Celibacy as a requirement

[BobP123]

I notice that almost all objection to celibate clergy is about sex, not about marriage. It’s all about “men gotta have sex,” not “men gotta join in a lifelong bond with a woman and raise a family.” The arguments for married clergy usually boil down to “men have to have plenty of sex, and marriage is the best way to get it.”

Not a very high view of marriage, IMHO.

You’re absolutely right. It does seem that way.

But imagine what it would be like if married priests don’t have at least one kid every nine months. There would very likely be accusations of birth control, etc. The calumny and/or scandals would be horrific; would the Vatican be prepared to deal with that?

And would the average church-goer now be additionally burdened with supporting the families of these priests? Some ramifications to think about.

 

[a_pilgrim]

In the Eastern Rites, married men are allowed to be priests** except** I hear that Vatican has been frowning upon this practice lately. Too many married men going Eastern?

Hi, Bob!

I’m curious as to where it is you’ve heard that the Vatican has been frowning lately upon the married priesthood in the Eastern Catholic Churches? Any citations you can share with us that support this claim?

Certainly a married presbyterate was frowned upon for many years within the United States, but married priests were, and are, the norm rather than the exception with regard to those Eastern Catholic Churches in Europe. In fact, since +John Paul II’s 1995 Apostolic Letter, Orientale Lumen, in which the Eastern Catholic Churches were exhorted to return to their ancient traditions, there have been moves, even in America, to return to the tradition of a married priesthood. I know of at least two married men ordained to the priesthood in recent years within the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Parma (Ohio), USA. Certainly it goes without saying that these are Catholic priests I’m referring to.

With regard to your statement about “Too many married men going Eastern?” I can assure you that a married man’s desire to become a Catholic priest would not be sufficient cause for this individual to be granted a Change of Canonical Enrollment, either by his Latin bishop or the receiving Eastern bishop. Quite the opposite, in fact! The bishops would obviously see this man’s scheme for what it is - an attempt to sneak through a Canon Law loophole in an attempt to bypass the established discipline of his own sui iuris Church. Ain’t gonna happen, my friend.

 

[fix]

I notice that almost all objection to celibate clergy is about sex, not about marriage. It’s all about “men gotta have sex,” not “men gotta join in a lifelong bond with a woman and raise a family.” The arguments for married clergy usually boil down to “men have to have plenty of sex, and marriage is the best way to get it.”

Not a very high view of marriage, IMHO.

That is a great summation.

 

[BobP123]

Hi, Bob!

I’m curious as to where it is you’ve heard that the Vatican has been frowning lately upon the married priesthood in the Eastern Catholic Churches? Any citations you can share with us that support this claim?

Not a claim. Simply second-hand information. I was hoping someone here would or could substantiate it.

 

[AquinaSavio]

I notice that almost all objection to celibate clergy is about sex, not about marriage. It’s all about “men gotta have sex,” not “men gotta join in a lifelong bond with a woman and raise a family.” The arguments for married clergy usually boil down to “men have to have plenty of sex, and marriage is the best way to get it.”

Not a very high view of marriage, IMHO.

Great point!

 

[DanteAlighieri]

yes, i believe it is better to be single and more wholly devoted, but examine the scripture. “If they cannot exercise selfcontrol, then marry.” Countless bishops and priests have been caught with mistresses, and some have even been found in the abomination of homosexual intercouse! how dare they say it makes them more holy, it would be better for them to be married and not commit this horrible sin than to attempt to be more focused on god, which they obviously fail.

I am not attacking all priests and bishops, just the ones that have been found to commit fornication and homosexuality. Those who can control themselves can truely focus and should keep it that way.By the way, he also says “I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord”. He did not want to restrain people by creating laws, and this is clearly a restraint.

Please offer me a more fitting example, or a contradiction of these truths.

It is not the sinning clergy who say, “It makes us more holy that we are not married!” It is Scripture and Tradition which say this.

If you receive Eucharist from a child molester, or if he hears your confession, does his sin automatically negate the Sacrament? No, because neither the Sacraments nor the virtues of celibacy depend on the characters of individuals who bestow (Sacraments) or undertake (celibacy) them.

Peace,
Dante

 

[FCEGM]

It is not the sinning clergy who say, “It makes us more holy that we are not married!” It is Scripture and Tradition which say this.

If you receive Eucharist from a child molester, or if he hears your confession, does his sin automatically negate the Sacrament? No, because neither the Sacraments nor the virtues of celibacy depend on the characters of individuals who bestow (Sacraments) or undertake (celibacy) them.

Peace,
Dante

Thank you, Dante. I’ve been waiting for this point to be made. The OP, however, doesn’t specifically indicate in his profile that he is a Catholic, so he may ask for further explanation on this.

 

[Holland]

Until we can keep the majority of the people in the pews married I think permitting priests to marry is a really bad idea. Married priests, divorced priests; I just don’t think the Church needs anymore headaches right now.

 

[Vincent]

Christs bride is the church, and the church is only devoted to him.

Excellent observation. Let’s start with that.

To summarize Pope John Paul II in Pastores Dabo Vobis 29:

• There’s a “link between celibacy and sacred ordination”
• “Sacred ordination. . . configures the priest to Jesus Christ the head and spouse of the Church”
• Priests are configured to be living icons of Christ the Bridegroom
• “The Church, as the spouse of Jesus Christ, wishes to be loved by the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which Jesus Christ her head and spouse loved her.”
• Why? Because when the Church looks upon her priests she beholds her Spouse.

It’s interesting to note that the Church does not have to require celibacy from her priests. She *freely *chooses to commit herself to this.

The Church’s decision is a free response to the free initiative of Christ, her Spouse, who freely chose to give of Himself to her the way that He did: totally, exclusively, holding nothing – absolutely nothing – back.

 

[quasimodo]

celebacy is wisdom.

All the priests I know admit that no woman in her right mind would marry a priest - the hours and demands are so high that it is almost impossible to imagine a healthy sane woman putting up with it - priest shortage or no.

Protestant ministers have a very high rate of divorce - not a problem for them as they somehow interpret Jesus’ words concerning divorce as not being a prohibtion. The church does not give that wiggle room. How can she prohibit divorce and remarriage if her priests can’t keep a marriage together.

 

[RosalieM]

I saw a program with Father Corapi on EWTN where he said (on the subject of priests marrying) that celibacy is a gift from God and who would want to throw a gift back at God? (I’m paraphrasing, but it was along the lines that celibacy is a gift, a grace, and not a deprivation as some would think).
Rosalie

 

[specops777]

I notice that almost all objection to celibate clergy is about sex, not about marriage. It’s all about “men gotta have sex,” not “men gotta join in a lifelong bond with a woman and raise a family.” The arguments for married clergy usually boil down to “men have to have plenty of sex, and marriage is the best way to get it.”

Not a very high view of marriage, IMHO.

Let me explain myself a little more. I am objecting simply because it is not right to put that requirement on someone. I personally dont think i will be marrying, and i serve God in many ways. But i dont see a problem with married people serving the lord and it doesnt seem to be a hassle that much. It isnt accomplishing anything so i dont see why it is around. I dont think we need sex, it helps to be single, but i know many, many people who serve the lord as great warriors and leaders that are married. In fact the most prominent, Godly man i know is married.

 

[specops777]

and no, i am no catholic, in fact many from my area are against me because i have brought biblical truth against there beliefs. <> Reach me on messenger or pm me if you want to talk more indepth, maybe later i will bring up a big issue.

 

[dylanschrader]

In almost all circumstances (discounting dispensations given to those who convert to Catholicism), if a man does not have a vocation to be celibate then he should not become a priest.

If God gives a man a vocation to the priesthood, he gives him a vocation to celibacy as well.

Although it is not essential to Holy Orders, celibacy is very fitting for the priesthood for a number of important reasons. There is the bridegroom/bride image mentioned above, spiritual fatherhood of the priest, the eschatological sign (the priest lives the life of Heaven “where they neither marry nor are given in marriage” here on earth, modeling one’s life after the example of Christ himself, etc.

For more information, I recommend Sacerdotalis Coelibatus and The Relevance of Priestly Celibacy Today.

 

[specops777]

all i know is that the bible doesnt list it as a requirement, it is just a church trying to establish a pecking order and a hierarchy where God did not intend for one. Also i dont believe God has called a single priest to be that, seeing as the church of rome’s doctrine goes against his word.

 

[Trelow]

all i know is that the bible doesnt list it as a requirement, it is just a church trying to establish a pecking order and a hierarchy where God did not intend for one. Also i dont believe God has called a single priest to be that, seeing as the church of rome’s doctrine goes against his word.

The Church established the bible, that’s the pecking order.

 

[specops777]

the church did. Not the roman church, nothing catholic had to do with it, so dont hide behind your church. I love catholics to death, but they dont know the facts usually. They will say that the roman church established the bible, but they werent around until AD 500 if i recall right. If anyone really wants to challenge it i will find sources. the apostles knew what was Spirit-inspired, and they could make those decisions. ANYWAYS, bible was used somewhat around like 130AD i believe,(in a form) and that was way before the church.

 

[LilyM]

500? At least most anti-Catholics make a more rational argument dating it to the 300s and the era of Constantine There’s no basis for 500 whatsoever.

And of course in scripture itself - Acts 9:31 - when it refers to ‘the universal church’ or ‘ekklesia katholikos’ it couldn’t possibly be referring to the Catholic church that still bears that name. :nope:

 

[tptram]

ANYWAYS, bible was used somewhat around like 130AD i believe,(in a form) and that was way before the church.

Huh?
i believe the church was born in the year 33AD – at Pentacost to be exact

Tak

 

[specops777]

well im sorry im bad with dates, but the fact remains that Constantine and his pagan merge to create Roman Catholicism was after the bible was being used by believers. And do you not realize that anyone could see the word for it and copy it? just because a church today has the name of one in the bible doesnt make it about it, they could just copy the name.

also i am not anti-catholics. Roman Catholicism(and im pretty sure im spelling that wrong) is wrong, but i have friends that are and i enjoy those people very much. I just want to show them the truth behind its evils. Many of them are good people, some are saved. I have NOTHING against the people themselves, i only wish they would open their eyes. Do you not know of the queen of heaven? how she ruled in babel before in Rome? We speak of the holy virginity of the church, but she is the mother of harlots, the filthiest whore in the world. This church commited fornication and unholy alliances with kings throughout history, and mary makes no sense unless she is truly the descendant of the ancient religion of babel. I wish for you to see truth, and i love you always. Research this at least, look into the ties, meditate upon what your church has done. Come to Gods love.