Celibacy and the Catholic Priest

[rr1213]

So to which Scriptural interpretation does the “Church” conform??

I don’t understand your point.

 

[rr1213]

I don’t have any data. Do you know how many Eastern Rite Priests are married as a % of the total. I have read (don’t know where), that despite the married priests, there are no married bishops.

I don’t know. I do believe that the Orthodox as well as the Eastern Rite do not allow for married bishops.

 

[joshua_b]

I don’t know. I do believe that the Orthodox as well as the Eastern Rite do not allow for married bishops.

I know this to be true in the Eastern Rites (not sure about the Orthodox). Furthermore, as I pointed out in my first post, the Eastern Bishops spoke out overwhelmingly against the Latin rite changing this discipline, so that leads me to believe that maybe this isn’t such a bad idea. (that’s a subjective analysis of course, so I don’t expect anyone to give it too much credence, but it is worth thinking about).

None the less, the Catholic practices are the MOST biblical of ANY other faith tradition (except maybe the orthodox), and quite frankly, to claim that the Catholic Church contradicts Scripture is simply ludacris.

You are insisting there is a prohibition that clearly does not exist. It is not forbidden in the Catholic Church to be married and an ordained priest, and there are even married priests in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, so it is not academically possible for any prohibition to exist-end of story. Now if you want to claim that the Catholic disciplines and requirements should be modified to better reflect God’s vision of the priesthood, then you have an argument that would be valid and you could substantiate.

 

[rr1213]

You are insisting there is a prohibition that clearly does not exist. It is not forbidden in the Catholic Church to be married and an ordained priest, and there are even married priests in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, so it is not academically possible for any prohibition to exist-end of story.

Again, let me ask the question in a slightly different form: under the current practices of the Latin Rite, if I am a married Latin Rite cradle Catholic do I have any chance whatsoever of being ordained as a priest while I remain married? Yes or no. If yes, please explain and provide examples where this has happened. Otherwise we’re talking a prohibition here folks…

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

rr1213-

I am well aware of those passages, and I understand that in the early Church there were married priests (even Apostles!).

However, are you going to insist that the Church has no right to establish discipline within its own ranks?

No one is forced to become a priest. If they respond to a calling from God, they do so knowing that they will not be permitted to marry. It is still a choice. There is no coercion.

The point of my OP was to show the positive side of celibacy…I hope that you observed that there is a Biblical basis for it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

It was permissable…however, following the clear words of Jesus who spoke of “those who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom” and the example of Paul, the Church expects more from her priests.

Do you have a problem with anyone giving up marriage for a life devoted more fully to God?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

If it is “preferable” then why not have it if there are men who willingly accept it?

No one is forced to be a priest, rr.

Be honest about this.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would disagree with that position as much as I disagree with the Church’s prohibition in the Latin Rite on ordaining married men to the clergy. Again, Scripture contemplates a clergy which includes both married and celibate men. For the Church, or Protestant Churches, to insist on one status over the other (as opposed to merely ***preferring ***one status to the other) does violence to the Scriptural framework.

Scripture does not “contemplate” a married clergy.

The infant Church had many adult members and very little time had passed since the day of Pentecost to the time that the books of the NT were written. Therefore, if the early Church was to have priests and bishops at all, they would HAVE to have been married men…not enough boys had matured into manhood in the few decades to fill out the need for a rapidly expanding clergy.

However, over time, the Church recognized the wisdom of Paul’s remarks…apparently you do not.

BTW, it may be of interest that the Orthodox Bishops are celibate…only priests may marry…but priests do not have the fullness of the episcopacy - they are only “Partially Ordained”, if you will. Therefore, anyone who seeks to be an Orthodox Bishop and receive the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders must be an unmarried man.

Now, isn’t that interesting…?

 

[rr1213]

Do you have a problem with anyone giving up marriage for a life devoted more fully to God?

Ahh, Randy, I was wondering when you were going to return to the fray. I knew you weren’t the “post and run” type.

No, I have no problem at all with someone giving up marriage for a life more fully devoted to God. I have a friend who has done so. Paul clearly commends this to us.

However, I have a problem with that choice being mandated by the Church because Scripture clearly contemplates that priests can be married, yet the Latin Rite Church has for all extents and purposes decided otherwise. It is a matter within the realm of Christian liberty, yet the Church has decided to remove that liberty provided for by Scripture.

Even worse, the Church does this knowing FULL WELL that it is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. In other words, it is not as if the Church has stated that, through the operation of the Holy Spirit and the teaching of the Magisterium, it has now concluded and defines that married priests are no longer permissible. To the contrary, the Church recognizes that this is a rule that can change. To me, restricting liberty on account of doctrine is one thing (not only permissible but mandated). To restrict Christian liberty on account of a non-doctrinal rule is another thing and that thing is not good.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Very, very rarely. Answer me this honestly. If I am a married Catholic man of the Latin Rite with my wife still alive, what are my chances of being ordained in the Latin Rite? Practically nonexistent.

Correct. However, if your wife dies, then you are eligible.

The Church is free to establish its own criteria for the priesthood, rr.

Just as the army establishes criteria for paratroopers and the Navy sets height requirements for submariners and so forth.

The Church does not tell a single person, “You want to marry, but you cannot. We forbid it.” THAT would be a violation of scripture.

Instead, she says, “If you want to be a priest, here are the requirements…what would you like to do?”

Having interacted with you over a long period of time on many subjects in multiple forums, I’m kinda shocked at how difficult this concept is for you to grasp or accept. This isn’t like you…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Again, let me ask the question in a slightly different form: under the current practices of the Latin Rite, if I am a married Latin Rite cradle Catholic do I have any chance whatsoever of being ordained as a priest while I remain married? Yes or no. If yes, please explain and provide examples where this has happened. Otherwise we’re talking a prohibition here folks…

RR-

You seem to think that just anyone has a right to be a priest that is somehow being violated or denied.

Sorry, but that is not how it works.

Priesthood is a calling from God AS IS MARRIAGE.

MARRIAGE is a vocation in and of itself.

So, if God has given one person the vocation to be married, he does not then given them a second vocation that they cannot fulfill.

Now, remember…“whatever you loose on earth is also loosed in heaven…whatever you bind on earth is also bound in heaven.”

The Church has real authority, RR.

God gave it to her, and he is not frustrated by it.

Jeepers, you sure seem to be…

 

[rr1213]

If it is “preferable” then why not have it if there are men who willingly accept it?

No one is forced to be a priest, rr.

Be honest about this.

Honesty requires us to admit that the Church does not exercise a preference on the issue but, instead, imposes a prohibition. Subject to the admitted exceptions that are addressed in my previous posts, it is clear that the Church forbids married men from becoming priests in the Latin Rite. It is not a matter of choice…if you are married you will not become a priest.

This is no different than saying “if you are black you will not become a priest” (which the Mormons did for many years) or, if you prefer, “if you are a lawyer, you will not become a priest” (afterall, Christ did say “woe unto you lawyers!”…at least in the KJV version ). Bottom line is that by precluding married men from becoming priests, the Church denies the vocation to men who are called by God to the priesthood. This is not only wrong, but also unwise.

You’ll respond by saying “if they are married, they are not called to the priesthood”…and how can either of us prove to the other that this is true or not? We can’t. I can tell you that I know a number of close friends who became Protestant clergy after they were married (Anglican priest and a Methodist minister come to mind) and they will tell you in no uncertain terms that they were called to the vocation. And, while I cannot know their hearts, from what I’ve seen I must agree.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ahh, Randy, I was wondering when you were going to return to the fray. I knew you weren’t the “post and run” type.

No, I have no problem at all with someone giving up marriage for a life more fully devoted to God. I have a friend who has done so. Paul clearly commends this to us.

However, I have a problem with that choice being mandated by the Church because Scripture clearly contemplates that priests can be married, yet the Latin Rite Church has for all extents and purposes decided otherwise. It is a matter within the realm of Christian liberty, yet the Church has decided to remove that liberty provided for by Scripture.

Even worse, the Church does this knowing FULL WELL that it is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. In other words, it is not as if the Church has stated that, through the operation of the Holy Spirit and the teaching of the Magisterium, it has now concluded and defines that married priests are no longer permissible. To the contrary, the Church recognizes that this is a rule that can change. To me, restricting liberty on account of doctrine is one thing (not only permissible but mandated). To restrict Christian liberty on account of a non-doctrinal rule is another thing and that thing is not good.

I think I have addressed this in another post, and yes, I was actually working today and missed much of the initial fireworks. Who knew that this topic would spark such an outburst? Sorry for coming to the party late.

Again, no one is required to be a priest. No one is required to be married.

However, the Church now states that if you want to be a priest, you must remain celibate. If that is not to your liking, then you OBVIOUSLY are not called to the priesthood by God since God gives the gift and the invitation.

You know, studying for the priesthood is not like studying to be an accountant…it’s not something that a man takes up on his own. It is from GOD.

At the risk of much controversy, I’m not convinced that all Protestant pastors are called…though some may be. For non-Catholics, being a pastor is just a career option.

For a Catholic priest, it makes and indellible change upon him.

 

[rr1213]

Having interacted with you over a long period of time on many subjects in multiple forums, I’m kinda shocked at how difficult this concept is for you to grasp or accept. This isn’t like you…

I understand the Catholic argument perfectly well…I just don’t buy it. You can research some of my first posts here at CA and you’ll see that I’ve been obnoxiously consistent on this one.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ahh, Randy, I was wondering when you were going to return to the fray. I knew you weren’t the “post and run” type.

No, I have no problem at all with someone giving up marriage for a life more fully devoted to God. I have a friend who has done so. Paul clearly commends this to us.

However, I have a problem with that choice being mandated by the Church because Scripture clearly contemplates that priests can be married, yet the Latin Rite Church has for all extents and purposes decided otherwise. It is a matter within the realm of Christian liberty, yet the Church has decided to remove that liberty provided for by Scripture.

Even worse, the Church does this knowing FULL WELL that it is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. In other words, it is not as if the Church has stated that, through the operation of the Holy Spirit and the teaching of the Magisterium, it has now concluded and defines that married priests are no longer permissible. To the contrary, the Church recognizes that this is a rule that can change. To me, restricting liberty on account of doctrine is one thing (not only permissible but mandated). To restrict Christian liberty on account of a non-doctrinal rule is another thing and that thing is not good.

I think I have addressed this in another post, and yes, I was actually working today and missed much of the initial fireworks. Who knew that this topic would spark such an outburst? Sorry for coming to the party late.

Again, no one is required to be a priest. No one is required to be married.

However, the Church now states that if you want to be a priest, you must remain celibate. If that is not to your liking, then you OBVIOUSLY are not called to the priesthood by God since God gives the gift and the invitation.

You know, studying for the priesthood is not like studying to be an accountant…it’s not something that a man takes up on his own. It is from GOD.

At the risk of much controversy, I’m not convinced that all Protestant pastors are called…though some may be. For non-Catholics, being a pastor is just a career option.

For a Catholic priest, it makes and indellible change upon him.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ahh, Randy, I was wondering when you were going to return to the fray. I knew you weren’t the “post and run” type.

No, I have no problem at all with someone giving up marriage for a life more fully devoted to God. I have a friend who has done so. Paul clearly commends this to us.

However, I have a problem with that choice being mandated by the Church because Scripture clearly contemplates that priests can be married, yet the Latin Rite Church has for all extents and purposes decided otherwise. It is a matter within the realm of Christian liberty, yet the Church has decided to remove that liberty provided for by Scripture.

Even worse, the Church does this knowing FULL WELL that it is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. In other words, it is not as if the Church has stated that, through the operation of the Holy Spirit and the teaching of the Magisterium, it has now concluded and defines that married priests are no longer permissible. To the contrary, the Church recognizes that this is a rule that can change. To me, restricting liberty on account of doctrine is one thing (not only permissible but mandated). To restrict Christian liberty on account of a non-doctrinal rule is another thing and that thing is not good.

I think I have addressed this in another post, and yes, I was actually working today and missed much of the initial fireworks. Who knew that this topic would spark such an outburst? Sorry for coming to the party late.

Again, no one is required to be a priest. No one is required to be married.

However, the Church now states that if you want to be a priest, you must remain celibate. If that is not to your liking, then you OBVIOUSLY are not called to the priesthood by God since God gives the gift and the invitation.

You know, studying for the priesthood is not like studying to be an accountant…it’s not something that a man takes up on his own. It is from GOD.

At the risk of much controversy, I’m not convinced that all Protestant pastors are called…though some may be. For non-Catholics, being a pastor is just a career option.

For a Catholic priest, it makes and indellible change upon him.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I understand the Catholic argument perfectly well…I just don’t buy it. You can research some of my first posts here at CA and you’ll see that I’ve been obnoxiously consistent on this one.

I am discerning the priesthood and if God will’s that I become a priest I have a bride. The Church is my bride. With my own free will, I want to live the life of chastity and celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Honesty requires us to admit that the Church does not exercise a preference on the issue but, instead, imposes a prohibition. Subject to the admitted exceptions that are addressed in my previous posts, it is clear that the Church forbids married men from becoming priests in the Latin Rite. It is not a matter of choice…if you are married you will not become a priest.

This is no different than saying “if you are black you will not become a priest” (which the Mormons did for many years) or, if you prefer, “if you are a lawyer, you will not become a priest” (afterall, Christ did say “woe unto you lawyers!”…at least in the KJV version ). Bottom line is that by precluding married men from becoming priests, the Church denies the vocation to men who are called by God to the priesthood. This is not only wrong, but also unwise.

You’ll respond by saying “if they are married, they are not called to the priesthood”…and how can either of us prove to the other that this is true or not? We can’t. I can tell you that I know a number of close friends who became Protestant clergy after they were married (Anglican priest and a Methodist minister come to mind) and they will tell you in no uncertain terms that they were called to the vocation. And, while I cannot know their hearts, from what I’ve seen I must agree.

RR-

When I was much younger and a new convert to the Catholic Church, I considered the priesthood myself. But not for long.

No, I wanted to be a monk. And not just any type of monk…I wanted to be a Trappist, a member of the Order of Cistericians of the Strict Observance (OCSO). When you think “monastery” these are the guys you’re thinking of…silence, living alone in their cells, etc.

I was a candidate for five years while I was in college. I visited the houses at St. Joseph’s Abbey in Spencer, MA, Conyers, GA and Snowmass, MA as part of my discernment process.

After college I got a job and worked for awhile, but the call was strong, so I quit my job and went to test my vocation. I was there for about six weeks when the novice master said, “we don’t feel you have a vocation.” Maybe I spent too much time shooting baskets on the make-shift court by the barn. What do you expect from a boy from North Carolina - the heart of ACC country?

Anyway, I left the abbey and went immediately to Maryland where I got a job and joined a Church and met my future wife. However, if I had not been at the Monastery, I never would have made the connection with the Maryland group because one of the monks had a brother who worked for the Maryland company that hired me. You see, God had a plan for my life, and I learned an awful lot (and stayed out of some trouble) while considering my vocation carefully. The road to my wife took me through the cloister.

Was I bitter? Of course not. I did not have a RIGHT to be a monk. The monastery had the obligation to help me discern if my inclination was truly from God. It was not…or at least maybe only for a time, but not for life. I benefitted from the time I spent at the Abbey, and my experience is memorable to this day.

Protestantism does not understand vocation. Being a priest is not just another job. God calls some and not all whom He calls accept. I will conclude with the verse with which I began this thread:

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.”

Forget the Church for just a moment…what is Jesus saying here?

 

[rr1213]

At the risk of much controversy, I’m not convinced that all Protestant pastors are called…though some may be. For non-Catholics, being a pastor is just a career option.

For a Catholic priest, it makes and indellible change upon him.

And no less of a change is made on Eastern Orthodox married men who become priests, or Eastern Rite Catholic married men who become priests, or Latin Rite married converted clergymen who become priests. Yet, the Church decides that in almost all cases no Catholic married men will become priests in the Latin Rite. This decision is not based on any matter peculiar to the integrity, morals, intellect or capabilities of the person at issue but, instead, is a prohibition imposed against an entire class of persons based purely on their marital status…a prohibition which the Church itself admits is not mandated by doctrine.

 

[rr1213]

I am discerning the priesthood and if God will’s that I become a priest I have a bride. The Church is my bride. With my own free will, I want to live the life of chastity and celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

As a married man, I’d advise that you be quite certain of what you are giving up prior to making that choice but, fundamentally, it is your choice and I have no problem with it. Indeed, I admire you for doing so. However, I have to say that I do believe that it should be your choice and not a mandate by the Church. The Church should examine your morals, intellect and capablilities for being a priest and discern whether you have correctly discerned God’s call to that vocation–and make a decision based on those sorts of factors, not preclude you just because you may be married (I know that you are not in fact married).