A reader writes:
I understand that Pope Benedict XVI presided today at a top-level consultation to discuss questions related to Catholic priests of the Latin rite who have married. One of the points on the agenda reportedly relates to requests for readmission of priests who left the ministry to marry:
"It seems that while many seek permission to return to active ministry, some requests come from priests who are now old and would like at least to be allowed to celebrate Mass once again, even if they cannot return to public ministry (SOURCE.)
I left the Priesthood during a debilitating struggle with Obsessive Compulsive disorder. It was only a few years later that I received effective treatment. I was civilly married also, was dispensed from priestly celebacy recently, and my wife and I have convalidated our marriage.
Here’s my question: is there any basis for me to hope that one day I might be allowed to exercise my Priesthood again? Perhaps in old age if I were a widower (my wife is older than I am)? I would be willing to go to the missions, a quiet monastery, or anything to be able to celebrate Mass and minister again.
God bless you, you are a top-notch Canon Lawyer and Apologist!
Thanks very much, only I should point out that while I do my best to answer canon law questions on occasion, I am not a canon lawyer. Just a simple, country apologist.
I also extend my sympathies regarding your debilitating bout with OCD, and I’ll do my best to answer your question, as well as try to answer questions that I know others are wondering about concerning the meeting Pope Benedict had.
First, let’s review the situation: The pope called a meeting for Thursday (yesterday) of the heads of the Vatican dicasteries (departments). This was the third such meeting he had called. The first one was sooper sekrit, but it is commonly reported that the subject was the possibility of reconciling the SSPX. The second, apparently, was about religious life. And an Italian news agency reported that this week’s was to be about the liberalization of permission for celebrating the Tridentine rite of Mass.
This was not the case, and to clear up confusion on this point, the Vatican press office released the following communique:
The Holy Father has convened for Thursday, November 16, a meeting of the
heads of offices of the Roman Curia to examine [a] the situation created
following the disobedience of Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, and to
undertake a reflection on [b] requests for dispensation from celibacy as
well as [c] requests for readmission to priestly ministry presented by
married priests in the course of the most recent years. Other topics
are not anticipated on the schedule [SOURCE].
I’ve added the blue (a), (b), and (c) so that folks can see more clearly what the agenda items were.
The reason that these three items are grouped together–as many will surmize–is that excommunicated Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo (a.k.a. "the Mad Archbishop"–at least to me) has not only formed an organization called Married Priests Now! but he has also attempted the ordination of several married men as bishops, meaning that they could ordain other bishops and priests. This creates the basis of a potential schism, like that of the SSPX.
Milingo has denied the intention of creating a schism, but he’s not called "the Mad Archbishop" (by me) for nothing. You can’t trust that he won’t change his mind, especially if things don’t go his way. Then there’s the issue of the men he attempted to consecrate as bishops, which we won’t even go into right now.
The potential for schism here is great, particularly in light of this bit of information from the story that the reader links (which is one of the more insightful stories I have read):
The archbishop plans to hold a convention in the New York City area Dec. 8-10 with 1,000 married priests and their wives.
Now, if there’s one thing that popes hate worse than almost anything, it’s schisms. The pope’s job description involves being the ecumenical center of the Church that holds it together, and from the perspective of the occupant of Peter’s see, schisms are a Very Bad Thing. Popes–or conscientious popes–will go to extreme lengths to avoid them. Pre-16 watched in horror as the Lefebvrists went into schism (he was personally involved in the negotiations with them) and as B16, he certainly doesn’t want a new schism on his watch.
So it’s not surprising that he would hold consultations of how to solve the problem of Milingo. It’s a little surprising that they would release the agenda of this consultation given that it includes the eye-opening elements [b] and [c], and I suspect that if they hadn’t been blindsided by the Italian press that they might have kept the topic of this meeting sooper sekrit as well.
But given the sensitivity of the liberalization of the Tridentine rite (which they’ve been having trouble with the French bishops over lately), I guess they felt that it was the lesser of two evils to announce what they were really talking about, rather than let this meeting be portrayed in the press as the final consultation regarding the Mass (which would inflame the situation in France).
Also–and this could have been an even bigger factor in the decision to announce the agenda–they may have been trying to send Milingo a signal that he shouldn’t do anything precipitous (like announcing the creation of a new church–i.e., a schism) at his New York conference next month. More on that in a moment.
They thus had a three-hour meeting on Thursday, following which they released the following (in hindsight) entirely predictable communique:
COMUNICATO
PRESS OFFICE OF THE HOLY SEE
This morning, Nov. 16, in the Apostolic Palace, the Holy Father presided over one of the periodic meetings of the Heads of Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, for a common reflection.
The participants in the meeting received detailed information about [b] the requests for dispensation from the obligation of celibacy received in recent years, as well as [c] the possibility of readmission to the exercise of ministry from priests who at present find themselves in the conditions prescribed by the Church [i.e., for readmission].
[d] The value of the choice of priestly celibacy according to Catholic tradition was reaffirmed, and the exigency of a solid human and Christian formation was underlined, both for seminarians and for priests already ordained [SOURCE].
You’ll note that we have no mention here of item (a)–the situation created by Milingo–but we do have mention of (b) and (c), which are very important to Milingo and his Married Priests Now! group.
This combination (the removal of [a] but the inclusion of [b] and [c]) is a diplomatic move meant to not inflame the Milingo situation (by not mentioning him) and to calm it down if possible (by indicating that the Holy See is at least willing to think about changes regarding dispensations from celibacy and the readmission of priests who have attempted marriage).
We also have the addition of a fourth element–(d)–which is meant to keep the press from going completely hog wild and announcing that the pope is considering chucking the requirement of celibacy altogether (which he’s not).
So what to make of all this?
Well, B16 has always been more open to dialogue than JPTG (John Paul the Great) was. I suspect that this is partly due to their personal dispositions and partly due to the fact that JP2 came into office when the Church was in freefall. In 1978, everything was going to hell in a handbasket, and JP2’s pontificate played an enormous stabilizing role. One of the ways that happened was by him forcefully removing certain topics from discussion. Now that things have stabilized more, B16 feels more liberty to allow them to be cautiously discussed.
Thus during the pontificate of JP2 the question of clerical celibacy was most definitely off the table (because there were so many clamoring for it to be done away with en toto), but during last year’s Synod on the Eucharist, B16 allowed the bishops to take up the question and discuss it.
As the article the reader linked notes:
Even though the synod fathers heard a lot about the great shortage of priests in many countries, they still voted overwhelmingly (202 in favor, 28 against and 10 abstentions) to "affirm the importance of the inestimable gift of ecclesiastical celibacy" for priests in the Latin-rite church.
They also agreed that the proposal to have recourse to the ordination of mature married men "was considered a path not to be followed," a position Pope Benedict is expected to reaffirm in the post-synodal apostolic exhortation on the Eucharist, which he will promulgate in the coming months [maybe the next two weeks–ja].
Now, here’s the bottom line regarding Thursday’s discussions: If you’re pope, you don’t call a meeting to discuss things of this nature if you aren’t open at least in principle to making some kind of change. If you have absolutely no willingness to modify present discipline on these points, it makes no sense at all to call a meeting to discuss them–particularly in the present circumstances. Doing so would only raise hopes for a change that you have no willingness to make, and that’s always a Bad Thing (look at what happened with the commission Paul VI called on contraception).
I can only conclude, therefore, that B16 has at least some willingness–enough for him to think it worthwhile to consult with the dicastery heads and ask their opinion–to modify the Church’s current practices regarding requests for dispensations from celibacy and readmission to the priesthood of priests who have attempted marriage.
This is not surprising. He always showed more willingness as Pre-16 to consider questions of this sort. As John Allen (a.k.a. "The Other JA") notes,
In the 1997 interview that became Salt of the Earth, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger discussed the issue of celibacy at length. At that time, he said he did not anticipate married priests in the Catholic Church, “at least not in the foreseeable future,” as anything other than exceptional cases (such as converts from Anglicanism or Lutheranism).
“One ought not to declare that any custom of the Church’s life, no matter how deeply anchored and well founded, is wholly absolute,” Ratzinger said then.
“To be sure, the church will have to ask herself the question again and again … But I think that given the whole history of Western Christianity and the inner vision that lies at the basis of this whole, the church should not believe that she will easily gain much by resorting to this uncoupling [of priesthood and celibacy]; rather in any case she will lose if she does so.”
He said all this, mind you, during the reign of his predecessor, when the topic was most definitely off the table, which says something about his own willingness to reconsider the matter, as does the fact he allowed it to be discussed at the Synod on the Eucharist before the Milingo crisis even happened.
So, if B16 is willing to consider making changes in these matters, what might those changes be?
There’s zero chance that he’d chuck the whole system of celibacy. But what about nibbling around its edges?
Regarding dispensations from celibacy, what is most likely being referred to is the laicization of priests who wish to marry–not giving priests who are still functioning as priests permission to marry.
According to the article the reader linked:
Vatican sources calculate that an average of 300 such requests have
arrived annually in recent years, almost one a day. But the same
sources reckon that the number of priests who actually leave the
ministry each year is much higher than 300, as many do not bother to
seek dispensation.
Pope Benedict is well aware of the history and the actual procedure
for the granting of such dispensations, because the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith, which he headed as prefect for 24 years
until his election as pope in April 2005, had responsibility for this
up to February 1989.
After that, the task was
handed over to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline
of the Sacraments, until the responsibility was transferred again on
Aug. 1 last year to the Congregation for the Clergy.
The
consultation provides an opportunity for top Vatican officials to
reflect together on the current situation regarding requests for
dispensations from celibacy, and could lead to proposals for changing
the procedure or even decentralizing it, as some bishops have suggested
in recent years.
Note that B16 has already made one change in the handling of laicizations–charging the Congregation for Clergy with handling them rather than the CDW (HERE, scroll down). That of itself may speak of a mindset that views the granting of these dispensations as a more pastoral matter concerning individual members of the clergy rather than a matter that needs to be handled by the CDF or the CDW. He might be willing to go further, either streamlining the process or allowing them to be handled outside the Vatican, such as by the local bishops.
What about the question that most interests Milingo–the readmission of priests who have attempted marriage to some form of priestly service? The article states:
Vatican sources say the number of such requests for readmission has
increased in recent times, and some suggest it has even reached an
average of approximately 1,200 over the past few years.
It
seems that while many seek permission to return to active ministry,
some requests come from priests who are now old and would like at least
to be allowed to celebrate Mass once again, even if they cannot return
to public ministry.
Permission to celebrate Mass privately might be among the things the pope is considering allowing–a return to private ministry could be the kind of "readmission to the exercise of ministry" that B16 is considering–but this isn’t what Milingo and his associates are after: They want the ability to return to public ministry after having left the priesthood and attempted marriage.
If the pope were to start granting their requests, there would no doubt be significant conditions attached–such as the priests either separating from their spouses or regularizing their marriages via convalidation (most such priests are only civilly married)–and the granting of the request would not be automatic. Some of the individuals who left to attempt marriage are so problematic theologically and pastorally that they should never be allowed in public ministry again.
To prevent scandal or the wonderment of the faithful, they also likely would be required to be placed in positions other than the pastor of a parish–the way that married ministers from Anglicanism and Lutheranism who are ordained are generally assigned to administrative, educational, or similar roles as priests.
At a minimum, there would need to be a bishop willing to vouch for such candidates to the extent of incardinating them. If a priest couldn’t find a bishop willing to accept him in the diocese then the priest would not be returned to public ministry. The situation would thus be like that of ministers converted from Anglicanism or Lutheranism, who need to find such a bishop.
But it wouldn’t be quite the same.
A very real problem that bishops willing to sponsor a priest in making his peition–and a problem that is certainly on the pope’s mind right now–is the fact that returning a priest to public ministry could be seen as a reward for bad behavior. The message that could be sent to his brother priests in the diocese could be "Break the rules and we’ll reward you by letting you be both married and a priest"–a message that would not be good for morale or discipline.
Consequently, only a comparatively small number of priests would likely be admitted to public ministry–certainly not enough to help in any appreciable way with the priest shortage.
But maybe enough to head off a schism.
That’s what B16 is wondering right now.
To deal directly with the question that the reader asks, whether there is hope that he might one day be allowed to exercise his priesthood again (apart from emergency circumstances, such as when someone is dying), I can only say that the answer is yes.
The reader asks specifically about exercising his priesthood should his wife pass on before he does. Actually, canon law already provides for that possibility. Canon 293 states:
A cleric
who loses the clerical state cannot be enrolled among clerics again except
through a rescript of the Apostolic See.
The Holy See does allow for the potential readmission to the clerical state of priests who have been laicized, which explains the 1,200 applications that the article mentioned. In fact, a lot more than 1,200 priests have been readmitted under canon 293 over the years. According to Zenit:
According to data from the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, every year about 1,000 priests leave the priestly ministry.
The congregation also published data on priests who have returned to priestly ministry between 1970 and 1995. They undergo a rigorous procedure, carried out case by case. Their number varies greatly from one year to another. In those years, a total of 9,551 returned 9that’s an average of 367 a year–ja].
Under present praxis, a return would be possible (conceivable) in the case of a laicized priest whose spouse had died.
At present the Holy See seems to be handling these cases on an ad hoc basis. It had not, as of the year 2000 (the most recent info I have) established a formal procedure for handling such cases, but they have talked about doing so, and an informal procedure has already developed, whereby one finds a bishop or religious superior willing to accept the priest, following which there are a whole bunch of documents and interviews and, if the Holy See is favorable to the readmission, the priest spends a period of formation in an institution such as a monastery or religious house in preparation for his return to ministry, following which a rescript may be granted.
If you’d like to read more about this, see pp. 292-293 of the green CLSA commentary (i.e., New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, edited by Beal, Coridan, and Green [Paulist Press, 2000]) or the article "Return to Ministry of Dispensed Priests" by M. Souckar in The Jurist 54[1994], 605-616.
I would urge the reader to be careful about how he regards this possibility, however. As a married man, his duty is to wish for and strive for the good of his wife. Also, women live longer than men. They may not be as physically strong (on average), but in compensation they have longer lifespans (on average, which to my mind means that they’re getting the better side of the deal on this one).
I would therefore counsel the reader to view the possibility that he might one day be able to again exercise his priestly ministry as a potential gift–something to be grateful for if it happens but not something to be anguished about if it doesn’t.
That gift also might come if B16 decides to broaden the cases in which canon 293 is applied, in which case it should–again–be regarded as a potential gift.
Like the priesthood itself.
