An argument in defense of clerical celibacy

[workinprogress]

People seem to think that, if a priest has a wife and kids, he will understand what his parishoners feel. The only thing is, if he and she have a smart child, they can’t understand how it is to raise a retarded child. If their kid is straight, they can’t help, by experience, a family with a homosexual kid. If his wife is not an adulteress, he can’t help, by experience, a couple with infidelity. If they have a kid, they can’t subjectively feel what an infertile couple feels. Psychologists can’t even do that. Hopefully, they have a lot of truth from as objective as possible research; priests have it better with an objective infallible magesterium resource for objective council regarding moral issues and people in his flock for subjective experience resources to balance Church teaching effectively with empathizing.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

work(name removed by moderator)rogress:

People seem to think that, if a priest has a wife and kids, he will understand what his parishoners feel. The only thing is, if he and she have a smart child, they can’t understand how it is to raise a retarded child. If their kid is straight, they can’t help, by experience, a family with a homosexual kid. If his wife is not an adulteress, he can’t help, by experience, a couple with infidelity. If they have a kid, they can’t subjectively feel what an infertile couple feels. Psychologists can’t even do that. Hopefully, they have a lot of truth from as objective as possible research; priests have it better with an objective infallible magesterium resource for objective council regarding moral issues and people in his flock for subjective experience resources to balance Church teaching effectively with empathizing.

Dear work(name removed by moderator)rogress,

You make some good points. Obviously a priest can’t walk in everybody’s shoes.

There are some very learned and respected priests (and even monsignors) in our diocese who are very poor at empathizing. They know all the teachings, but they seem to be lacking true compassion. Luckily, I sense this in fewer than half the priests I meet.

One priest I know said that he doesn’t think he’s missing out on marriage because it’s like being married to 1000 women, and as many men and children, all at once.

While that may be true, there is one life-forming experience that I don’t think any amount of teaching and empathizing can replace: the unconditional love a parent has for a child. When you love your child, you sooner or later figure out that sometimes there really are no rules to tell you what’s right; you just have to go with what’s in your heart, formed by that unconditional love. Also it gives you a perfect perspective to investigate punishment v. forgiveness v. penance through truly loving eyes. That sort of love cannot be taught.

Alan

 

[marciadietrich]

work(name removed by moderator)rogress:

People seem to think that, if a priest has a wife and kids, he will understand what his parishoners feel. The only thing is, if he and she have a smart child, they can’t understand how it is to raise a retarded child.

My priest has been great in listening to my problems and frustrations of having a seriously learning disabled son (actually 2 of my 3 boys have learning problems). No one person can phyically be every different type of person living every possible situation … but like Paul the priest can ‘…be all things to all men to save some…’ (I’m in a rush or I’d look that verse up for you).

Marcia

 

[Carl]

work(name removed by moderator)rogress

Wish I could sympathize with your point of view.

My own experience is that the best priests in harness right now are the ones who have been married and had children. They are decidedly more approachable than the celibates. I value the celibates too, though, for their own special dedication. I just don’t see why the Church shouldn’t have as many of both as want to be priests.

It was so in the early Church, wasn’t it? And since Vatican II haven’t we been trying to revive the traditions of the early Church?

 

[fix]

Carl:

It was so in the early Church, wasn’t it? And since Vatican II haven’t we been trying to revive the traditions of the early Church?

Nope, in fact celibacy was the rule from the start. There were few married priests. It was not until a few centuries after the start of the Church that the eastern rite of the Church allowed a married person to be a priest, and they could never become a bishop.

 

[Melchior]

fix:

Nope, in fact celibacy was the rule from the start. There were few married priests. It was not until a few centuries after the start of the Church that the eastern rite of the Church allowed a married person to be a priest, and they could never become a bishop.

You are correct about the Bishop, but not the rest. In fact the first Pope, Peter, was married and there is no evidence of a *strictly * celibate priesthood in the first centuries of the church.

Respectfully,

Mel

 

[Sarah_Jane]

5 Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy and How to Refute Them

catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0014.html

 

[Carl]

Sorry, Fix

The Catholic Encyclopedia reads as follows:

*Turning now to the historical development of the present law of celibacy, we must necessarily begin with St. Paul’s direction (I Tim., iii, 2, 12, and Titus, i, 6) that a bishop or a deacon should be “the husband of one wife”. These passages seem fatal to any contention that celibacy was made obligatory upon the clergy from the beginning, but on the other hand, the Apostle’s desire that other men might be as himself (I Cor., vii, 7-8), already quoted) precludes the inference that he wished all ministers of the Gospel to be married. The words beyond doubt mean that the fitting candidate was a man, who, amongst other qualities which St. Paul enunciates as likely to make his authority respected, possessed also such stability of divorce, by remaining faithful to one wife. The direction is therefore restrictive, no injunctive; it excludes men who have married more than once, but it does not impose marriage as a necessary condition. This freedom of choice seems to have lasted during the whole of what we may call, with Vacandard, the first period of the Church’s legislation, i.e. down to about the time of Constantine and the Council of Nicaea.

A strenuous attempt has indeed been made by some writers, of whom the late Professor Bickell was the most distinguished, to prove that even at this early date the Church exacted celibacy of all her ministers of the higher grades. But the contrary view, represented by such scholars as Funk and Kraus, seems much better founded and has won general acceptance of recent years. *

 

[fix]

Melchior:

You are correct about the Bishop, but not the rest. In fact the first Pope, Peter, was married and there is no evidence of a *strictly *celibate priesthood in the first centuries of the church.

Respectfully,

Mel

The tradition of the Church is that Peter was celibate after he started his ministry.

Here is some more info on this topic:

Recent studies show that celibacy goes back much farther than the usually acknowledged canonical sources would indicate, back to the second century. In the East, too, it was much more widespread than we have been able to realize up until now. In the East it isn’t until the seventh century that there is a parting of the ways. Today as before, monasticism in the East is still the foundation that sustains the priesthood and the hierarchy. In that sense, celibacy also has a very major significance in the East.

 

[fix]

Carl:

Sorry, Fix

The Catholic Encyclopedia reads as follows:

*Turning now to the historical development of the present law of celibacy, we must necessarily begin with St. Paul’s direction (I Tim., iii, 2, 12, and Titus, i, 6) that a bishop or a deacon should be “the husband of one wife”. These passages seem fatal to any contention that celibacy was made obligatory upon the clergy from the beginning, but on the other hand, the Apostle’s desire that other men might be as himself (I Cor., vii, 7-8), already quoted) precludes the inference that he wished all ministers of the Gospel to be married. The words beyond doubt mean that the fitting candidate was a man, who, amongst other qualities which St. Paul enunciates as likely to make his authority respected, possessed also such stability of divorce, by remaining faithful to one wife. The direction is therefore restrictive, no injunctive; it excludes men who have married more than once, but it does not impose marriage as a necessary condition. This freedom of choice seems to have lasted during the whole of what we may call, with Vacandard, the first period of the Church’s legislation, i.e. down to about the time of Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. *

*A strenuous attempt has indeed been made by some writers, of whom the late Professor Bickell was the most distinguished, to prove that even at this early date the Church exacted celibacy of all her ministers of the higher grades. But the contrary view, represented by such scholars as Funk and Kraus, seems much better founded and has won general acceptance of recent years. *

Answer by Karl Keating on 10-23-2000: I recommend that you read Fr. Christian Cochini’s book “The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy.” He demonstates that it is NOT true that in the early centuries most priests were married. In fact, he lists by name ALL of the priests of the early centuries who were known to have been married, either while they were priests or before they became priests–only about 200 in all. The fact is that the rule of celibacy (which St. Paul endorsed) was the rule from the first. The Eastern Orthodox usage actually came along much later. KK

 

[fix]

**Celibacy is historical.

**Most people assume that the celibate priesthood is a convention introduced by the Church fairly late in history. On the contrary, there is evidence that even the earliest Church fathers, such as St. Augustine, St. Cyril, and St. Jerome, fully supported the celibate priesthood. The Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) and the First Council of Aries (314), a kind of general council of the West, both enacted legislation forbidding all bishops, priests, and deacons to have conjugal relations with their wives on penalty of exclusion from the clergy. Even the wording of these documents suggests that the councils were not introducing a new rule but rather maintaining a previously established tradition. In 385, Pope Siricius issued the first papal decree on the subject, saying that “clerical continence” was a tradition reaching as far back as apostolic times. While later councils and popes would pass similar edicts, the definitive promulgation of the celibate, unmarried priesthood came at the Second Lateran Council in 1139 under Pope Gregory VII. Far from being a law forced upon the medieval priesthood, it was the acceptance of celibacy by priests centuries earlier that eventually led to its universal promulgation in the twelfth century.

5 Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy and How to Refute Them

[Thanks"]http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0014.html]("http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0014.html[/QUOTE)

 

[Malachi4U]

The only problem that allowing preists to be married (Not just those reconciled from other religions) would solve is that of preists being married. Marriage is not a cure for homosexuality, child molestation, nor is it a gift that enlightens a person to have all knowlegde on counselling issues.

Do you ask a doctor if she is married before she operates on you?

Do you ask a pshcologist if he is married or divoraced before you seek marriage counsilling?

Are all child molesters single?

Do protestants ask if their preacher is married or divoraced before attending a sermon?

Is marriage a litmus test for good and pure clergy?

Celibate preists are every bit as good and blessed with skills as are married priests. The only differance is that married priests have a wife and all the complications arising from that. Celibate priests have all the complications of celibacy.

I would personnally like to see celibacy for priests as an option but as long as the Church forbids it, I support the body of Christ. Don’t like it, but I support and follow it. Jesus never said we would “Love” all His commandments or that being one of His followers would be easy. He did though promise us a great reward if we endured to the end.

 

[Melchior]

Malachi4U:

The only problem that allowing preists to be married (Not just those reconciled from other religions) would solve is that of preists being married. Marriage is not a cure for homosexuality, child molestation, nor is it a gift that enlightens a person to have all knowlegde on counselling issues.

Do you ask a doctor if she is married before she operates on you?

Do you ask a pshcologist if he is married or divoraced before you seek marriage counsilling?

Are all child molesters single?

Do protestants ask if their preacher is married or divoraced before attending a sermon?

Is marriage a litmus test for good and pure clergy?

Celibate preists are every bit as good and blessed with skills as are married priests. The only differance is that married priests have a wife and all the complications arising from that. Celibate priests have all the complications of celibacy.

I would personnally like to see celibacy for priests as an option but as long as the Church forbids it, I support the body of Christ. Don’t like it, but I support and follow it. Jesus never said we would “Love” all His commandments or that being one of His followers would be easy. He did though promise us a great reward if we endured to the end.

I agree with you. The only reason for having married priests is because the Catholic Church needs priests. Period. All other arguments are really not important. The reason for a celibate priesthood had cultural implications at the time. In our time the exact opposite is true. I believe there should be married and celibate priests. For the simple reason of having good priests and no other reason.

Mel

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Malachi4U:

Is marriage a litmus test for good and pure clergy?

No, and obviously neither is celibacy.

Celibate preists are every bit as good and blessed with skills as are married priests. The only differance is that married priests have a wife and all the complications arising from that. Celibate priests have all the complications of celibacy.

They may have skills, but they are lacking in one experience that brings many a married person into a whole new realm of love. That is, the experience of a child and the (hopefully) unconditional love that goes along with that. Having my own children helps me understand what real love is, and seeing how much their mother loves them helps as well. Perhaps it even gives us the faintest glimpse of how much God might have love His Son.

Certainly you can be trained to go through all the motions and have a perfectly adequate ministry, but the love for a child is something I’m glad I didn’t miss out on.

I would personnally like to see celibacy for priests as an option but as long as the Church forbids it, I support the body of Christ. Don’t like it, but I support and follow it. Jesus never said we would “Love” all His commandments or that being one of His followers would be easy. He did though promise us a great reward if we endured to the end.

But this is the crazy thing. The Church does ordain priests who are married and have children. Obviously she doesn’t believe that celibacy should be a requirement for priesthood, or she would quit ordaining married men as priests.

Alan

 

[Carl]

Answer by Karl Keating on 10-23-2000: I recommend that you read Fr. Christian Cochini’s book “The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy.” He demonstates that it is NOT true that in the early centuries most priests were married. In fact, he lists by name ALL of the priests of the early centuries who were known to have been married, either while they were priests or before they became priests–only about 200 in all. The fact is that the rule of celibacy (which St. Paul endorsed) was the rule from the first. The Eastern Orthodox usage actually came along much later. KK

I never said MOST priests were married in the early Church. This is a straw man argument. I think it is rather silly to get into this counting game, as very clearly in the earliest centuries after Christ the habit of keeping count of who was celibate and who was not was not even practiced.

Let me ask this: Is it a doctrine of the Church that married priests cannot be good priests? Obviously it is not, since married Anglican priests are being ordained as Catholic priests.

Then what’s the problem? If, in principle, a married clergy is undesirable, we should stop allowing it. But we don’t. We not only allow it, but we invite divorced and widowed men with many children into the priesthood.

Those who dislike a married clergy need to campaign vigorously against those men who are already married priests, and also against the growing number of those who have had children by a previous marriage, on the grounds that one cannot effectively be a spiritual and wordly father at the same time. That, by the way, would require the removal of a certain priest, father of seven children, who is currently director of vocations for the diocese of Dallas!

 

[jennstall]

AlanFromWichita:

No, and obviously neither is celibacy.
They may have skills, but they are lacking in one experience that brings many a married person into a whole new realm of love. That is, the experience of a child and the (hopefully) unconditional love that goes along with that. Having my own children helps me understand what real love is, and seeing how much their mother loves them helps as well. Perhaps it even gives us the faintest glimpse of how much God might have love His Son.

Alan

Alan, I hope you’re not suggesting that only married people who have children are capable of unconditional love and real love. I’ve met plenty of parents who seem capable of neither and plenty of childless people who show me great evidence of both.

Also, further to an earlier comment, I do think unconditional love is a learned response, frequently learned from our parents who teach us by their unconditional love. I think unconditional love can also be learned through prayer. In fact, I believe the Cistercians often refer to themselves as the School of Love, don’t they?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

jennstall:

Alan, I hope you’re not suggesting that only married people who have children are capable of unconditional love and real love. I’ve met plenty of parents who seem capable of neither and plenty of childless people who show me great evidence of both.

Also, further to an earlier comment, I do think unconditional love is a learned response, frequently learned from our parents who teach us by their unconditional love. I think unconditional love can also be learned through prayer. In fact, I believe the Cistercians often refer to themselves as the School of Love, don’t they?

No, I’m not suggesting that. In my case, it has taught me a lot about love that I have not the words to describe to someone who hasn’t had it.

You are also right that being a biological parent doesn’t necessarily mean that person has the experience of unconditional love for a child. It just gives them the opportunity.

I don’t know about the Cistercians’ nickname, but I have learned a great deal about the spiritual journey from some Cistercian monks in Snowmass CO who teach the spiritual journey, Lectio Divina and Centering prayer.

Alan

 

[jennstall]

AlanFromWichita:

I don’t know about the Cistercians’ nickname, but I have learned a great deal about the spiritual journey from some Cistercian monks in Snowmass CO who teach the spiritual journey, Lectio Divina and Centering prayer.

Alan

Google “Cistercian School of Love” and you’ll come up with some stuff by the same Abbott who wrote about some of the Centering Prayer stuff

 

[fix]

Answer by Karl Keating on 10-23-2000: I recommend that you read Fr. Christian Cochini’s book “The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy.” He demonstates that it is NOT true that in the early centuries most priests were married. In fact, he lists by name ALL of the priests of the early centuries who were known to have been married, either while they were priests or before they became priests–only about 200 in all. The fact is that the rule of celibacy (which St. Paul endorsed) was the rule from the first. The Eastern Orthodox usage actually came along much later. KK

I never said MOST priests were married in the early Church. This is a straw man argument. I think it is rather silly to get into this counting game, as very clearly in the earliest centuries after Christ the habit of keeping count of who was celibate and who was not was not even practiced.

It is not a straw man. The point was there were few married priests in the begining. There is a canard going around that most priests were married in the early centuries and only much later was celibacy introduced. That is a fiction.

Let me ask this: Is it a doctrine of the Church that married priests cannot be good priests? Obviously it is not, since married Anglican priests are being ordained as Catholic priests.

No one claimed it is a dogma. It is the preference. Christ set the example.

Then what’s the problem? If, in principle, a married clergy is undesirable, we should stop allowing it.

It is the exception, not the rule. Let’s not make the exception the rule and the rule the exeption.

But we don’t. We not only allow it, but we invite divorced and widowed men with many children into the priesthood.

The Church decides who has a calling, not the other way around.

Those who dislike a married clergy need to campaign vigorously against those men who are already married priests, and also against the growing number of those who have had children by a previous marriage, on the grounds that one cannot effectively be a spiritual and wordly father at the same time. That, by the way, would require the removal of a certain priest, father of seven children, who is currently director of vocations for the diocese of Dallas!

Look you miss the entire point of why the Church prefers celibacy.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

No one claimed it is a dogma. It is the preference. Christ set the example.

So it is a “relative” teaching. Since it is relative, I wonder why it applies to categories of married men rather than on a case-by-case basis. I wonder if there is something about being a married cradle Catholic that is more undesirable than being a married convert.

It is the exception, not the rule. Let’s not make the exception the rule and the rule the exeption.

So what percentage of married priests do you think would be appropriate to keep them in their place as being the exception? One out of 1000? One out of 100? 10%? 49%?

The Church decides who has a calling, not the other way around.

Perhaps, but that’s not what this discussion is about. It’s about how to defend part of the Church’s ostensible method of deciding. Actually I’d be curious to even know what that position is, in terms of why converted married are OK but not Catholics.

Look you miss the entire point of why the Church prefers celibacy.

I didn’t see where Carl even addressed the “why” in the post you quoted. A careful reading of his post might show that he was taking the Church’s preference for celibacy as axiomatic and wondering why the Church behaves as it does given that preference.

Alan