Sir, – Fr Brian Eyre, a Catholic priest who has received a dispensation from celibacy and who has married, yet who still practices ministry, though not in public, makes a case for a married priesthood within the Catholic Church and argues that one reason that this should be allowed is because this church allows clergy which it knows to be gay to minister as priests ("Priesthood and matrimony are not incompatible", Rite & Reason, March 18th).
“We have some gay priests ministering in dioceses and doing good work, but we can’t have married priests. We can accept one but not the other. Why? The problem is the woman. She has been seen as the temptress, the Eve who brought about the fall of Adam,” he writes.
While not going into the topic of whether the creator actually needs “clergy” in order to commune effectively with creation, there are a few points in Fr Eyre’s article that might still be addressed.
Firstly, it might be noted that while it is true that Rome knows about its gay clergy, it is the case that such clergy are expected to be celibate.
Fr Eyre may know some that are not, but he has not presented priests who are in openly same-sex relationships as part of his case.
He tells us about his wife, the “woman by his side, a companion to walk with him through life”; but if gay clergy had such a companion – walking with them through life – they would soon have their ministry terminated. Celibacy is the issue rather than sexual orientation, I would suggest.
It might also be said that since Fr Eyre has brought up the subjects of “gays” and of “women” in the Catholic church, might he not have said more about both?
How about a case for the “woman by his side”, his wife, having a right to access the same ministry as himself?
How about making a case for the gay clergy he mentions to also be allowed to have a companion by their side – walking with them through life?
It could be argued that it might not be a good thing to have a “married clergy” in the Catholic Church if the ensuing increase in numbers of such clergy were only to see more men promoting a male priesthood and exclusively heterosexual relationships. – Yours, etc,
DECLAN KELLY,
Whitechurch Road,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – I read with interest the article by Fr Brian Eyre. While I agree with his position that the priesthood and matrimony should not be regarded as incompatible, I believe he is not clear on the reasons why the church is opposed to permitting a married clergy. He argues that obligatory celibacy for the priesthood arises out of the church’s attitude towards women. The attitude of church authorities towards women is shameful and a cause of scandal in the modern world. But I believe it is not the core reason the church demands that those aspiring to the priesthood make a vow to live a life of celibacy before considering them for ordination.
I believe the core reason is the church’s attitude towards sex rather than towards women. Fr Eyre points out that the church permits gay men to minister as priests. This is true, but when a gay man is in an openly sexual relationship, the church authorities will intervene and demand he terminates the relationship or they will stop him from ministering on the grounds that he is a source of scandal.
I doubt if many of the faithful in this day and age would be scandalised by such a situation, but the church authorities obviously are.
Fr Eyre quoted St Ambrose as saying that pregnancy, birth and education of children are a cause of sorrow, but this was just an argument put forward to persuade people that celibacy meant priests were free from such domestic issues and therefore more available to serve God’s people. The real attitude of Saint Ambrose is found in the statement: “The ministerial office must be kept pure and unspoiled and must not be defiled by coitus.” This does not imply that it was the loving relationship that caused the problem for Ambrose, but sexual intercourse itself. This attitude of Ambrose followed on very much from pre-Christian religions that held the druids should be celibate, and the ancient Aztec priests were expected to remain sexually abstinent.
The trigger for the imposition of celibacy was to prevent the children of priests, whether born within or outside marriage, from inheriting church property. Once again it was not marriage nor attitudes towards women but the inheritance of church property by children that was the problem.
Eventually Pope Benedict VIII in the 11th century forbade the descendants of priests from inheriting church property, and the following century the Second Lateran Council decreed that sacred orders would only be offered to those who had already taken a vow of celibacy. This was eventually reaffirmed by the Council of Trent in the 16th century. According to the Council of Trent, celibacy is a sign of a priest’s commitment to God and to the service of God’s people.
While I accept that celibacy is a valid and authentic vocation in itself, as is evidenced by many children here in Ireland who choose to remain single in order to care for elderly parents, to presume that everyone called to the ministerial priesthood is also called to celibacy so that the ministerial office may not be defiled by coitus arises out of too literal an interpretation of the words of St Paul, who wrote: “It is better to marry than to burn.” – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN KENNEDY,
Orchardville Gardens,
Belfast.