Among the secondary reasons I joined the PNCC was the whole issue of the priesthood and what it stands for. I’m not talking theologically, because the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and PNCC priesthood are rather on the same page from that perspective.

What I considered important was what the priesthood represents at witness in the world, in the flesh. I think the vast majority (95%) of priests in the PNCC are married. To me this is essential. It is also why I believe the Orthodox have it right. I also want to give a hearty tip o’ the miter to Cardinal Husar of the Ukraine who said in an interview (read entire interview by clicking here…)

—QUESTION: Recently there have also been problems for your married priests who operate in Western Europe. The doctrine of —canonical territory— for which the Orthodox are being reprimanded, has surfaced in the requests of some European episcopates …

HUSAR: The Spanish and Italian bishops have written to us asking us not to send married priests to their countries for the pastoral care of our communities. But we don’t have enough celibate priests to send for pastoral service, now that the faithful of our Church are spread throughout the world. I understand the reasons of our brother bishops in the West. They are afraid of what appears to them perhaps as a bad example, given that in their Churches there is debate on this point. The attachment to cultural forms must be taken into consideration, but these must not be absolutized. One can calmly explain that married men are ordained priests not only in the Orthodox Church, but also in the Catholic Church. I come from a family of priests. My grandfather was a priest, many of my relatives are married priests. Some wonderful, others less so. At the same time, I know exemplary celibate priests, and others who are not indeed so. The quality of a priest does not depend on being married or not. In some cases, for one who tries to live his vocation, having a family may also be an advantage. But I don’t wish to be discourteous to my Latin brothers. I only wish our priests be treated in the West also with the respect that is shown to our brother Orthodox priests.—

Cardinal Husar is a gem!

I read Amy Welborn’s response to the leaked, upcoming document regarding homosexuals in the Roman Catholic priesthood. I can say that I agree with her on many/most levels, though not completely. Where I digress is indicative of my thinking on the subject.

View her entire post by clicking here…

Now for my comments on the areas I diverge (hey, what are blogs for anyway if not to present divergent views):

—Which is why the seminaries have to tend to the personal formation, the psychological and emotional makeup of the candidate. When I wrote that NY Times op-ed, the editor questioned the used of the word “formation.” I explained that “education” would not get at it, because that’s not what seminary is – it’s formation of the whole person, since priesthood is not just an intellectual stance, it’s the gift of one’s whole life to God and His people.—

Yes, the seminary is for formation of which education is only a part. When education takes primacy what you get is the typical intellectual or legalistic priest. When humanism takes over, you get a great social worker whose values lay in humanity, not in God, not a priest at all.

Yes, priesthood is a gift and with the option of being married it becomes not only a gift of ones self, but of the family unit. It is the modeling of the Christian family by Christian leaders, our priests. The married priest cannot lead a dualistic existence. He does not have a church face and a home face. The truly wonderful examples of married priests and their families show a joined and unified surrendering of life to the service of God and community. It is the element of sacrifice and surrender involved for the priest’s spouse and family. A Christian sacrificial love. It is a truly right ordered biblical understanding of the family relationship.

Formation is required in choosing right relationships. Choosing a spouse and the potential spouse’s choice of you, as a priest, has to be well founded and must be done with the clearest understanding of your joint mission. It is a life of sacrifice —“ but sacrifice within the construct that God intended in creating man and woman.

This leads to my deep disagreement with:

—Here’s what celibacy is supposed to be: it’s supposed to be a life of eschatological witness, an extreme sign of what, in the end, we are called to be, and will be in the fullness of the Kingdom: for God alone.—

It is frankly, in my opinion, a symbol of personal, chosen martyrdom for the purpose of self aggrandizement and pride. Sometimes, at the worst levels, it is a protective shield against the necessary commitment that comes with human relationships.

‘Look at me; I am alone, in pain.’ Look, I’m nailing myself to the cross as a symbol of what heaven will look like? ‘Look at me, I made a commitment to God, I might have sex with you, but I cannot commit to you too.’ I think not.

There is room for celibacy, if you are given that charism. The Roman Church does not offer you the opportunity to fulfill that Spirit given gift. It requires that you go to the Spirit and demand it.

The key word is —extreme—. It is extreme in that it takes the choice from God and makes celibacy an operation by law.

We are all called to be —for God alone— as our primary and ultimate. However, as implied here to be —for God alone— is extremism and the misuse of what it means to be for God alone. I actively work to set aside my sinfulness, to repent and make amends. I seek to live the life God intended. This does not mean that I must give up human relationships and my marriage. Check out the book Idols of the Heart: Learning to Long for God Alone by Elyse Fitzpatrick

If this apartness were so, the inspired writers of the Bible would have given us that symbolism. They did not, but for a few examples.
When they showed us sacrificial love, it was for the purpose of holding up self-sacrifice as a freely chosen offering.

We are not Christ. We are the humanity he took on. Humanity created to come together as family and community. When Jesus Christ took on our humanity it was not for the absence of deeply personal relationships but for their ultimate beauty. He calls us to be fully human in all its dimensions sans sin.

—And they [priests] will embrace what the Church teaches, will teach it themselves, and will commit to helping, with compassion and understanding, Catholics live this out themselves.—

Yes, absolutely!