LETTERS

National Catholic Reporter, Dec 3, 1999

More on Janasik

* Attention should be called to some inaccuracies in Fr. Basil Janasik's letter in the Nov. 5 issue.

First, a diocesan priest in the Roman church who resigns from active ministry does not "renege on his vows" because, unlike those in religious orders, he does not make any. He merely agreed to remain celibate as a condition for being ordained. When he is excused by way of dispensation, the obligation no longer exists. One cannot renege on a nonexistent obligation.

Second, the resigned priest does not lose the power to celebrate the Eucharist. Another old saw has it: "Once a priest, always a priest." You might even say that Jesus is thus infiltrating the Protestant churches with his eucharistic presence by means of resigned priests who have become ministers in another faith!

Third, it is not true that "procreation is the primary purpose of marriage and the remedy for concupiscence second." The revised code of cannon law, following Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes), does not assign any hierarchy to the ends of marriage, but rather sees them as intimately related to each other: "The matrimonial covenant ... is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring" (Canon 1055).

Fourth, to say that "the final decision [about final judgment] has been made for us" smacks of predestination.

Perhaps Fr. Basil should conduct a scientific survey to answer the many questions he raises. Absent that, he should read the letters to which he refers with the justice, mercy and understanding that he rightfully attributes to our Heavenly Father.

RAYMOND C. BACKES Altadena, Calif.

* Having read Fr. Basil E. Janasik's letter to the editor and being the wife of a married priest, I feel compelled to respond.

Janasik makes some rather facile remarks regarding the personal intent, motivation, and theology of men who, in my opinion and experience, are far from cavalier in their understanding and attitude concerning the ordained ministry. Were I to use my own husband as an example, I would admit to being awestruck in the face of his long, anguished, serious discernment -- one that found its culmination in his accepting a new, additional vocation in marriage.

His path led him to engage in many spiritual retreats and to do so wholeheartedly. Never was his vocation to the priesthood in question. He is as much, perhaps more, a priest now as ever he was when he proclaimed his fiat some 44 years ago.

More to the point, however, is the fact that neither he nor his brothers in priesthood who have married are men who never believed in the Eucharist and thus sought yet another sacrament to pursue in favor of relinquishing an awesome privilege. Their privilege is, instead, one that gifts them with the ability to accept Eucharist, to share it and to be thanks-giving people wherever they are, not just as they stand at an altar.

Although my husband is not a biological father, he is generously both father and grandfather to my children and their families. His procreation is expressed in myriad conversations, advice-giving sessions, joyous laughter and the pure enjoyment of being a family member with all its ups and downs. This happiness is born of profoundly unselfish caring -- a witness of love that I have noted in every priest-husband/father/grandfather I have met.

These men are neither floundering nor seeking some elusive fantasy life. They "found themselves" long ago -- when they risked all they knew and loved to follow the call of the God who sent us a Savior who also flew in the face of unremitting legalism.

Those parishioners that Janasik seems to believe remain "iffy" regarding a married priesthood and optional celibacy are few and far between. I have encountered more and more who are astounded that the Roman church has not acted positively to establish both entities. They see the drain on church resource. They watch as good, talented, hardworking men are forced to leave the life they love because of laws that rigidly bind one rite to celibacy while permitting freedom to marry in another, equally catholic, one. They wonder at the admission of married, "convert priests" who come to parishes with wives and children and serve as pastors, while our own married priests are mandated to eternal inactivity.

How can this be the will of a just, merciful, understanding God? Even if vows were reneged, something I absolutely do not believe to be true, would there be no room for compassion, no place for a different but equally needed and valid expression of priesthood? Is this a problem to be solved or a challenge to be met creatively?

Janasik is accurate when he says that the church will survive despite us. However, the quality of that survival remains to be seen when there are people who would rather see men -- and women -- sentenced to unrelenting punishment than to take a second and third look at laws that place heavy burdens on individuals who seek only to follow the God who calls them -- even when the risks are great and the path is narrow. Indeed, the final decision has been made for us by a just, merciful, understanding God. We may all be quite surprised at the outcome!