1 Timothy 3:1-7 and celibacy?

[tkdnick]

Why? Do you think young unmarried men who renounce marriage and are put in positions of authority are more or less likely to molest children than a married man as descibed in 1 Tim 3?

Do you think an unmarried man, or a married man as described in 1 Tim 3 would be more likely to take the proper action when they discover a subordinate(s) molested a child?

One has been tested by time and the witness of their ability to love their spouse and children. The other is tested by what they renounce: marriage, a gift of God.

Michael

I believe that neither situation makes one better to handle one of those situations. I believe it is about the faith, conscience, and willingness to do what is right of the individual.

Besides, do some research on the internet about abuse among Mormon bishops or among baptist preachers. Just as prevelant and just as bad, if not more so, than the priest abuse scandals. These are married men and they do this stuff too. So why would one assume that being married or unmarried makes a difference?

 

[valient_Lucy]

Does it really say that, or do we make it say that to fit celibacy? Does anyone really, truly believe that interpretation/explanation?

It definitely does not say he cannot be married, especially since it mentions his children.

“He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity”

Michael

If Paul stated that an overseer must be married and have children, then why did he disobey his own command by remaining single?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Well you are certainly within your rights to believe this. However, as the faithful that make up The Church we are also called to give assent of will to The Church’s decisions.
1 Corinthians 1:11-12 “I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.”

“However, as the faithful that make up The Church we are also called to give assent of will to The Church’s decisions.”
And we are not called to blind obedience, and the Catechism and Scripture tell us that we are not to go against our conscience. We are not to disagree out of pride or selfishness, and are to ask God to lead us to understand His teaching. If we make reasonable effort to understand so as to agree, and we can respectfully disagree. That does not preclude saying we disagree, and why, and asking for understanding. Teach me how I can reasonably see how celibacy as a tradition does not contradict 1 Tim 3.

"that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. "
I agree with the Creed. Does disagreeing with celibacy cause me not to be united with Catholics who agree with the Creed? Disagreeing with a “tradition”, which is changeable, and agreeing with Tradition, could result in not being in the same mind concerning Jesus Christ?
What did God tell us concerning divisions and disagreements, what tool did He give us? 2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;”

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

If Paul stated that an overseer must be married and have children, then why did he disobey his own command by remaining single?

Paul says they must be the husband of one wife. If Paul was a widower, then he did not contradict what he wrote.

If we look at what we are told, and not what we make assumptions about, we know that Peter had a mother-in-law. Thus he could be seen as consistent with 1 Tim 3. Our first Pope was the husband of one wife.

I wonder, when the disciples stated in Mt 19 that it was better not to marry, did they say this in front of Peter?

Michael

 

[valient_Lucy]

Saint John being celebate, I have no reason to think he was or was not.

Saint Paul, from what he wrote in 1 Cor 7, may have been a widower? On what do you base that Paul was celibate? Surely not on 1 Timothy 3?

Michael

St. Paul refers to himself as single, and not a widower. It is possible that he was a widower, but why did he never marry again? What about any children of Saint Paul? There is no mention of his children anywhere in Scripture. I Timothy 3 mentions managing children. How did he managae his children given his extensive traveling?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

I believe that neither situation makes one better to handle one of those situations. I believe it is about the faith, conscience, and willingness to do what is right of the individual.

I believe one situation is much better than the other.

I agree it is about faith, conscience, and willingness to do what is right. I do not think that celibacy is necessarily an indication of faith, and thus should not be the seperating factor. I also do not think that most young men who vow celibacy actually agree with celibacy, and thus are not truly acting according to their conscience, but are summiting to what they are told is a higher calling. Or, some are not drawn to marriage, so vowing celibacy is not a sacrifice, and prestige comes with renouncing what one is not attracted to.

Michael

 

[valient_Lucy]

I believe one situation is much better than the other.

I agree it is about faith, conscience, and willingness to do what is right. I do not think that celibacy is necessarily an indication of faith, and thus should not be the seperating factor. I also do not think that most young men who vow celibacy actually agree with celibacy, and thus are not truly acting according to their conscience, but are summiting to what they are told is a higher calling. Or, some are not drawn to marriage, so vowing celibacy is not a sacrifice, and prestige comes with renouncing what one is not attracted to.

Michael

It is an indication of faith to accept whatever state of life God calls you to live. Some people are called to marriage, but others are called to a life of celibacy. As you stated in your post, some are not drawn to marriage. Should such people be forced to marry, if they don’t want to marry? Or should they show their faith in God by vowing to remain in celibate chastity, and devoting the energy they would spend caring for a family to the kingdom of God?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

St. Paul refers to himself as single, and not a widower. It is possible that he was a widower, but why did he never marry again? What about any children of Saint Paul? There is no mention of his children anywhere in Scripture. I Timothy 3 mentions managing children. How did he managae his children given his extensive traveling?

Some see 1 Cor 7:8 as Paul describing himself as a widower.
It would have been usual for someone in Paul’s position to be married. If it was commonly known he was married and then widowed, he would not have found it necessary to elaborate in his writings.

Why would he not remarry? Why did Anna not remarry? Jesus taught the two become one, so some look at that as a reason not to remarry. Paul appears to encourage widows to remain as widows.

There is not mention of Peter having children, that does not mean he did not have children. How did Moses manage his children, given his extensive traveling? Looking at everyday life now, how many professionals are well respected and travel often for their jobs. Do we assume they are not married, and don’t have children, or don’t raise them well just because the person doesn’t broadcast their personally life to the general public? Those close to them would know, others would not necessarily know. There are well respected people in many fields, and most people have no idea if the person is married, widowed, widowered, divorced, has children, doesn’t have children, even after working with the person.

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

It is an indication of faith to accept whatever state of life God calls you to live. Some people are called to marriage, but others are called to a life of celibacy. As you stated in your post, some are not drawn to marriage. Should such people be forced to marry, if they don’t want to marry? Or should they show their faith in God by vowing to remain in celibate chastity, and devoting the energy they would spend caring for a family to the kingdom of God?

Yes, it is an indication of faith to accept whatever state of life calls us to live. Does that mean we should take a vow to renounce what God might do in the future? Celibacy renounces the possibility of marriage. And marriage is a gift from God.

Those not drawn to marriage should not be forced to marriage, that would be false witness on their part. That does not necessarily mean they should be priests or Church leaders, does it?

Would it not be proper for all to vow chastity and trust in our Lord day by day, instead of renouncing marriage with a vow of celibacy? Chastity is a fruit of the spirit. Celibacy, reminds me of 1 Tim 4.

“devoting the energy they would spend caring for a family to the kingdom of God”
families are part of the kingdom of God, which brings me back to 1 Tim 3 and bishops being allowed to be married, living a vow of chastity, not celibacy

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

I think you might be surprised.

Personally, I most Catholics I know do not oppose allowing married priests, including priests.

 

[NewGuyInChurch]

Personally, I most Catholics I know do not oppose allowing married priests, including priests.

I oppose it

 

[Church_Militant]

Does it really say that, or do we make it say that to fit celibacy? Does anyone really, truly believe that interpretation/explanation?

As a matter of fact I do. Why because that is precisely what it means. Those who take a different view do so only by ignoring other relevant passages in the New Testament.

It definitely does not say he cannot be married, especially since it mentions his children.

"He must

be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity"

MichaelHe may be married and if so then he must do these things.

St. Paul wrote that didn’t he? Was he married?

Let’s look at what the Word of God really says about this.

Some people will try to tell you that priestly celibacy is unBiblical, but…
Matthew 19:10-12
"10: The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.”
11: But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.
12: For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” "

1st Corinthians 7:6-9
"6: I say this by way of concession, not of command.
7: I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8: To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
9: But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. "

I will display each of these passages and deal with them in turn…

1st Corinthians 9:5 “5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”

Paul certainly had the right…but he, in obedience to the very words of Christ chose not to. We know that he was unmarried and this just simply points up the fact that at least one apostle (that we know of for sure) chose and lived a celibate life. This really cuts both ways, but does not help the opposing case anymore than it helps mine. I feel that it shows a case FOR celibacy as much as it shows that some of the apostles and early Bishops were married… this certainly DOES support my case that there are valid scriptural reasons for celibate clergy regardless of the change that the “reformers” brought about in the 1500’s because some of them couldn’t hack it… This only means that one should be very sure of his calling before making such a vow.

1st Timothy 3:2-12(dropped verse 1 as self evident)
"2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, 3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. 5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

6 Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre: 9 Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.

11 The women in like manner chaste, (Nuns?) not slanderers, but sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children, and their own houses."

So what we see here is that St. Paul says that those who seek the office of bishop must be squared away in many things. This shows the sanctity of marriage and the importance of a good report with the non-believers…this still does NOT negate Christ’s own call to celibacy in the passages I gave you earlier…Nor St.Paul’s own statement to that effect that I also cited.

Sorry, but if Jesus and Paul BOTH hadn’t made these statements, then we’d have nothing to discuss.

I have no questions about marriage and that some of the apostles were married…we have some married priests today and that is fine…

cont’d

 

[Church_Militant]

Titus 1:6 “6 If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly”
Same as above…

1st Timothy 4:1-3 “1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, 3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”

I would just answer with this note that is in my Bible that covers what I was gonna say better than I could have.

3 “Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats”… He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance."

So, the admonition about heretics that forbid to marry is directed at the heretics of that day they really have nothing to do with those who willingly take a vow of celibacy for the sake of their service of God.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Church_Militant]

Personally, I most Catholics I know do not oppose allowing married priests, including priests.

I do…based on what I just showed you. Besides… the Church is not a democracy like most of the n-C churches.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

1st Timothy 4:1-3 “1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, 3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”

I would just answer with this note that is in my Bible that covers what I was gonna say better than I could have.

3 “Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats”… He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance."

So, the admonition about heretics that forbid to marry is directed at the heretics of that day they really have nothing to do with those who willingly take a vow of celibacy for the sake of their service of God.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

He warned of those in later times. Just because one can point to one or more groups from before that it may apply to, does not mean it is irrelevant today.

“some shall depart from the faith”
so they will have had the faith, be in the Church, and depart from the faith

“Forbidding to marry”
This does not restrict the warning to a specific reason for forbidding marriage. It does warn of those who forbid marriage. Are priests allowed to marry, or are they forbidden?

How can one claim this verse is irrelevant to any particular period of time after Paul wrote those words?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

As a matter of fact I do. Why because that is precisely what it means. Those who take a different view do so only by ignoring other relevant passages in the New Testament.He may be married and if so then he must do these things.

St. Paul wrote that didn’t he? Was he married?

Let’s look at what the Word of God really says about this.

Must is precisely what it means. May is not the word Paul used in 1 Tim 3, is it?

Who here is argueing that Paul did not write that? Was Paul married? At some point, probably.

“who take a different view do so only by ignoring other relevant passages in the New Testament.”
That can be claimed by both sides.
Again, what words are in 1 Tim 3? “May be …” NO
“Married less than or equal to one time” NO
Even if the answer here is yes, then priests are permitted to be married. What if Peter wrote these words, since we know he had a mother-in-law? Does it matter whether Paul or Peter would have written these words? Would they both have agreed, or would they have taught differently based on whether Paul was celibate, as some claim, or Peter was married, as Scripture infers?

1 Tim 3:2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

1 Tim 3:4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Some people will try to tell you that priestly celibacy is unBiblical, but…
Matthew 19:10-12
"10: The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.”
11: But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.
12: For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” "

Mt 19:9 “And I say to you, (I)whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
This is Jesus’s saying, His teaching, on this section on divorce.

Mt 19:10 The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”
Let’s keep in mind Peter had a mother-in-law. This statement in the presence of Peter, would seem to place Peter in not having done the better choice. Yet Jesus is not saying anything negative about marriage, He is giving it the honor God intended for marriage.
Also, look at what the disciples say before and after this passage? The continually misinterpret or lack understanding. Jesus is continually correcting them. Is this time any different?

Mt 19:11But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.
Is Jesus saying this in regards to what He said in 19:9.or what the disciples said in Mt 19:10. Those disciples that asked if they only had to forgive 7 times (looking for the minimum?) or rebuked the children coming to Jesus?

Mt 19:12 “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
What is he telling them to accept? His teaching in Mt 19:4-5:
"And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?”
Mt 19:9 “And I say to you, (I)whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Mt 19:11But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.
I believe verse 11 refers to Jesus’s teaching in verse 9. Not all can accept marital chastity, only those to whom it is given. Then He gives examples of those who it is not given:
Those eunuchs from birth: deformation?
Those eunuchs made so by others: mutilated by otthers?
Those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Does this mean He is suggesting this is good? Did He also suggest tearing out the right eye for the sake of the kingdom of heaven? :Mt 5:29 “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”

A big question is what does 19:12b refer to?“He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” To 19:12a? Or 19:11 (and thus 19:9? Was Jesus correct about marriage and divorce, or where the disciples?

Hard to tell, then looking where else this account occurs may help. Mark 10 is almost word for word, except no mention of eunuchs. How about that? You were saying some ignore relevant scripture?

"Mk 10:1-11 Getting up, He went from there to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan; crowds gathered around Him again, and, according to His custom, He once more began to teach them. Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.” And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them.”

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

I do…based on what I just showed you. Besides… the Church is not a democracy like most of the n-C churches.

Well then perhaps you should have been a bishop when married Popes were chosen, or when Alexander VI was chosen. The inspired desire for a celibate Pope would surely have prevailed among celibate holy bishops?

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

11 The women in like manner chaste, (Nuns?) not slanderers, but sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children, and their own houses."

Lets not make chaste and celibacy interchangeable.

Michael

 

[Church_Militant]

He warned of those in later times. Just because one can point to one or more groups from before that it may apply to, does not mean it is irrelevant today.

“some shall depart from the faith”
so they will have had the faith, be in the Church, and depart from the faith

“Forbidding to marry”
This does not restrict the warning to a specific reason for forbidding marriage. It does warn of those who forbid marriage. Are priests allowed to marry, or are they forbidden?

How can one claim this verse is irrelevant to any particular period of time after Paul wrote those words?

It’s irrelevant to this discussion because you have ignored the very words of Christ Himself and (again) put forth your own pet interpretation even though it conflicts with the Word of God. Aren’t you a “Bible only Christian”?

Look at it again here:Matthew 19:10-12
"10: The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.”
11: But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.
12: For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

You cannot condemn those who choose a life of celibacy out of love and service to Our lord, and in direct obedience to Him.

Well, you can…but you’d be dead wrong and probably have to account to the Lord for it.

Must is precisely what it means. May is not the word Paul used in 1 Tim 3, is it?

**Who here is argueing that Paul did not write that? Was Paul married? At some point, probably. **

“who take a different view do so only by ignoring other relevant passages in the New Testament.”
That can be claimed by both sides.
Again, what words are in 1 Tim 3? “May be …” NO
“Married less than or equal to one time” NO
Even if the answer here is yes, then priests are permitted to be married. What if Peter wrote these words, since we know he had a mother-in-law? Does it matter whether Paul or Peter would have written these words? Would they both have agreed, or would they have taught differently based on whether Paul was celibate, as some claim, or Peter was married, as Scripture infers?

1 Tim 3:2 -4
MichaelThis is just your semantics… any rational reader can easily see that the whole issue of what they “must” do is completely conditional upon whether they marry or not. The discourse is clearly about what they must do if they are married… there is nothing i that passage at all that in any way implies that they “must” be married. It’s simply not there…though you wish it was I guess.

You go beyond what is written there with the statement that Paul was married at some point. There is nothing in the NT or in Christian history that in any way even implies that.

It would not have mattered if Peter had written that passage, since the discourse is about married bishops, not about marriage.

Again, I refer you back to the very words of Our Lord. Paul was not married…and he was not married out of his obedience to the gift and calling that God gave him. In this respect St. Paul and our celibate priests are just alike. Will you attempt to indict Paul for obeying Our Lord?