1 Timothy 3:1-7 and celibacy?

[mercygate]

This is probably true. That does not in itself validate celibacy as a discipline required of those wishing to be priests in certain rites.

Jesus knew His hour would come. Knowing this, why would He marry knowing that soon He would be crucified? Why would He subject a wife and children to this? Jesus had a unique role in our salvation, so not everything that applies to Jesus necessarily applies to men.

Michael

Levitical priests did not sleep with their wives when they rotated to the service of the altar. Orthodox priests (many Anglicans also) used to – and maybe still do – avoid sexual relations on the day before the celebrate Mass. A married priest who said Mass daily and who in fulfillment of the old law observed this discipline would effectively be living as the elders of the early church lived: in continence. viz. Canon 3, Council of Nicea

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

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”?

How am I ignoring the very words of Christ, when I am quoting them? We may disagree with interpretation, let’s not make statements that are not warranted.

Characterizing my arguement as a “pet interpretation” isn’t really addressing the questions I asked in regard to Mt 19. Was Jesus affirming what the disciples put forward about marriage, or what He had just taught about marriage and divorce?

“Aren’t you a “Bible only Christian”?” How does that address or answer my questions? Rather make accusations than address the questions/arguement put forth in the posts? I’ve said before, I really do want to understand and believe the discipline is consistent with Scripture, and maybe I’m being hard of heart. So, if you can convince me that my questions and understanding are in error concerning 1 Tim 3, 4 and Mt 19, great. Telling me I’m ignoring the very words of Jesus, and asking me if I’m a Bible only Christian, and labeling my understanding a “pet interpretation” is hardly giving a defense or explanation in regards to the questions I asked.

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

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.

Who is condemning anyone? I know several apparently holy celibates, and respect their life of faith. Disagreeing with the discipline as a requirement for priests, and disagreeing with the interpretation of Mt 19:12, is hardly reason to condemn. It would not be Christ-like to condemn others, or to be uncharitable toward others, even when tempted to be so.

As far as whether it is really a choice, since in the Latin rite one usually is not permitted to become a priest unless they choose celibacy, is another question.

“Well, you can…but you’d be dead wrong and probably have to account to the Lord for it”
Well, since I am not condemning anyone, what a relief!
Do you think we will have to account to the Lord for submitting to disciplines or teachings we do not understand or disagree with?

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Levitical priests did not sleep with their wives when they rotated to the service of the altar. Orthodox priests (many Anglicans also) used to – and maybe still do – avoid sexual relations on the day before the celebrate Mass. A married priest who said Mass daily and who in fulfillment of the old law observed this discipline would effectively be living as the elders of the early church lived: in continence. viz. Canon 3, Council of Nicea

So:
Levitical priests were married. They rotated service.
Orthodox priests may be married.
If married priests are to avoid sexual relations on the day before celebrating Mass, guess they cannot say daily Mass? What other choice would they have? Rotate service as other priests had done before them?

“would effectively be living as the elders of the early church lived: in continence”
Which ECF writings support this?
Cochini’s book lists quite a few early bishops and Popes who were either married or had children outside of marriage.

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

I repeat: embracing clerical celibacy simply opts for the adoption of a good deemed to be greater than marriage, according to scriptural warrant, for the clerical state for the benefits it bestows upon the individual and upon the Church, and as a witness to the Kingdom.

O.K. you think it is a greater good than marriage.
I disagree.

You think it has Scriptural warrant.
I disagree. I hope the intention was good when clerical celibacy came to be implemented, yet I am not convinced it was the proper choice. For example, some medications have been given with good intention with the initial obvious results being beneficial, only later to find significant side effects which were not so obvious. This has occurred in the medical field by well intentioned, educated individuals, only to have changes in practice (name removed by moderator)lemented when significant side effects come to surface. Another example is steriod use by body builders, with initial impressive results, only to live with the consequences later.

Michael

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I repeat, Michael, did you not see my earlier post: Celibacy is neither a cause of deviant sexual behaviors such as pedophilia, nor an effect.

So what then is your main objection to celibacy? Since it does not ‘cause’ nor ‘effect’ deviant sexual behavior, what exactly is your objection?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

I repeat, Michael, did you not see my earlier post: Celibacy is neither a cause of deviant sexual behaviors such as pedophilia, nor an effect.

So what then is your main objection to celibacy? Since it does not ‘cause’ nor ‘effect’ deviant sexual behavior, what exactly is your objection?

What is my main objection to celibacy? I thought that was clear from this thread, that it appears inconsistent with Scripture, including 1 Tim 3 and 4.

I did not make an assertion that celibacy itself is a cause or effect of deviant sexual behavior, I do think that it is possible that asking for celibacy as a requirement for priesthood may attract some with deviant sexual behavior tendencies while placing them in a position of honor and authority. It appears to me that someone who fits well the characteristics of 1 Tim 3, “must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, …He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church?” would be less likely to have or be able to conceal tendencies toward deviant sexual behavior. They would have been tested with time and the witness of their life up to that point.
As it is, seems like the vow of celibacy is the major deciding criteria in the Latin rite. The young man might be emotionally immature and submit to a vow more out of submission what people tell them to do, rather than wholeheartedly agreeing and having a reasonable understanding. What other vocation in society elevates young men to a position of such honor and responsibility so soon?

Michael

 

[valient_Lucy]

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.

Marriage is a gift, but Scripture makes it clear that we are all given different gifts. It is mistaken to believe that we are all given the same gifts. As Paul said, God gives the gift of singleness to some, and the gift of married life. You’re right that marriage is a gift from God, but so is celibacy. If God wants to give a person the gift of celibacy, and a person feels that they are called to serve God in the single state, wouldn’t it be wrong for them to date and persue marriage. I think the statement shows a lack of faith in God, the idea that God might try to trick a person with regard to their vocation, or it implies that we cannot fully discover God’s will for our lives.

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?

Of course not. Not everyone who is called to singleness is necessarily called to be priests. Some are called to be nuns, or single lay people who live in the world.

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

You’re assuming that vowing chastity and trusting in God day by day is incompatible with making a vow. Are the marriage vows incompatible with a vow of celibacy? As you point out, they both “limit” what God can do in the future. In celibacy, you are vowing not to marry anyone who God might bring into your life in the future. But in marriage, you are also vowing not to marry anyone else that God might bring into your life in the future. It’s entierly possible that a few weeks after her marriage, a woman will meet a man who is infinatly superior to her husband, but since she’s married, she cannot persue this person that God has brought into her future.

I agree that children and families are invaluable ways of serving the kingdom of God, but they are not the only ways. And being married with children can limit the ways that we serve the kingdom of God. Who would you choose to send as a millitary chaplain to Iraq, an unmarried priest, or a married priest with 2 toddlers?

 

[tkdnick]

I just saw this question in the Ask An Apologist area. Here it is
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=148110

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

… And being married with children can limit the ways that we serve the kingdom of God.

Really? Perhaps that message can be part of the marriage preparation classes for Catholics? Or part of the homily on mother’s day? How is being a Catholic parent limiting their ability to serve the kingdom of God? Are not their spouse and children part of the kingdom of God?

It would be interesting to see the demographics of who believes being married with children limits the way we serve the kingdom of God. Do most married Catholics believe this? If so, do they believe they choose to limit the way they serve God by choosing marriage in the Catholic Church? Or is it mostly single or celibates and “celibates” who believe this and “preach” this to married Catholics?

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

… Who would you choose to send as a millitary chaplain to Iraq, an unmarried priest, or a married priest with 2 toddlers?

So, shall we only send single persons when the threat of danger looms? No married soldiers? Or no married soldiers who have children?

Which would you send? A newly married young priest hoping to have children, or a priest who has been married for thirty years and has two grown children? Would your decision be different if the priest with two grown children was a widower? How about if he was a widower with two young children?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Who would you choose to send as a millitary chaplain to Iraq, an unmarried priest, or a married priest with 2 toddlers?

The one who would be the greatest blessing, encouragement, and example for the faith of those in danger. The one who more closely exemplifies 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6., and who has not ignored 1 Tim 4:1-4. So that would most likely be a married priest.

This reminded me of Pat Tillman. I obviously do not know his faith, though his example sure speaks volumes:
sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/football/nfl/04/23/tillman.killed/index.html?cnn=yes

Do you mind answering post #110 in this thread?

Michael