Celibacy and the Catholic Priest

[Randy_Carson]

Celibacy and the Catholic Priest

Many people believe that the Catholic Church violates the Word of God because it forbids people to marry (cf. 1 Tim. 4:3) or that it is wrong for priests to remain celibate. To get a clearer picture of this issue, let’s examine what the Bible has to say about the subject of celibacy.

Matthew 19:11-12
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Jesus offers the celibate life as a gift and tells us that “The one who can accept this should accept it.”

1 Corinthians 7:1
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:7
7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Paul reveals his own celibacy and offers an earnest wish that more people would follow his example.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul concedes that getting married is better than struggling with sexual temptation; for those that “cannot control themselves, they should marry.”

Is Paul completely opposed to marriage? Not at all. The book of Hebrews states:

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Why then does Paul recommend celibacy?

1 Corinthians 7:32-35
32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

From this passage, we can see Paul’s primary reason for advocating celibacy: he wants everyone to live in undivided devotion to the Lord, and in all of these verses, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus calls some men to the priesthood and offers them the gift of a celibate life to be lived in undivided devotion to God. Paul understands that not everyone is offered this gift and that not all to whom it is offered can or will accept it.

There are Catholic priests who are married; typically, these are men who were priests in the Anglican, Orthodox or other faith traditions and have converted to the Catholic faith after they were married in those churches. Under special circumstances, they may be ordained to serve as Catholic priests. Men who are already Catholic when they begin to discern their call to the priesthood must remain celibate.

The Catholic Church forbids no man to marry. However, she does desire that those who will represent Christ, who will stand in persona Christi (in the place of Christ) when administering the sacraments as priests, be like their Lord as fully as possible. This means that like Jesus, they are celibate men prepared to sacrifice their own lives in the service of God and others.

The calling and the gift is offered by God, and those who choose to accept it do so freely.

 

[joshua_b]

Please allow me to add that the “Catholic Church” does not mandate that all priests be celibate and remain unmarried. The Latin Rite of the Catholic Church has a discipline that requires priests (with exceptions to special circumstance) to take a vow of celibacy. There are many Eastern Rites that do not have this requirement. Furthermore, the vow of celibacy is taken BEFORE a Latin rite priest is ordained (long before is my understanding). I don’t feel the need to defend such a common-sense and wonderfully beneficial practice.

Most Protestant churches “close down” by about 6 in the evening BECAUSE THE MINISTERS HAVE FAMILIES. We, as Catholics, have the distinct privelege of access to our clergy 24 hours a day, because our Church in her infinite wisdom (which comes directly from God) makes our spiritual fathers available to us through this discipline.

As an interesting side note, at the last synod of bishops, this issue came up, and the bishops of the Eastern Rites that allow a married priesthood overwhelmingly SUPPORT the discipline of a celibate priesthood because a married priesthood would cause both the family and the congregation of those priests to suffer.

I find no need to “defend” this practice but rather rejoice in it.

 

[rr1213]

Randy,

Aren’t you also going to quote the Scriptural passages that provide that a priest or bishop should be the husband of but one wife, as well as Paul’s observation that Peter and the other apostles take their wives with them on mission so isn’t he also justified in doing the same? This issue cannot be discussed without reference to those passages as well.

This is one of my big bones to pick. We see from Scripture that a married priesthood is explicitly permissible. We also see from Scripture that in some instances it is better to marry and in some instances it is better to be celibate. Nonetheless, the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church has decreed as a matter of discipline that it will not choose priests among its married faithful, except of course when it decides to choose priests among its married faithful (almost always Lutheran or Anglican converts who were clergy in their former Churches). So…the Church chooses to prohibit a status that is explicitly allowed by Scripture. That’s not right. The fact that the Church does so while openly acknowledging that the issue is not doctrinal in nature, allowing married priests as exceptions in the Latin Rite and as the rule in the Eastern Rites, makes it even harder to swallow.

With all respect,

RR1213

 

[Caesar]

Randy,

Aren’t you also going to quote the Scriptural passages that provide that a priest or bishop should be the husband of but one wife, as well as Paul’s observation that Peter and the other apostles take their wives with them on mission so isn’t he also justified in doing the same? This issue cannot be discussed without reference to those passages as well.

This is one of my big bones to pick. We see from Scripture that a married priesthood is explicitly permissible. We also see from Scripture that in some instances it is better to marry and in some instances it is better to be celibate. Nonetheless, the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church has decreed as a matter of discipline that it will not choose priests among its married faithful, except of course when it decides to choose priests among its married faithful (almost always Lutheran or Anglican converts who were clergy in their former Churches). So…the Church chooses to prohibit a status that is explicitly allowed by Scripture. That’s not right. The fact that the Church does so while openly acknowledging that the issue is not doctrinal in nature, allowing married priests as exceptions in the Latin Rite and as the rule in the Eastern Rites, makes it even harder to swallow.

With all respect,

RR1213

Your forgetting that,

a) This may have been the case in the early Church, but it has since been necessary to erect a celibate clergy in the Latin Rite,

and

b) Scripture is subject to the Church, not the other way around.

 

[joshua_b]

That would be fine, except that the Apostles were ALREADY married prior to their comission. The only way around this would have been to ask the apostles to divorce their wives to take up their charge. The next logical counterpoint would be that God could have chosen the apostles from solely unmarried men (which is true) but He didn’t. I don’t know why, but God’s ways are not our ways.

None the less, nothing about the Latin discipline contradicts Scripture, especially in light of the fact that Paul is VERY explicit on the preference to remain single in light of his position. If you study the history of early Christianity, you find the discipline of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church to emerge very early.

 

[rr1213]

Your forgetting that,

a) This may have been the case in the early Church, but it has since been necessary to erect a celibate clergy in the Latin Rite,

and

b) Scripture is subject to the Church, not the other way around.

No, the Church must act in conformity with Scripture. If it does not act in conformity with Scripture, it is not acting as the Body of Christ because Christ will not contradict himself.

 

[rr1213]

That would be fine, except that the Apostles were ALREADY married prior to their comission. The only way around this would have been to ask the apostles to divorce their wives to take up their charge. The next logical counterpoint would be that God could have chosen the apostles from solely unmarried men (which is true) but He didn’t. I don’t know why, but God’s ways are not our ways.

None the less, nothing about the Latin discipline contradicts Scripture, especially in light of the fact that Paul is VERY explicit on the preference to remain single in light of his position. If you study the history of early Christianity, you find the discipline of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church to emerge very early.

Sure it contradicts Scripture. Scripture says very plainly that it is acceptable to be a priest–heck an apostle even–and to be married. Despite these teachings, the Church has decided otherwise…except, of course, for the Eastern Rites and the numerous exceptions in the Latin Rite…all of which just highlight the fact that the Church is acting in an arbitrary fashion contrary to Scripture.

 

[joshua_b]

Sure it contradicts Scripture. Scripture says very plainly that it is acceptable to be a priest–heck an apostle even–and to be married. Despite these teachings, the Church has decided otherwise…except, of course, for the Eastern Rites and the numerous exceptions in the Latin Rite…all of which just highlight the fact that the Church is acting in an arbitrary fashion contrary to Scripture.

This response doesn’t make sense. Scripture extolls the virtues of a celibate priesthood through the writings of Paul. The Catholic Church extolls the virtues of a celibate priesthood through its discipline in the Latin rite. Scripture DOES say it is “acceptable” to be married and be a priest (never does it say “preferred”, if we go to Paul again, it seems Scripture gives “preference” to celibacy, and I do not know of any Scripture that implies in any fashion anything to the contrary). The Catholic Church likewise says it is acceptable through its “numerous exceptions” in the Latin rite, and the lack of this discipline in many of the Eastern Rites.

This is a closer parallel to what is found in Scripture in regard to ordination than the disciplines of ANY Protestant denomination I know of.

 

[dessert]

No, the Church must act in conformity with Scripture. If it does not act in conformity with Scripture, it is not acting as the Body of Christ because Christ will not contradict himself.

No you are wrong. sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted with the help of the Holy spirit and under the guidance of the Magisterium of the Church according to three criteria; …
CCC
Dessert

 

[rr1213]

No you are wrong. sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted with the help of the Holy spirit and under the guidance of the Magisterium of the Church according to three criteria; …
CCC
Dessert

The Church cannot contradict Scripture. If you say otherwise, show me an authoritative statement from the Catholic Church asserting the right to contradict Scripture. You’re not going to find it.

 

[dessert]

No, the Church must act in conformity with Scripture. If it does not act in conformity with Scripture, it is not acting as the Body of Christ because Christ will not contradict himself.

The Holy Spirit will not contradict Himself .
Dessert**

“Be Jesus … share Jesus”
Blessed Mother Teresa**

 

[joshua_b]

I mean no disrespect, but this thread is already in a tailspin. If the issue is Scripture and it’s relation to the Church in terms of authority, then a new thread should be started. I thought hte discussion here was a celibate priesthood.

 

[rr1213]

This response doesn’t make sense. Scripture extolls the virtues of a celibate priesthood through the writings of Paul. The Catholic Church extolls the virtues of a celibate priesthood through its discipline in the Latin rite. Scripture DOES say it is “acceptable” to be married and be a priest (never does it say “preferred”, if we go to Paul again, it seems Scripture gives “preference” to celibacy, and I do not know of any Scripture that implies in any fashion anything to the contrary). The Catholic Church likewise says it is acceptable through its “numerous exceptions” in the Latin rite, and the lack of this discipline in many of the Eastern Rites.

This is a closer parallel to what is found in Scripture in regard to ordination than the disciplines of ANY Protestant denomination I know of.

What I posted makes perfect sense. What does Scripture tell us about marriage and the priesthood? It says: (i) it is better not to marry so that you can serve God without the need to serve a wife, (ii) nonetheless, it is better to marry than to be inflamed with passion, (iii) that bishops (and presumably priests) should be the husband of just one wife, and (iv) that Peter and some of the other Apostles–handpicked by Jesus himself which seems to be a big point to the Catholic Church in other instances, such as when it (correctly) states that women can’t be priests–were married at the time that Paul was going on his missions (showing that it was not the case that their wives had already died). Accordingly, while it may be preferable for a priest to be unmarried (and presumably celibate), this is not always the case and, in any event, it is expressly permissible for the priesthood, even the Pope, to be married. Yet, in the face of all of this, the Church chooses to prohibit married priests as a matter of course.

 

[kaycee]

Your forgetting that,

b) Scripture is subject to the Church, not the other way around.

Yes, the primary error of the RCC.

The Word of God is not subject to the Church!

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Yes, the primary error of the RCC.

The Word of God is not subject to the Church!

No errors in the Catholic Church regarding faith and morals. Only in the falliable and limited understanding of the traditions of man can there seem to be an error in Christ’s Church. Now the Bible, that is another story, it’s the inspired word of God but its inspiration fall short when the same limited understanding of man is used to interpert it to a man made tradition such as OSAS or the sola’s. That! is the error of non-catholic christians.

 

[joshua_b]

What I posted makes perfect sense. What does Scripture tell us about marriage and the priesthood? It says: (i) it is better not to marry so that you can serve God without the need to serve a wife, (ii) nonetheless, it is better to marry than to be inflamed with passion, (iii) that bishops (and presumably priests) should be the husband of just one wife, and (iv) that Peter and some of the other Apostles–handpicked by Jesus himself which seems to be a big point to the Catholic Church in other instances, such as when it (correctly) states that women can’t be priests–were married at the time that Paul was going on his missions (showing that it was not the case that their wives had already died). Accordingly, while it may be preferable for a priest to be unmarried (and presumably celibate), this is not always the case and, in any event, it is expressly permissible for the priesthood, even the Pope, to be married. Yet, in the face of all of this, the Church chooses to prohibit married priests as a matter of course.

Have you read any of what I have posted or are you just going to reject my reality and take the liberty of substituting your own ?

Please reread my last post (which is a response to what you have stated here for the second time) and tell me where I miss the mark ? You yourself acknowledged that the Catholic Church does not prohibit married priests earlier, now you are saying they do. (I addressed that btw…) Let’s break this down point by point…

1. What does Scripture tell us about marriage and the priesthood? It says: (i) it is better not to marry so that you can serve God without the need to serve a wife,

Funny, that’s what the Catholic Church says.

1. (ii) nonetheless, it is better to marry than to be inflamed with passion,

Okay, no argument there.

3.(iii) that bishops (and presumably priests) should be the husband of just one wife

I don’t know of any married Catholic clergy that have more than one spouse. Name one instance of this and maybe I will see the validity of this point in relation to our discussion.

1. (iv) that Peter and some of the other Apostles–handpicked by Jesus himself which seems to be a big point to the Catholic Church in other instances, such as when it (correctly) states that women can’t be priests–were married at the time that Paul was going on his missions (showing that it was not the case that their wives had already died).

Again, there are Catholic clergy that are married. My question is, is there any Scriptural example of anyone ordained AFTER the original twelve being married, or anyone being married AFTER their ordination ?

1. Accordingly, while it may be preferable for a priest to be unmarried (and presumably celibate),

So you concede that the Catholic Church is right on this point ? (because this is in essence what the discipline of celibacy and the priesthood is all about.)

6.this is not always the case and, in any event, it is expressly permissible for the priesthood, even the Pope, to be married.

And it is also expressly permissible in the Catholic Church, as is evidenced by the “numerous exceptions” in the Latin rite, and the lack of this discipline in the Eastern Rites…both of which you acknowledge to be factual.

1. Yet, in the face of all of this, the Church chooses to prohibit married priests as a matter of course.

There is NO “prohibition” (as we have established in point #6) on married clergy, only a strong preference (which we established to be Scriptural in point number 1 AND 5) for celebate clergy, which the Catholic Church promotes through its discipline in the Latin Rite.

So, where is the “contradiction” that you speak of, because I have yet to see anything of the like in the arguments you have presented. Again, the Catholic position is a closer parallel to what is found in Scripture in regard to ordination than the disciplines of ANY Protestant denomination I know of. Can you give a specific example of any other faith tradition that is closer to the Scriptural revelations regarding ordination than the Catholic Church ?

 

[rr1213]

Have you read any of what I have posted or are you just going to reject my reality and take the liberty of substituting your own ?

Please reread my last post (which is a response to what you have stated here for the second time) and tell me where I miss the mark ? You yourself acknowledged that the Catholic Church does not prohibit married priests earlier, now you are saying they do. (I addressed that btw…) Let’s break this down point by point…

1. What does Scripture tell us about marriage and the priesthood? It says: (i) it is better not to marry so that you can serve God without the need to serve a wife,

Funny, that’s what the Catholic Church says.

1. (ii) nonetheless, it is better to marry than to be inflamed with passion,

Okay, no argument there.

3.(iii) that bishops (and presumably priests) should be the husband of just one wife

I don’t know of any married Catholic clergy that have more than one spouse. Name one instance of this and maybe I will see the validity of this point in relation to our discussion.

1. (iv) that Peter and some of the other Apostles–handpicked by Jesus himself which seems to be a big point to the Catholic Church in other instances, such as when it (correctly) states that women can’t be priests–were married at the time that Paul was going on his missions (showing that it was not the case that their wives had already died).

Again, there are Catholic clergy that are married. My question is, is there any Scriptural example of anyone ordained AFTER the original twelve being married, or anyone being married AFTER their ordination ?

1. Accordingly, while it may be preferable for a priest to be unmarried (and presumably celibate),

So you concede that the Catholic Church is right on this point ? (because this is in essence what the discipline of celibacy and the priesthood is all about.)

6.this is not always the case and, in any event, it is expressly permissible for the priesthood, even the Pope, to be married.

And it is also expressly permissible in the Catholic Church, as is evidenced by the “numerous exceptions” in the Latin rite, and the lack of this discipline in the Eastern Rites…both of which you acknowledge to be factual.

1. Yet, in the face of all of this, the Church chooses to prohibit married priests as a matter of course.

There is NO “prohibition” (as we have established in point #6) on married clergy, only a strong preference (which we established to be Scriptural in point number 1 AND 5) for celebate clergy, which the Catholic Church promotes through its discipline in the Latin Rite.

So, where is the “contradiction” that you speak of, because I have yet to see anything of the like in the arguments you have presented. Again, the Catholic position is a closer parallel to what is found in Scripture in regard to ordination than the disciplines of ANY Protestant denomination I know of. Can you give a specific example of any other faith tradition that is closer to the Scriptural revelations regarding ordination than the Catholic Church ?

I’ve read each of your posts. I even agree with much that you say. Where your train goes off the rail is your assertion that the policy (discipline, rule…whatever) of the Latin Rite is no more than a ***preference ***for an unmarried priesthood. In actuality, it is a prohibition for which the Church reserves to itself the right to make exceptions.

The rule is that if you are Latin Rite Catholic–and married–you will not be ordained as a priest. In some cases, an exception may be made for Protestant clergy who have converted to the Catholic faith.

How often is a married cradle Catholic ordained to the Latin Rite priesthood? For that matter, how often is a married convert to the Catholic faith–who was not a clergyman in his former life–ordained to the Latin Rite priesthood? The answers to these questions illustrate that we are talking about a prohibition, not a preference. Just because there are exceptions to the rule does not make it less of a prohibition.

In contrast, a preference (or even a presumption) would be a factor that is considered at the time of application to the priesthood but which, in and of itself, is not determinative of the matter either directly or by its absence. For example, if a married cradle Catholic applies to the priesthood and is rejected simply because he is married (in all other respects it is agreed that he would make a fine priest) then you are essentially creating an “irrebuttable presumption”…otherwise known as a “prohibition”. Since Scripture expressly permits a married priesthood, the enforcement of a prohibition by the Church contradicts Scripture. The Church cannot prohibit what Scripture expressly permits, thereby prescribing something that is within the realm of Christian liberty.

 

[jmcrae]

RR, who is it that is being “prohibited” to marry?

If a person freely chooses the single life, is he being “prohibited” to marry?

If, after freely making a vow of celibacy, he is approached by his Catechism teacher or someone in his Bible study club, and she says, “Have you thought of the priesthood,” is he now being “prohibited” to marry?

If he then sets up a meeting with the Vocational Director of his Diocese, is he now being “prohibited” to marry?

If he attends Seminary and successfully passes all of the courses and all of the psychological evaluations, is he now being “prohibited” to marry?

When the Bishop interviews him, and asks him whether he intended his vow of celibacy to be a life-long vow, (to which he can answer either yes, or no) is he now being “prohibited” to marry?

If, after assuring the Bishop that he did intend his vow of celibacy to be permanent, he is ordained to the Catholic priesthood, is he now being “prohibited” to marry?

Any Catholic may marry. Marriage is a Sacrament of Service, just like Ordination. The Catholic Church has a perfect right to choose for its priests men who have freely chosen not to marry, for the reason that no one individual should need to take on two Sacraments of Service - one is plenty.

 

[rr1213]

RR, who is it that is being “prohibited” to marry?

If a person freely chooses the single life, is he being “prohibited” to marry?

If, after freely making a vow of celibacy, he is approached by his Catechism teacher or someone in his Bible study club, and she says, “Have you thought of the priesthood,” is he now being “prohibited” to marry?

If he then sets up a meeting with the Vocational Director of his Diocese, is he now being “prohibited” to marry?

If he attends Seminary and successfully passes all of the courses and all of the psychological evaluations, is he now being “prohibited” to marry?

When the Bishop interviews him, and asks him whether he intended his vow of celibacy to be a life-long vow, (to which he can answer either yes, or no) is he now being “prohibited” to marry?

If, after assuring the Bishop that he did intend his vow of celibacy to be permanent, he is ordained to the Catholic priesthood, is he now being “prohibited” to marry?

Any Catholic may marry. Marriage is a Sacrament of Service, just like Ordination. The Catholic Church has a perfect right to choose for its priests men who have freely chosen not to marry, for the reason that no one individual should need to take on two Sacraments of Service - one is plenty.

Except that there is no “choice” involved. With the very few exceptions already repeatedly noted, the Church offers a “take it or leave it” proposition, i.e., if you wish to be ordained a priest then marriage is prohibited to you. In view of Scriptural allowances for married priests, this is an invasion by the Church into an area which God has left to the liberty of a Christian man. The approach chosen by the Church is only slightly more rational than saying “if are a Canadian, you cannot be a priest…if you wish to be a priest you must first irrevocably renounce your Canadian citizenship.” Hey, any Canadian candidate could always choose to move…

 

[jmcrae]

Except that there is no “choice” involved. With the very few exceptions already repeatedly noted, the Church offers a “take it or leave it” proposition, i.e., if you wish to be ordained a priest then marriage is prohibited to you.

Actually, the choice of being a priest is never even offered to men who are married or who plan to some day be married. The men who are offered the choice of becoming a priest are already living the celibate life.

In view of Scriptural allowances for married priests, this is an invasion by the Church into an area which God has left to the liberty of a Christian man.

Actually, the Church has a perfect right to establish its own discipline.

Protestant churches, too, have a right to insist that only married men may be ordained, or that only married preachers may serve in large cities, in order to preserve discipline in the churches where they will serve (since a single Protestant preacher is a target for every Kate, Jane, and Sally seeking a husband, and their mothers).

Insisting that he be celibate is actually much more Biblical than insisting that he be married, I think.