I must say that I very much appreciated Taylor Marshall up to the time the Freemasonry stuff got strong. It should also be noted in fairness that he dropped the "Stop the Steal" meme immediately after the January 6th riot (depriving it of oxygen by ignoring it, as this article states in another context), though I don't know if he went back to it in 2022.
JD: I completely agree with your piece about celibacy and child sexual abuse. Prior to becoming a priest, I was a social worker in a child protection agency. I can assure you from that experience that marriage is no safeguard against children being abused. Well north of 90% of all the abusers that comprised my caseload were married individuals. People who try to link celibacy with sexual abuse have no idea what they're talking about.
In full disclosure, I did not become a Pillar supporter to engage in gossip column fare. That’s what I see and hear re: Fr. Pavone and today Bp. Strickland and Dr. Marshall. The celibacy issue revolves around “coerced” celibacy in the Church. Not sociology.
Thank you. People become Pillar subscribers for all kinds of reasons, and a decent number of them in recent days have asked us for some analysis of both Marshall and Strickland -- and, to be honest, both seem situations in the life of the Church worth talking about. But, like you, I prefer the daily work of churning out hard and breaking news to discussions of these things, even if I think both have a place in The Pillar's universe!
What coercion? Every priest went into ministry knowing they were expected to be celibate and had at least a further 6 years in seminary to decide whether that was something they were willing to do.
I don't know that ending clerical celibacy would reduce pederasty directly, but I do believe it would empower priests to stand up to bishops and help end the culture of coverup, which could definitely help reduce abuse. Currently, priests can be very isolated and lonely, especially in more rural dioceses (such as where I live). They are very vulnerable to abuse by their bishop (don't preach on the Church's teaching on X or speak up about corruption or you will be exiled to Timbuktu). It is easier to look away and not rat someone out when all your social connections can be taken away at a moments notice for speaking out. Yes, it is cowardly, but priests are not selected for their boldness of spirit these days: corrupt bishops don't want those guys around and ensure they don't make the selection process. Plus, everyone is human and needs friends/emotional support of some sort. Women are harder to exile: wives of priests would make a bishop's life hell if he tried to exile their family, and they would garner enormous social support in the process. There are few things corrupt bishops hate more than bad publicity and the associated drop in donations. If a man has a woman to defend the bishop can't take all social support from him at a whim, making him much less vulnerable to social isolation and emotional blackmail. Financial blackmail to support his family would be their only tool, but again, try fighting the wives of priests when that is threatened.
I read the PA grand jury report and found three separate groups of priests who were *sharing* victims. That doesn't happen in public schools. That's Epstein levels of corruption when people think they are above the law and untouchable by people who know of their criminality. I do think that sort of culture could have been minimized (if not outright prevented) if priests were allowed to marry.
Historically, one of the biggest problems in cultures was nepotism and the passing on of clerical offices to family members (e.g., nephews). There are no free lunches, but I think the problems that clerical celibacy helps solve are not as big as the problems that would be helped by allowing priests to marry.
Among your points is that hypothetical wives of priests would more effectively oppose unjust decisions by bishops. That seems a bit of a bankshot - changing a longstanding discipline to increase accountability of bishops. Surely there are more direct, albeit difficult, ways that address the fundamental causes of bishop problems.
Also, it opens the question about whether priests with wives and kids would have too much roots, opposing decisions to reassign to an area of higher need.
There is. NO way to solve a bishop problem except to make a plea to the Holy Father and wait to see if you have a life long enough to see anything happen. They are absolute monarchs,trust me I know
I applaud your modern update of Kipling's The Female of the Species. I, too, am more deadly than the male. But do you know who is even harder to exile than women, and more relentless when defending loved ones than women? The indwelling of the Most Holy Trinity (strange but true.)
God bless and keep Bp. Strickland. And God bless Dr. Marshall. Every Christian man has the DUTY to lead others in thought about lay leadership in society.
I do think ordaining married men would help, but not because the sacrament of marriage is somehow superior to holy orders for developing chastity or could ever be a cure for pedophilia. That’s just dumb. Chastity is a struggle for everyone and it’s about corresponding to the grace we’re given; pedophilia is a serious psychological disorder and is more common within families. That said, we know that the main problem now is not pedophiles, who will always attempt to be priests, teachers, Scout leaders, etc, but rather the cover up. I think married men would help with the cover up because they live in a natural community and have other allegiances than to the clerical caste. They have wives and children; they have served in roles other than that of priest or bishop. Their Catholic hat isn’t their only source of social respect.
I have come to believe, after being involved in clerical formation in France, that the particularly heinous Irish and American cover ups were made possible by an unhealthy seminary culture tied to the discipline of celibacy, a shared lifestyle that makes priests feel radically different from the rest of the society and gives the kind of ample psychological conditioning and incentive for many priests to think of themselves and their caste as the ones to defend, victims above all, even over and above children. There’s a parallel in the US military with regards to rape. It’s not pretty, but it’s what my research shows. And for what it’s worth, I started out thinking celibacy was so superior to marriage that it took me years to come to these conclusions. I hope it’s helpful, but it would probably be better documented and in a book. I’m working on it.
Finally, aside from these matters, there is also a major theological argument for married priests: it was Jesus’ own choice. The decision to privilege celibacy now seems to me to be difficult to defend from the point of view of the Gospels and Church Fathers.
There may be reasons, such as those stated by this commenter, to strongly consider how the discipline of celibacy and the “culture” of celibacy are formed in seminary life. The author seems to think that toxic outcomes are inevitable. Not sure that is the case, but the risk is increased due to cultural factors (not only sexual in nature) in modern society. But JD’s main point, made over the last 2-3 decades by many others, is that the abuse crisis itself is not a reason to ditch celibacy, and as one wag has put it, marriage, for all that it might contribute to the fostering of virtue, is not a crime prevention program
Can you clarify what you mean, that it was Jesus' own choice? Off the top of my head, I would point to Mt 19: 8-12, and 1 Co 7, as indications that the Gospels and the church of Acts did not view marriage as an unvarnished good for believers.
That it was Jesus' own choice: from the Gospels, we know that Simon Peter was a married man. In a letter to St. Timothy, St. Paul recommends that bishops be chosen among men who have only married once (at most--i.e., celibates are not excluded, far from it). For the first thousand years, married men were priests and bishops alongside celibate men. St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, was married.
St. Paul also said it was better to be celibate than to be married, because one would be more about worldly affairs in his first letter to the Corinthians.
In his letter to St. Timothy isn’t recommending that men need to be married. only that they shouldn’t be married more than once.
I have a tendency to (unfortunately) look to anyone's answer with skepticism - hopefully it's a healthy skepticism, but hold on to that as you read.
My father was in the seminary in the mid to late '50s in the US. He made the trip at 16 years old and graduated with a Philosophy degree and left the seminary. His stock answer is, "I liked women too much." but when you get him into the right discussion, he will infer into some of the behavior, but never explicitly. It has taken years of careful listening to hear all of the times he refers to the time.
One of the primary things he would say is, everyone has that "Funny Uncle" that they try to not talk/think about. In those days, if someone had their "stuff" screwed up, you would send them to the seminary to get straightened out, and to all appearances, it looked like it worked.
This community was protected, but was isolated. They had powerful boundaries put up to the outside world, while some of them engaged in the more egalitarian view of the church, and he has (of course anecdotal) stories of priests who left the ministry to marry a nun that was helping in ministry. They would work together in a protected environment and in that isolation find another direction to be superior to what they had at hand.
When it comes down to it, I believe the primary root of the issue is isolation. You can be isolated in the midst of a large community, when you protect too much privacy. I can name piles and piles of examples of married couples walking down a disordered road, as they tried to protect themselves from the culture outside. We all need real community - and to be vulnerable - but first, there is a whole other discussion of coming to terms with the idea that people are messy - including the first person as well as second and third. When these people get together it WILL be messy, and that is OK. That is the greatest protection from ourselves. It is also a crucible to help us to see the disorder in ourselves - as well as show when isolation begins to creep in.
There is so much here, I am sure I have touched the edge of my points only. I am also getting old enough that I am learning that I don't really have the answers. Only the questions - why are we isolating, and how can we move out of that? What will it solve? I'm not really sure, but back to the anecdotal, when I isolate and keep secrets, that is when I move to disorder.
I think with Bishop Strickland, it's not the fact about what he said, but rather the fact that he said it that makes it notable. We all know there are a not-insignificant number of other bishops that would probably agree with him, but they have the sense not to say it (or Tweet it) out loud. While I think his Tweet on the whole is probably not a good thing, I can't complain too much because I have long been an advocate of bishops speaking their minds and not pretending that there is "unity" among the bishops when in reality there are deep fractures. I do give him credit for saying what he believes, however, without worrying about his future prospects; no one can accuse him of being a careerist as he certainly won't be advancing up the ladder anytime soon, and I'm sure he knows it.
As for Taylor Marshall, I think it's clear he's not serious about holding any kind of political office as if he was the logical path would be to run for some local or state office first and build up a political base from there. While I will not be voting for him in 2024 I will say that there are many worse choices out there and I would vote for him over some of our Church leaders if they ran. He might do more good for the world as U.S. President or even another office than focusing on his Youtube channel, honestly.
Let's juxtapose two quotes: "This of course did not stop the media critics on the extremes who continued their tactics of promoting division in the Church." The reference is to suppression of then Cardinal Ratzinger's communication on exclusion from communion of pro-abortion American politicians. The prelate quoted: is--THEODORE CARDINAL MCCARRICK of Washington D.C. quoted in FIRST THINGS June 2005, p. 68 as reported by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. For connoisseurs of irony, the then-Cardinal goes on to criticize the lack of spiritual preparation in some who receive Holy Communion as "a habitual practice." You can't make this stuff up.
2) Now J.D. Flynn: "There is another canonical crime, though, that might be applied to Strickland’s rhetoric:
Canon 1373 establishes that “a person who publicly incites hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical office or duty, or who provokes disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.”
It could be plausibly argued, I think, that Strickland’s tweet might well provoke disobedience against the Apostolic See, given that it talks about a kind of rejection of the pope’s leadership — or suggests as much." I had to read our correspondent's effusion on potential division in the Church twice!
J.D. Flynn and ex-Cardinal McCarrick are wonderful examples of the pot calling the kettle black, are they not?
Michael, I respectfully ask that you tone it down some. Comparing anyone to McCarrick is really unacceptable under any circumstances. Also, your entire post is unintelligible.
I personally strongly agree with most of this piece, including on clerical celibacy, which is a wonderful discipline - however, I think that it is possible to see one advantage from making celibacy optional, which doesn't invoke the tired notion that married priests would somehow be less inclined to sexual abuse. Namely, opening up priesthood to married men would increase the applicant pool, which might enable more careful discernment of each applicant. That's not a foolproof argument, though.
I'm using this comment to pose a loosely related question for JD that arose as I finished the newsletter: you said that clerical celibacy is disciplinary, not doctrinal and so we have married clergy in various circumstances. I understand this. As I understand it, though, in every circumstance they must be married before orders, even to the extent that a man ordained a deacon but on his way to full priesthood, should he leave before he is ordained a priest, is not allowed to receive sacramental marriage. Is the order of the sacraments a doctrinal matter? Otherwise stated, could the Roman church allow that a man can be ordained a priest and then contract marriage afterwards? Also, is there a doctrinal teaching on the celibacy expected of bishops?
The Holy See could permit a priest to marry. She does it as a matter of course -- when she dispenses from the obligation of celibacy during the laicization process. but it is within the power of the Holy See to permit a cleric to marry and remain a cleric. I've never seen it done, but I have heard the anecdote that Rome has sometimes done this for widowed permanent deacons with young children.
I think that the discipline of celibacy for bishops is also a discipline, but it is one that the West shares with the East and (most?/all) Orthodox churches as well.
PS - Joe is my friend IRL, so it makes me chuckle when he poses questions for me here instead of just texting me. But I'm glad he does, as it helps to further the conversation going on here.
I’m on a widower Facebook group. One gentleman there, a permanent deacon with a child with developmental disabilities, recently remarried, with dispensation.
If they were serious about "married priests" they'd:
- ask married Roman rite and Eastern Rite priests and their wives about their experiences and their thoughts on the matter
- ask permanent deacons (who are actually clergy though often not treated as such) about their experiences
- try to figure out who the sort of married men who would become priests are and how they would become formed/go through seminary while married
- ask the laity what they'd think of suddenly having married priests
Since they haven't done even one of these things that I am aware of - and in fact don't even seem to have be aware that these might be questions - I can only assume that the "solution" of married clergy is totally unserious. Even if they got serious right now it would take decades before there were significant numbers of married priests in any country.
The go-to source for information on the married priesthood is the Eastern Churches, Catholic and otherwise. Since the focus always seems to be on Western secular and Protestant views, this shows where these preoccupations lie: not with church traditions, but with criticisms from those who reject traditions, in full or in part.
JD: I pose a question for you. If you live in San Diego diocese and a faithful Catholic, how do you square the beliefs of our faith with our resident Cardinal? And do we as laity call him out? We certainly pray for his soul and his office. But a prelate who espouses “new”’theology and sinful conduct places the faithful Catholic into the hate the sin and not the sinner mode here in SD. Try saving souls before saving the environment.
I'm not sure why your alarm bells are going off, my friend. the theology which animated Vatican II was derided as "new" by its Thomist opponents, but in reality it was ancient since it went back to the sources, the Scriptures and commentators on the Scriptures throughout the centuries. Of course, there's something new about it too, but that isn't a bad thing; there is always progress in theology.
Friend, I'm not sure what you mean by "there is always progress in theology". Certainly, there can always be innovation in theology, or accidentally rediscovering the errors of the past, but I do not think merely the process of "doing theology" is guaranteed to produce progress. One thinks of the great sound and fury of American Catholic theologians raising their voices in dissent to Humanae vitae in the late 60s, early 70s - I would not consider this prodigious body of scholarship, nor its modern-day successors, to be "progress", unless it is perhaps progressing in the wrong direction, away from the deposit of the faith.
To your actual point, though - I think there is a licit, perhaps even obliged, place for a layperson struggling with reconciling the public statements of her bishop to discern whether those statements are in keeping with the teachings of the Church; indeed, with the "nouvelle theologie" of Vatican II they claim to hearken to (if I am using that phrase correctly). Put another way, I think it is a perfectly legitimate exercise of conscience to try and determine if, for example, Cardinal McElroy's theological output is actually in harmony with Vatican II and Pope Francis, the names of which he often trades upon while sseemingly repudiating them by the substance of his remarks. This is important for formation of one's own conscience and for effective witness to the Gospel.
I do not know how to answer the original poster's question, though, except to suggest that charity should be the guiding principle. I have been told that Cardinal McElroy puts an emphasis on serving the poor and other works of mercy, so perhaps you could pray for his success in these endeavours, and ultimately his conversion? We are all in need of conversion, so I do not think it uncharitable to pray for that intention. Meanwhile, keep your heart fortified and your eyes fixed on Christ! I will pray for you, and all my brothers and sisters down in your beautiful city.
that there is always progress in theology is affirmed by Vatican II in Dei verbum. why? because the subject of theology is the whole mystery of Christ. Christ was not fully comprehended by the apostles, but they and the Church have received the Holy Spirit with the promise to be guided more deeply into the mystery of Christ. that mystery is not one which can be captured in its entirety by abstract formulas, because of its infinity, because the subject is God and thus whatever analogy we can make always comes with a greater distance. and because infinity and finitude have come together in that person; it is the kind of thing that defies our explanations and rationalisations. that, of course, should not halt our attempts to say something about the mystery, but with the knowledge that what we have said is always insufficient, and subject to further development.
as for whether the layperson can discern whether the teaching of their bishop is true, sure they can. I would hope that the Catholics of Tyler, Texas would in conscience reject the nonsense that their bishop puts out, for example.
Neither Bishops nor Priests should use Twitter, except perhaps to forward their own more considered writings or those of others. Twitter is, on balance, a serious net negative in fostering a balanced and ascetic example of a Christian way of life.
As for Taylor Marshall, he is “Catholic” in only the most nominal sense of the term. Yes, we should have compassion and charity toward the unfortunate thousands who follow him, as we would toward all followers of the various frauds, heretics, and mountebanks who populate our religious and political scene in these unfortunate times. But those people have agency and responsibility, and one fears that they have allowed their own ego -- the desire to be told that things are going wrong for them due to some concatenation of various conspiracies -- to overcome their need to follow the Truth that genuinely sets us free.
I think that is harsh on Taylor Marshall. I do not think it is for us to judge the Catholicism of others - if they say they accept the faith, thats it. Of course, its hardly a secret that many Catholics have an a la carte approach, but they are only fooling themselves. But Taylor Marshall isnt like that, which makes him OK by me.
He isnt perfect and I am sure he is not right on everything, but I admire his enthusiasm for the faith, the energy he displays when talking about. There are precious few Bishops who could be described as enthusiastic or energetic.
Edward, I agree with your comments on Twitter and other social media.
Its crazy to think we have gone from a system of media (books) having imprimatuers and nhil obstat endorsements, to a system where any priest can let fly on Twitter with his own opinions. This is common and causes chaos.
In my opinion, the Church has not adapted adequately to modern communications and social media. These can be great tools, but can also be damaging if used carelessly. The current batch in Rome also seem to behave as if they are not under constant close scrutiny. Do they really not understand everything they do and say is reported around the world?
I must say that I very much appreciated Taylor Marshall up to the time the Freemasonry stuff got strong. It should also be noted in fairness that he dropped the "Stop the Steal" meme immediately after the January 6th riot (depriving it of oxygen by ignoring it, as this article states in another context), though I don't know if he went back to it in 2022.
JD: I completely agree with your piece about celibacy and child sexual abuse. Prior to becoming a priest, I was a social worker in a child protection agency. I can assure you from that experience that marriage is no safeguard against children being abused. Well north of 90% of all the abusers that comprised my caseload were married individuals. People who try to link celibacy with sexual abuse have no idea what they're talking about.
In full disclosure, I did not become a Pillar supporter to engage in gossip column fare. That’s what I see and hear re: Fr. Pavone and today Bp. Strickland and Dr. Marshall. The celibacy issue revolves around “coerced” celibacy in the Church. Not sociology.
Thank you. People become Pillar subscribers for all kinds of reasons, and a decent number of them in recent days have asked us for some analysis of both Marshall and Strickland -- and, to be honest, both seem situations in the life of the Church worth talking about. But, like you, I prefer the daily work of churning out hard and breaking news to discussions of these things, even if I think both have a place in The Pillar's universe!
You are incorrect. These are the issues- NOT the sensational breaking issues. We get enough of those every day!
What coercion? Every priest went into ministry knowing they were expected to be celibate and had at least a further 6 years in seminary to decide whether that was something they were willing to do.
I don't know that ending clerical celibacy would reduce pederasty directly, but I do believe it would empower priests to stand up to bishops and help end the culture of coverup, which could definitely help reduce abuse. Currently, priests can be very isolated and lonely, especially in more rural dioceses (such as where I live). They are very vulnerable to abuse by their bishop (don't preach on the Church's teaching on X or speak up about corruption or you will be exiled to Timbuktu). It is easier to look away and not rat someone out when all your social connections can be taken away at a moments notice for speaking out. Yes, it is cowardly, but priests are not selected for their boldness of spirit these days: corrupt bishops don't want those guys around and ensure they don't make the selection process. Plus, everyone is human and needs friends/emotional support of some sort. Women are harder to exile: wives of priests would make a bishop's life hell if he tried to exile their family, and they would garner enormous social support in the process. There are few things corrupt bishops hate more than bad publicity and the associated drop in donations. If a man has a woman to defend the bishop can't take all social support from him at a whim, making him much less vulnerable to social isolation and emotional blackmail. Financial blackmail to support his family would be their only tool, but again, try fighting the wives of priests when that is threatened.
I read the PA grand jury report and found three separate groups of priests who were *sharing* victims. That doesn't happen in public schools. That's Epstein levels of corruption when people think they are above the law and untouchable by people who know of their criminality. I do think that sort of culture could have been minimized (if not outright prevented) if priests were allowed to marry.
Historically, one of the biggest problems in cultures was nepotism and the passing on of clerical offices to family members (e.g., nephews). There are no free lunches, but I think the problems that clerical celibacy helps solve are not as big as the problems that would be helped by allowing priests to marry.
Among your points is that hypothetical wives of priests would more effectively oppose unjust decisions by bishops. That seems a bit of a bankshot - changing a longstanding discipline to increase accountability of bishops. Surely there are more direct, albeit difficult, ways that address the fundamental causes of bishop problems.
Also, it opens the question about whether priests with wives and kids would have too much roots, opposing decisions to reassign to an area of higher need.
There is. NO way to solve a bishop problem except to make a plea to the Holy Father and wait to see if you have a life long enough to see anything happen. They are absolute monarchs,trust me I know
I applaud your modern update of Kipling's The Female of the Species. I, too, am more deadly than the male. But do you know who is even harder to exile than women, and more relentless when defending loved ones than women? The indwelling of the Most Holy Trinity (strange but true.)
God bless and keep Bp. Strickland. And God bless Dr. Marshall. Every Christian man has the DUTY to lead others in thought about lay leadership in society.
yes, may the Holy Spirit move them both to repent and abandon their corrupt ideology.
Amen!
I just wanted to compliment you on a fine newsletter, JD. Well done.
Ditto. Appreciate the fair-minded analysis all the way through...
thank you both.
It would be beneficial if the bishop would take the Virtus Training. Then he would not be speaking with authority in error.
I do think ordaining married men would help, but not because the sacrament of marriage is somehow superior to holy orders for developing chastity or could ever be a cure for pedophilia. That’s just dumb. Chastity is a struggle for everyone and it’s about corresponding to the grace we’re given; pedophilia is a serious psychological disorder and is more common within families. That said, we know that the main problem now is not pedophiles, who will always attempt to be priests, teachers, Scout leaders, etc, but rather the cover up. I think married men would help with the cover up because they live in a natural community and have other allegiances than to the clerical caste. They have wives and children; they have served in roles other than that of priest or bishop. Their Catholic hat isn’t their only source of social respect.
I have come to believe, after being involved in clerical formation in France, that the particularly heinous Irish and American cover ups were made possible by an unhealthy seminary culture tied to the discipline of celibacy, a shared lifestyle that makes priests feel radically different from the rest of the society and gives the kind of ample psychological conditioning and incentive for many priests to think of themselves and their caste as the ones to defend, victims above all, even over and above children. There’s a parallel in the US military with regards to rape. It’s not pretty, but it’s what my research shows. And for what it’s worth, I started out thinking celibacy was so superior to marriage that it took me years to come to these conclusions. I hope it’s helpful, but it would probably be better documented and in a book. I’m working on it.
Finally, aside from these matters, there is also a major theological argument for married priests: it was Jesus’ own choice. The decision to privilege celibacy now seems to me to be difficult to defend from the point of view of the Gospels and Church Fathers.
this is an interesting and helpful perspective. Thank you. Anybody have a take on it?
There may be reasons, such as those stated by this commenter, to strongly consider how the discipline of celibacy and the “culture” of celibacy are formed in seminary life. The author seems to think that toxic outcomes are inevitable. Not sure that is the case, but the risk is increased due to cultural factors (not only sexual in nature) in modern society. But JD’s main point, made over the last 2-3 decades by many others, is that the abuse crisis itself is not a reason to ditch celibacy, and as one wag has put it, marriage, for all that it might contribute to the fostering of virtue, is not a crime prevention program
Can you clarify what you mean, that it was Jesus' own choice? Off the top of my head, I would point to Mt 19: 8-12, and 1 Co 7, as indications that the Gospels and the church of Acts did not view marriage as an unvarnished good for believers.
That it was Jesus' own choice: from the Gospels, we know that Simon Peter was a married man. In a letter to St. Timothy, St. Paul recommends that bishops be chosen among men who have only married once (at most--i.e., celibates are not excluded, far from it). For the first thousand years, married men were priests and bishops alongside celibate men. St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, was married.
St. Paul also said it was better to be celibate than to be married, because one would be more about worldly affairs in his first letter to the Corinthians.
In his letter to St. Timothy isn’t recommending that men need to be married. only that they shouldn’t be married more than once.
Hey, the evangelical Dr Craig Keener wrote just yesterday that as a fisherman Peter would "sell a bait". hehe
I have a tendency to (unfortunately) look to anyone's answer with skepticism - hopefully it's a healthy skepticism, but hold on to that as you read.
My father was in the seminary in the mid to late '50s in the US. He made the trip at 16 years old and graduated with a Philosophy degree and left the seminary. His stock answer is, "I liked women too much." but when you get him into the right discussion, he will infer into some of the behavior, but never explicitly. It has taken years of careful listening to hear all of the times he refers to the time.
One of the primary things he would say is, everyone has that "Funny Uncle" that they try to not talk/think about. In those days, if someone had their "stuff" screwed up, you would send them to the seminary to get straightened out, and to all appearances, it looked like it worked.
This community was protected, but was isolated. They had powerful boundaries put up to the outside world, while some of them engaged in the more egalitarian view of the church, and he has (of course anecdotal) stories of priests who left the ministry to marry a nun that was helping in ministry. They would work together in a protected environment and in that isolation find another direction to be superior to what they had at hand.
When it comes down to it, I believe the primary root of the issue is isolation. You can be isolated in the midst of a large community, when you protect too much privacy. I can name piles and piles of examples of married couples walking down a disordered road, as they tried to protect themselves from the culture outside. We all need real community - and to be vulnerable - but first, there is a whole other discussion of coming to terms with the idea that people are messy - including the first person as well as second and third. When these people get together it WILL be messy, and that is OK. That is the greatest protection from ourselves. It is also a crucible to help us to see the disorder in ourselves - as well as show when isolation begins to creep in.
There is so much here, I am sure I have touched the edge of my points only. I am also getting old enough that I am learning that I don't really have the answers. Only the questions - why are we isolating, and how can we move out of that? What will it solve? I'm not really sure, but back to the anecdotal, when I isolate and keep secrets, that is when I move to disorder.
I think with Bishop Strickland, it's not the fact about what he said, but rather the fact that he said it that makes it notable. We all know there are a not-insignificant number of other bishops that would probably agree with him, but they have the sense not to say it (or Tweet it) out loud. While I think his Tweet on the whole is probably not a good thing, I can't complain too much because I have long been an advocate of bishops speaking their minds and not pretending that there is "unity" among the bishops when in reality there are deep fractures. I do give him credit for saying what he believes, however, without worrying about his future prospects; no one can accuse him of being a careerist as he certainly won't be advancing up the ladder anytime soon, and I'm sure he knows it.
As for Taylor Marshall, I think it's clear he's not serious about holding any kind of political office as if he was the logical path would be to run for some local or state office first and build up a political base from there. While I will not be voting for him in 2024 I will say that there are many worse choices out there and I would vote for him over some of our Church leaders if they ran. He might do more good for the world as U.S. President or even another office than focusing on his Youtube channel, honestly.
RE that so-called Tyler tweet:
Let's juxtapose two quotes: "This of course did not stop the media critics on the extremes who continued their tactics of promoting division in the Church." The reference is to suppression of then Cardinal Ratzinger's communication on exclusion from communion of pro-abortion American politicians. The prelate quoted: is--THEODORE CARDINAL MCCARRICK of Washington D.C. quoted in FIRST THINGS June 2005, p. 68 as reported by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. For connoisseurs of irony, the then-Cardinal goes on to criticize the lack of spiritual preparation in some who receive Holy Communion as "a habitual practice." You can't make this stuff up.
2) Now J.D. Flynn: "There is another canonical crime, though, that might be applied to Strickland’s rhetoric:
Canon 1373 establishes that “a person who publicly incites hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical office or duty, or who provokes disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.”
It could be plausibly argued, I think, that Strickland’s tweet might well provoke disobedience against the Apostolic See, given that it talks about a kind of rejection of the pope’s leadership — or suggests as much." I had to read our correspondent's effusion on potential division in the Church twice!
J.D. Flynn and ex-Cardinal McCarrick are wonderful examples of the pot calling the kettle black, are they not?
Michael, I'd like to understand, but I'm not sure I follow. How do you see these things correlated to each other?
That’s a nasty last sentence, there.
No, I think your reading comprehension is pretty faulty here
Michael, I respectfully ask that you tone it down some. Comparing anyone to McCarrick is really unacceptable under any circumstances. Also, your entire post is unintelligible.
Thanks for a great Tuesday Pillar Post, JD. Your analysis (and Ed's) is why I subscribe.
Thank you!
I personally strongly agree with most of this piece, including on clerical celibacy, which is a wonderful discipline - however, I think that it is possible to see one advantage from making celibacy optional, which doesn't invoke the tired notion that married priests would somehow be less inclined to sexual abuse. Namely, opening up priesthood to married men would increase the applicant pool, which might enable more careful discernment of each applicant. That's not a foolproof argument, though.
Good point, Anthony!
I'm using this comment to pose a loosely related question for JD that arose as I finished the newsletter: you said that clerical celibacy is disciplinary, not doctrinal and so we have married clergy in various circumstances. I understand this. As I understand it, though, in every circumstance they must be married before orders, even to the extent that a man ordained a deacon but on his way to full priesthood, should he leave before he is ordained a priest, is not allowed to receive sacramental marriage. Is the order of the sacraments a doctrinal matter? Otherwise stated, could the Roman church allow that a man can be ordained a priest and then contract marriage afterwards? Also, is there a doctrinal teaching on the celibacy expected of bishops?
The Holy See could permit a priest to marry. She does it as a matter of course -- when she dispenses from the obligation of celibacy during the laicization process. but it is within the power of the Holy See to permit a cleric to marry and remain a cleric. I've never seen it done, but I have heard the anecdote that Rome has sometimes done this for widowed permanent deacons with young children.
I think that the discipline of celibacy for bishops is also a discipline, but it is one that the West shares with the East and (most?/all) Orthodox churches as well.
PS - Joe is my friend IRL, so it makes me chuckle when he poses questions for me here instead of just texting me. But I'm glad he does, as it helps to further the conversation going on here.
I gotta give the people what they want, JD. The people come to read the comments
Oh indeed.
I’m on a widower Facebook group. One gentleman there, a permanent deacon with a child with developmental disabilities, recently remarried, with dispensation.
Kang, Kodos, or TayMar?
Can I get a fourth option please???
Kor!
If they were serious about "married priests" they'd:
- ask married Roman rite and Eastern Rite priests and their wives about their experiences and their thoughts on the matter
- ask permanent deacons (who are actually clergy though often not treated as such) about their experiences
- try to figure out who the sort of married men who would become priests are and how they would become formed/go through seminary while married
- ask the laity what they'd think of suddenly having married priests
Since they haven't done even one of these things that I am aware of - and in fact don't even seem to have be aware that these might be questions - I can only assume that the "solution" of married clergy is totally unserious. Even if they got serious right now it would take decades before there were significant numbers of married priests in any country.
Exactly.
The go-to source for information on the married priesthood is the Eastern Churches, Catholic and otherwise. Since the focus always seems to be on Western secular and Protestant views, this shows where these preoccupations lie: not with church traditions, but with criticisms from those who reject traditions, in full or in part.
Excellent newsletter. Calling out the political ideologies in our Church community. Christ first, political ideologies second.
JD: I pose a question for you. If you live in San Diego diocese and a faithful Catholic, how do you square the beliefs of our faith with our resident Cardinal? And do we as laity call him out? We certainly pray for his soul and his office. But a prelate who espouses “new”’theology and sinful conduct places the faithful Catholic into the hate the sin and not the sinner mode here in SD. Try saving souls before saving the environment.
I would advise you to embrace the "new" theology, friend!
No such thing as a “new” theology with my tongue in my cheek, not in the hand!
Alarm bells!
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we
have preached to you, let him be anathema."
Galatians 1:8
I'm not sure why your alarm bells are going off, my friend. the theology which animated Vatican II was derided as "new" by its Thomist opponents, but in reality it was ancient since it went back to the sources, the Scriptures and commentators on the Scriptures throughout the centuries. Of course, there's something new about it too, but that isn't a bad thing; there is always progress in theology.
Friend, I'm not sure what you mean by "there is always progress in theology". Certainly, there can always be innovation in theology, or accidentally rediscovering the errors of the past, but I do not think merely the process of "doing theology" is guaranteed to produce progress. One thinks of the great sound and fury of American Catholic theologians raising their voices in dissent to Humanae vitae in the late 60s, early 70s - I would not consider this prodigious body of scholarship, nor its modern-day successors, to be "progress", unless it is perhaps progressing in the wrong direction, away from the deposit of the faith.
To your actual point, though - I think there is a licit, perhaps even obliged, place for a layperson struggling with reconciling the public statements of her bishop to discern whether those statements are in keeping with the teachings of the Church; indeed, with the "nouvelle theologie" of Vatican II they claim to hearken to (if I am using that phrase correctly). Put another way, I think it is a perfectly legitimate exercise of conscience to try and determine if, for example, Cardinal McElroy's theological output is actually in harmony with Vatican II and Pope Francis, the names of which he often trades upon while sseemingly repudiating them by the substance of his remarks. This is important for formation of one's own conscience and for effective witness to the Gospel.
I do not know how to answer the original poster's question, though, except to suggest that charity should be the guiding principle. I have been told that Cardinal McElroy puts an emphasis on serving the poor and other works of mercy, so perhaps you could pray for his success in these endeavours, and ultimately his conversion? We are all in need of conversion, so I do not think it uncharitable to pray for that intention. Meanwhile, keep your heart fortified and your eyes fixed on Christ! I will pray for you, and all my brothers and sisters down in your beautiful city.
that there is always progress in theology is affirmed by Vatican II in Dei verbum. why? because the subject of theology is the whole mystery of Christ. Christ was not fully comprehended by the apostles, but they and the Church have received the Holy Spirit with the promise to be guided more deeply into the mystery of Christ. that mystery is not one which can be captured in its entirety by abstract formulas, because of its infinity, because the subject is God and thus whatever analogy we can make always comes with a greater distance. and because infinity and finitude have come together in that person; it is the kind of thing that defies our explanations and rationalisations. that, of course, should not halt our attempts to say something about the mystery, but with the knowledge that what we have said is always insufficient, and subject to further development.
as for whether the layperson can discern whether the teaching of their bishop is true, sure they can. I would hope that the Catholics of Tyler, Texas would in conscience reject the nonsense that their bishop puts out, for example.
Neither Bishops nor Priests should use Twitter, except perhaps to forward their own more considered writings or those of others. Twitter is, on balance, a serious net negative in fostering a balanced and ascetic example of a Christian way of life.
As for Taylor Marshall, he is “Catholic” in only the most nominal sense of the term. Yes, we should have compassion and charity toward the unfortunate thousands who follow him, as we would toward all followers of the various frauds, heretics, and mountebanks who populate our religious and political scene in these unfortunate times. But those people have agency and responsibility, and one fears that they have allowed their own ego -- the desire to be told that things are going wrong for them due to some concatenation of various conspiracies -- to overcome their need to follow the Truth that genuinely sets us free.
I think that is harsh on Taylor Marshall. I do not think it is for us to judge the Catholicism of others - if they say they accept the faith, thats it. Of course, its hardly a secret that many Catholics have an a la carte approach, but they are only fooling themselves. But Taylor Marshall isnt like that, which makes him OK by me.
He isnt perfect and I am sure he is not right on everything, but I admire his enthusiasm for the faith, the energy he displays when talking about. There are precious few Bishops who could be described as enthusiastic or energetic.
Edward, I agree with your comments on Twitter and other social media.
Its crazy to think we have gone from a system of media (books) having imprimatuers and nhil obstat endorsements, to a system where any priest can let fly on Twitter with his own opinions. This is common and causes chaos.
In my opinion, the Church has not adapted adequately to modern communications and social media. These can be great tools, but can also be damaging if used carelessly. The current batch in Rome also seem to behave as if they are not under constant close scrutiny. Do they really not understand everything they do and say is reported around the world?