priests can occur anywhere. This fact became clear when the Atlantic bishops visited Rome November 1-10, 1993. The Atlantic region did not prepare a common brief, but Bishop Andre Richard (Bathurst, NB.) acted as chief lobbyist, pointing to a pastoral need not of natives but of all the dioceses. By this time the Canadian requests were making waves again throughout the world. "Pope pressed to drop rules on priestly celibacy" reported the Reuters News Agency from Rome (Globe, Oct. 22)

Pope's response

The Pope quietly and smilingly pointed out that "the gift of celibacy will be granted if you pray for it with humility." Rebuking no one, he recalled all the good things the bishops of Canada were involved in, while getting his point across clearly:

"Cultural considerations, and the scarcity of priests in certain regions, sometimes give rise to calls for a change in this discipline. To give decisive weight to solutions based on criteria deriving more from certain currents of anthropology, sociology or psychology than from the Church's living tradition is certainly not the path to follow. We cannot overlook the fact that the Church comes to know the divine will through the interior guidance of the Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13), and that the difficulties involved today in keeping celibacy are not sufficient reason to overturn the Church's conviction regarding its value and appropriateness, a conviction constantly reaffirmed by the Church's Magisterium, not least by the Second Vatican Council (cf. Presbyterorum ordinis, n. 16).

"Like the Church in other countries, the Church in Canada is called to face this situation with faith and courage, trusting "in the Spirit that the gift of celibacy . . . will be generously bestowed by the Father, as long as those who share in Christ's priesthood through the sacrament of Orders, and indeed the whole church, humbly and earnestly pray for it." (italics in the original) (5)

When it was the turn for Ontario bishops to see the Holy Father (November 19), the Pope's observation that ordaining married men to the priesthood "is not the path to follow" had resounded around the world and no further mention of married priests was made. Yet three years later, eight Canadian bishops returned to the same theme and tried it out once more to see if they would get a different answer.

Northern bishops

In July 1996, Canada's eight Northern bishops, all members of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate (OMI), met with visiting Cardinal Josef Tomko, head of the Vatican's Congregation on Evangelization, in Edmonton. Because these eight dioceses are considered mission territory, they fall under the Congregation's jurisdiction. The bishops used the opportunity to request that married Inuit men be ordained to the priesthood.

In aboriginal societies, one bishop argued, "unless you are married, you're not a leader and people won't listen to you."

What were the eight bishops thinking of in asking in 1996 what had been firmly rejected in 1993? Well, as Bishop Croteau had said after being turned down in 1993, "we'll try again." So Rome in its seemingly never-ending patience responded charitably once more, this time by the voice of Cardinal Tomko:

"Celibacy is a value connected with the Gospel . . . if we want to preserve [that value] we cannot touch it in one place without touching it on the universal level."

What does this mean? It means this: if married men can be ordained among the Inuit, why not among the Dene and the Metis, the bushmen in South Africa, the aboriginals in Australia, the outcasts in India, the Haitians in Montreal, the Philippinos in Toronto, or white men in Vancouver?

As for basing priestly ordination on the customs of a certain society, it led Anglicans in East Africa a few years ago to ordain ministers from among polygamous men, on the grounds that in Africa a man isn't recognized as leader unless he has many wives!

Conclusion

For 30 years celibacy has been debated in Canada on all levels of Church involvement. Despite public pressures, sociological surveys and personal inclinations, Canada's bishops have remained one with the Holy Father in maintaining the tradition. While Roman Synods provided a forum to "let off steam," they also acted as correctives, strengthening the bonds between bishops and popes in the common search for truth.

Next issue: Celibacy and the first 1500 years.

The author is a priest of the Congregation of St. Basil (C.S.B.), Toronto, ON.

(1) . Sr. Ella Zink, S.O.S., "CCC secretariat in Rome "like Calgary Stampede,' " WCR, Oct. 24, 1971.

(2) . A.P., "Conservatives score victory at RC Synod," Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Oct. 20, 1971.

(3) . "Priestly Celibacy, an Evangelical testimony for the modern world," O.R., July 19, 1973.

(4) . See Foy, Msgr. Vincent, Did Pope Paul VI approve the Winnipeg Statement. A Search for the Truth, Toronto, Life Ethics Centre, (53 Dundas St. East, Toronto, ON., M5B 1C6. Tel [phone], pp. 68, $6.95.

(5) . Osservatore Romano, Nov. 16, 1993