An argument in defense of clerical celibacy

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

Those raised in the faith have been raised with the mind of the Church. Those who convert have not and cannot be held to the same standard.

That’s an interesting theory as to why married cradle Catholics are more undesirable as priests than married converts. It might be right. Is this anything like what you are suggesting?

For a cradle Catholic to get married, then to realize later he has a call to the ministry, then we perhaps think he “should have known” or “had a chance but wasn’t fully dedicated” to the Church. Therefore he has changed his mind and didn’t want to serve the Church all his life so he’s a bad candidate for priesthood. When he first decided to get married he knowingly and willfully gave up his chance to ever become a priest.

For a married protestant to go into the ministry, then realize later he has a call to Catholicism, we can say "but he didn’t know what it was like to be Catholic so he couldn’t have known he was giving up his chance to be a Catholic minister, so we’ll give him another chance.

The only problem is, if that’s true than I would think the protestant would have to have his wedding annulled. How can he “get married to” the Church in the same way that Catholics “get married to” the Church?

I did a search for “celibacy” on the AAA forum and found about a dozen replies. I read all of them, except there were so many articles referenced I read a few but not all. I did not see any mention of this dichotomy between converts and cradle Catholics, but I did see some mention of certain factions of the Church requiring that priests can retain their wives and children, but must agree to live celibate lives. That begs the question, of course, why cannot married Catholics do the same? For that matter, it would seem that this is the worst of both worlds, that the priest has to live celibate and that he also has all the “distractions” of a family. The more I try to understand this the weirder it gets.

Alan

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

That’s an interesting theory as to why married cradle Catholics are more undesirable as priests than married converts. It might be right. Is this anything like what you are suggesting?

Those are your words, not mine. My assertion is that non Catholics who convert to the faith and are in valid marriages are in a different condition than those raised with the fullness of truth and Catholic tradition. A Catholic raised in the faith knows that the Latin rite requires celibacy for priests as the norm. A convert would not know that and thus would not be held to the same standard. None of this implies married Catholic men are less desireable.

For a cradle Catholic to get married, then to realize later he has a call to the ministry, then we perhaps think he “should have known” or “had a chance but wasn’t fully dedicated” to the Church. Therefore he has changed his mind and didn’t want to serve the Church all his life so he’s a bad candidate for priesthood. When he first decided to get married he knowingly and willfully gave up his chance to ever become a priest.

Again, that is not my understanding at all. A calling is to be discerned by the Church. Many think they have a call, but do not.

For a married protestant to go into the ministry, then realize later he has a call to Catholicism, we can say "but he didn’t know what it was like to be Catholic so he couldn’t have known he was giving up his chance to be a Catholic minister, so we’ll give him another chance.

That seems to be your reasoning, but not the Church’s reasoning.

The only problem is, if that’s true than I would think the protestant would have to have his wedding annulled. How can he “get married to” the Church in the same way that Catholics “get married to” the Church?

The Church has no authority to annul any marriage. The Church can investigate a marriage and if found it was not sacramental, it can issue a decree of nullity, meaning no marriage never existed. The Church cannot annul a valid marriage. Are you referring to the priest as being married to the Church?

That begs the question, of course, why cannot married Catholics do the same? For that matter, it would seem that this is the worst of both worlds, that the priest has to live celibate and that he also has all the “distractions” of a family. The more I try to understand this the weirder it gets.

To be fair, I can’t say your understanding is correct. One thing that seems clear is that you see celibacy as a burden, rather than a gift?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

None of this implies married Catholic men are less desireable.

It must imply they are not as good candidates for priesthood, or the Church would not dismiss their ordination out of hand.

Again, that is not my understanding at all. A calling is to be discerned by the Church. Many think they have a call, but do not.

Then it is just a statistical anomaly that no married Catholics have a true calling, but married non-Catholics might?

That seems to be your reasoning, but not the Church’s reasoning.

If you know what the Church’s reasoning is not, then perhaps you know what the Church reasoning is. In the past you say you leave it up to the Church when you don’t know the answer. Do you now know, or can you even imagine, a valid rationale for this phenomenon? You speculated that the fact that converts’ minds weren’t raised Catholic so they didn’t know a call to priesthood would involve a call to celibacy. That’s why I wondered why a Catholic man would know when he married that he was not going to be called to the priesthood. Then I countered myself by thinking, yes, but if they can be called to a married vocation and then to priesthood which is seen as being married to the Church, that would imply a call to bigamy, which cannot be true. That’s why I then wondered why a married convert doesn’t have to annul his marriage first. I just skipped a few steps to save space and time for readers.

The Church has no authority to annul any marriage. The Church can investigate a marriage and if found it was not sacramental, it can issue a decree of nullity, meaning no marriage never existed. The Church cannot annul a valid marriage. Are you referring to the priest as being married to the Church?

Yes. See above.

To be fair, I can’t say your understanding is correct. One thing that seems clear is that you see celibacy as a burden, rather than a gift?

It may not be correct. I’m grasping at straws at anything that might explain what looks on the surface to be erratic and arbitrary reasoning on the part of the Church with respect to priestly celibacy and marriage.

Perhaps it sounds like I am harping on celibacy as a burden, and maybe I am guilty of thinking that way. I think the celibacy is a stumbling block for many potential clerical prospects, although it might be more the idea of having wife and children rather than celibacy per se. What I’m mainly harping on is the fact that once married, Catholics are shut from priesthood out while married converts get amnesty. Celibacy or not, it is obviously a double standard and as far as I know there is no explanation for it except “the Church can do as she pleases.”

Maybe that’s the whole explanation, but I don’t know. This might be a good for the AAA forum. They have addressed current and past priestly celibacy, but really not answered this issue of the dichotomy between cradles and converts.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Today I asked my favorite “retired” priest about married converts who become priests. He acknowledged that he looks at ordination as a marriage to the Church.

I asked why married converts who become priests aren’t committing bigamy. He said they have to get a special dispensation from Rome, and they don’t always get it. For example, if there is evidence they are trying to “take advantage” of the situation to be married and a priest at the same time they will not get it.

Unfortunately we were out of time so I couldn’t find out exactly what he meant by that. I had to go set up the hymn numbers and get upstairs to the organ.

Alan

 

[puzzleannie]

there is a basic fallacy at the root of many arguments against priestly celibacy, and work(name removed by moderator)rogress and melchoir have put their finger on it. That is the assumption that in order to understand and empathize another person, you must share their experience. This is the same thinking in academic circles that says “only African-Americans can teach black history”, only women can teach “women’s history”, only “native Americans can be curators of museums of native American art and anthropology” etc. makes you wonder were they get ancient Greeks to teach ancient history, or serfs to teach medieval history.

Marriage and childrearing are absolutely no guarantee that the spouse or parent will necessarily have any more empathy or understanding of the problems and needs of any other married person or parent. If it were men and women married to each other would always understand and empathize with each other (which as we all know is not the case).

Arguing against that assumption is the example of world literature and art. The classics, no matter what cultural situation produced them, speak to all human times and conditions, and express universal truths about the human condition. That is why they are classics. The ability of a writer, actor, artist, director etc. to produce work that resonates with us is a product not only of their culture and experience but of special gifts of understanding, empathy, expressiveness, gifts that may be called charisms.

Celibacy is a discipline, but it is also, with its expressive virtue, chastity, a charism of the Holy Spirit, given to build up and serve the Church. It is part of formation for priesthood or consecrated life to discern the presence or development of the charism of celibacy and chastity. I would say, given the testimony of all the research and study that have come out of the abuse crisis, that this discernment process has somehow been overlooked or misused in the formation of a whole generation of candidates for priesthood.

Mexican and African bishops are offering qualified candidates for seminary and priesthood to America, since they are forming and ordaining priests to more than meet the needs of their own churches. The vocation crisis just “isn’t” in some places.

 

[workinprogress]

Celibacy is in the Bible if you see the passage about being a eunic (sp?) for the kingdom of God. You may even include the verse about leaving family, wife, friends, etc. to follow Jesus. Married guys who become priest can’t divorce her or annul the marriage but he can live with her as if they were not married sensually and sexually. Celibacy is not irreversible but, if it should be reversed, let’s do it for the right reason: not to fulfill some people’s agenda from the 60s or to make it a quick fix for a priest shortage. Orthodoxy will do the job. Nowadays, it’s hard for the weak of faith to take the Church seriously because it can’t make its mind up on some things (and average Joe Layman usually won’t know what is Tradition or tradition in that matter) and then you have materialistic parents as well complicating things. Let’s do it because the Holy Spirit is moving us to and knowing that may require all the Church as well as objective pastoral reasoning so as to maintain objectivity and better allow the Spirit to speak.

 

[Carl]

FIX

I trust Christ.

So do I. The Church will triumph ultimately. And if we trust Christ truly, we can trust Him to save us with a married clergy working right alongside a celibate clergy, as was done in the early Church.

You seem to be of the impression that one (celibacy) has to be the rule and the other (marrrried clergy) has to be the exception. Jesus says this nowhere. Please cite the Scriptural passage where you think he says it.

 

[Carl]

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for any priest who wants to be celibate. I can see whole orders of celibate priests. May they flourish as they will.

I just wish the slavishly pro-celibate faction had as much charity in their hearts for those married Catholics who would like to be priests and who would be a godsend to the Church.

 

[chrisg93]

Priestly celibacy is clearly established in the Bible by the words of Jesus and Paul that I quoted earlier. The fact that Peter was married does not alter this Biblical principle. Jesus chose Peter in the middle of Peters earthly life where Peter had an established marriage, profession…etc. That is a one time event that Jesus chose to have happen for his own purpose with Peter personally.

Jesus’ example of his celibacy and His and Pauls own words establish beyond a doubt that priestly celibacy is Biblical.

 

[Carl]

CHRIS

*Luk 18:29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

Jesus says celibate priests will be greatly rewarded.

1 Cor 7:32 An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
and he is divided.

Jesus says thru Paul that a married man cannot devote his life completely to God.

Seems pretty clear, does it not?*

What seems pretty clear? That married men are not to become priests, or that celibate priests give up more and will more greatly be rewarded?

There’s nothing here that says celibate men cannot be good priests. There nothing here that forbids married men from being priests. Let it be allowed that celibate priests can give more. Can’t married priests still give SOMETHING?

The Church might well profit by adopting the choice the Church has given permanent deacons … the choice of being celibate or married.

Chris, in the future when you cite a previous post, will you please give the post #?

Thanks,
Carl

 

[chrisg93]

Carl,
Thanks for the thoughts. Here are my somewhat unsophisticated thoughts.
I take these passages on their face that priests are supposed to be celibate as was Jesus. So that does eliminate married priests (as a general rule anyway). Married men can contribute something to God, but they must contribute to their families also.

I am unsure of the interworkings of the Deacon position. It does sound like a perfect combination of God and family.

I’m not an expert, just an average Catholic who can see that priestly celibacy is Biblical and will never be changed.

Thanks,
Chris

 

[Carl]

CHRIS

I’m not an expert, just an average Catholic who can see that priestly celibacy is Biblical and will never be changed.

I’m not an expert either. I can see that priestly celibacy has a Biblical thrust. But I can also see that there were married priests in the early Church, and there could be married priests again if and when they are most needed. The Church is already experimenting with the call for married converts entering the priesthood.

I trust the Church to do what is right in the long run, conforming itself to the will of the Holy Spirit.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

chrisg93:

I take these passages on their face that priests are supposed to be celibate as was Jesus. So that does eliminate married priests (as a general rule anyway). Married men can contribute something to God, but they must contribute to their families also.

This brings my own unsophisticated thoughts go back to 1 Tim:
1 Tim 3:1-5:

This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?

No matter how I read those other passages, I can’t get out of them that married priests are a no-no or the above passage is in direct contradiction. The other passages may show that celibacy is good and even that it is preferred, but certainly not a requirement. Many have rightly pointed out that 1 Tim does not necessarily require priests to be married (it only limits them from more than one wife), but the point about a man not being able to manage his own household makes it seem far from forbidden. I think if God didn’t want priests to be married He would have been perfectly capable of writing that instead of writing that He didn’t want them to have had more than one wife with no disclaimers anywhere nearby.

Alan

 

[fix]

Carl:

FIX

I trust Christ.

So do I. The Church will triumph ultimately. And if we trust Christ truly, we can trust Him to save us with a married clergy working right alongside a celibate clergy, as was done in the early Church.

You seem to be of the impression that one (celibacy) has to be the rule and the other (marrrried clergy) has to be the exception. Jesus says this nowhere. Please cite the Scriptural passage where you think he says it.

There are several passages that have been cited to support celibacy. Why go over them again? The point is that celibacy has been the norm since the start. Catholics accept the Church, that is Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We look to the Church as the authority.

The fact that celibacy has been around for so long is an argument in itself.

 

[fix]

I just wish the slavishly pro-celibate faction had as much charity in their hearts for those married Catholics who would like to be priests and who would be a godsend to the Church.

Why is assenting to a discipline of the Holy Catholic Church called slavish? I am happy to be a slave for Christ. The fact that some married Catholics think they know better than the Pope is not surprising.

 

[Carl]

FIX

Why is assenting to a discipline of the Holy Catholic Church called slavish? I am happy to be a slave for Christ. The fact that some married Catholics think they know better than the Pope is not surprising.

I am also a slave for Christ.

But I don’t think I am a slave to your point of view. Nor is the pope. What you don’t seem to understand is that the present pope’s view on celibacy may be changed by a future pope because celibacy is policy, not doctrine. It is not a fixed, permanent or inviolable teaching of the Church that priests must be celibate, or that priests who are not celibate, such as those converted married priests from the Anglican Church, are living in heresy or in sin. Obviously not, since they were ordained by bishops.

Nor do I think I know better than the pope.This pope has approved married priests from converts of the Anglican faith. That is one giant step forward, or backward, to the early Christian practice. The next pope may take the next giant step allowing married cradle Catholics to become priests. The Church moves slowly, cautiously, which is the way it should move. But it moves!

I called your attitude slavish because I think you have bound yourself to an old way of thinking that has outlived its usefulness. You are like those who would like to get back the Latin Mass, though centuries ago it outlived its usefulness. The Church leaders were altogether too slow and slavish to tradition on that one. There are Catholics today who are still slaves to the Latin Mass. And I have no doubt that if married priest are one day given their due by a future Pope or Council, some Catholics will feel the Church has betrayed their fondest tradition.

Would you be one of them?

It won’t do for you to trot out one of those Biblical quotes again. The early Church had plenty of married priests who were also slaves to Christ. If you need authority on this, go to the Catholic Encyclopedia article cited before.

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. *

 

[workinprogress]

I didn’t intend to say the Latin mass and fasting 3 hours before mass is the answer to all problems. We could do mass based on what the Council fathers intended and nothing more, which ios exactly how they do it at EWTN. Unfortunately, EWTN says “for you and for all”, which is not what it says in the Bible. If we want to show the Protestants we stick to the Bible, we could at least adhere to the consecration prayer of Jesus. There are Protestants who do their version of a consecration who say “for many”. Wjhat should that tell us? That one day Protestants, especially Anglicans, will have to show us how a mass, its artwork, and music is done? Unfortunately, you bring up Latin or the priest’s back facing the people and people cry out that it’s back to pre-Vatican 2 times (which isn’t a bad idea because of what use has the changes intended by Vatican 2 and unintended by the Council Fathers at the hands of heretic reformers done us? Most Catholics still choose feelings over doctrine), but it isn’t that. EWTN still uses the best of pre-Vatican 2 and the best of Vatican 2 and I think it works well enough.

 

[fix]

What you don’t seem to understand is that the present pope’s view on celibacy may be changed by a future pope because celibacy is policy, not doctrine.

Friend, I understand that well. But, the point is this is the law now and we should support it. This is not a democracy where we voice our personal desires about Church disciplines at every opportunity. That would be a minimalist way to practice our faith.

This pope has approved married priests from converts of the Anglican faith. That is one giant step forward, or backward, to the early Christian practice.

Again, that is a falsehood. The early Church did not embrace a married clergy as you try to portray.

The next pope may take the next giant step allowing married cradle Catholics to become priests.

That is your personal desire. I will stick with the mind of the Church.

I called your attitude slavish because I think you have bound yourself to an old way of thinking that has outlived its usefulness.

Kumbaya.

You are like those who would like to get back the Latin Mass, though centuries ago it outlived its usefulness.

I have not participated in a Latin mass since I was a child, but would gladly attend one. Your attitude shows a defiance and misunderstanding of VII which is common among the heterodox.

The Church leaders were altogether too slow and slavish to tradition on that one. There are Catholics today who are still slaves to the Latin Mass. And I have no doubt that if married priest are one day given their due by a future Pope or Council, some Catholics will feel the Church has betrayed their fondest tradition.

Are you a CTA person? I sense you are one who likes novelty?

Would you be one of them?

I am an orthodox Catholic. I attend a parish with a liberal priest in one of the most liberal dioceses in America.

It won’t do for you to trot out one of those Biblical quotes again. The early Church had plenty of married priests who were also slaves to Christ. If you need authority on this, go to the Catholic Encyclopedia article cited before.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not the ultimate source of truth, the Church is. She and other sources point out that the early Church valued celibacy and there were few married clergy.

BTW, sense you value archeology over Church discipline I assume you want to “revive” other early Church practices as well? Shall I list a few? I find those who claim that the “early” Church was so different and we lost many customs are usually heterodox.

 

[fix]

work(name removed by moderator)rogress:

Most Catholics still choose feelings over doctrine), but it isn’t that. EWTN still uses the best of pre-Vatican 2 and the best of Vatican 2 and I think it works well enough.

Amen. We tend to look to feelings, rather than truth as our guide. So many want novelty today. Once you embrace novelty, it is never enough. One desires more novelty to satisfy one’s faulty feelings.

Those who dissent can worship God in their own way and I will worship God in His way.

 

[Carl]

FIX

This is not a democracy where we voice our personal desires about Church disciplines at every opportunity. That would be a minimalist way to practice our faith.

The Church incorporates democratic elements. A pope is elected. Likewise, the Church is always interested in the viewpoint of the laity. Whether it heeds that viewpoint is up to the leaders. A discussion of married clergy is not an expression of personal desire (such as, I’d like to go to heaven), but rather a dialogue on what is best for the Church as a whole. If you think all the bishops want all the laymen to shut up and keep their point of view to themselves, you really don’t understand Church history and policy at all.

The early Church did not embrace a married clergy as you try to portray.

*That is your personal desire. I will stick with the mind of the Church. *

Friend, the Church is all of us, not just you and the people who agree with you. The mind of the Church can be changed on matters of discipline as opposed to doctrine and has been many times down through the centuries. Everybody has a right to be heard because the Holy Spirit works through all of us, not just the bishops. Only after everybody has been heard, do the bishops have the last word … as it should be. Your mistake is assuming that the last word has been heard on this subject. Far from it. The great John Paul has opened the door a crack, not slammed it in everybody’s face.

*The Catholic Encyclopedia is not the ultimate source of truth, the Church is. She and other sources point out that the early Church valued celibacy and there were few married clergy. *

The last I heard, the Catholic Church approved the Catholic Encyclopedia. By the way, when you say “there were few married clergy,” who in the early Church was counting? Please cite your source.

I assume you want to “revive” other early Church practices as well? Shall I list a few? I find those who claim that the “early” Church was so different and we lost many customs are usually heterodox.

I’m happy to point out that since Vatican II we have returned to some traditions of the early Church. For example, Mass in the language of the people, Communion received in the hand instead of on the tongue, the priest facing the people instead of with his back to them, the revival of the permanent deacon, allowing priests to be married (limited, but there), etc.

That makes me orthodox, not heterodox.