Celibacy of Priests

[jemfinch]

You look at what Paul wrote and he advises for being celibate (as he was) but, as we all know, also said the it was better to be married than to burn.

And, of course, the Catholic Church still teaches that.

Elsewhere in scripture the sanctity of marriage is upheld, even by Christ himself.

But again, even Christ held up the greater calling of celibacy: “there are some who are Eunuchs by birth, and some who were made eunuchs by men, and some who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven; if you can receive this teaching, receive it.”

Even most disturbing (to the Catholic view I believe) are the passages where scripture explicitly allows for married clergy. (Overseer shall be a man of no more than one wife).

That’s true (the passage quotation, not the disturbing part).

Peter himself was married, as indicated by the fact that his mother in law served the disciples.

And Paul and Jesus and John weren’t.

Finally, the Catholic Church itself recognizes that the prohibition against married priests is a rule, not doctrine, and the Church even has married priests who converted from other Churches.

Yes, and?

So, ultimately, what do you have here?

You have a Church following the teaching of the Bible.

You have a Church preference for celibate clergy taking precedence over the explicit Word of God that expressly allows clergy to be married.

The explicit words of God state that it’s better to be unmarried, that the unmarried man can better serve the Lord. The Church is entirely within her rights to select its priests and bishops from the cream of the crop, the people who are called to be celibate for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

That’s just wrong.

No, it’s just the Church, exercising its God-given authority to set the criteria for ordaining priests and bishops. You might as well argue (with the particular branch of Protestantism I came from) that priests (“elders”) must be married, because the Epistle to Timothy doesn’t say, “the husband of no more than one wife,” but “the husband of one wife.”

Jeremy

 

[Orionthehunter]

So, ultimately, what do you have here? You have a Church preference for celibate clergy taking precedence over the explicit Word of God that expressly allows clergy to be married. That’s just wrong.

Are you saying that all that is allowed is thus preferred or mandatory? It sure looks that way by your statement “that’s just wrong”. Please clarify if I’m misunderstanding you are saying.

If so, you must believe that Paul’s celibacy and single vocation was thus deficient as was John’s and a host of other Apostles. Do you have some Scripture to back that up?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Then the large majority of priests are faithful to their vows. Good for them, and shame on those who aren’t.



– Mark L. Chance.

That’s sort of what I originally thought. Then I realized that I lead sort of a sheltered life and that maybe elsewhere in the country, things might be a little different than they are among my community. My faith in what is good has been restored, Thanks.

 

[rr1213]

Are you saying that all that is allowed is thus preferred or mandatory? It sure looks that way by your statement “that’s just wrong”. Please clarify if I’m misunderstanding you are saying.

If so, you must believe that Paul’s celibacy and single vocation was thus deficient as was John’s and a host of other Apostles. Do you have some Scripture to back that up?

What I am saying is that Scripture explicitly allows for a priest to be single or to be married. In contrast, the Catholic Church (with some acknowledged exceptions) requires men who are to be priests in the Church to be single. It does so not based on dogma or doctrine (which would compel such the requirement) but, instead, on the basis of a rule which it admits could be changed (albeit the Church has shown little inclination to change the rule). So, on the one hand, you have Scripture saying that marriage is not an impediment to being ordained a priest and, on the other hand, the Church responding by saying that it has decided that its priests shall be single notwithstanding that Scripture allows them to be married. This is wrong because the Church is making mandatory that which God has declared to be optional.

 

[mercygate]

What I am saying is that Scripture explicitly allows for a priest to be single or to be married. In contrast, the Catholic Church (with some acknowledged exceptions) requires men who are to be priests in the Church to be single. It does so not based on dogma or doctrine (which would compel such the requirement) but, instead, on the basis of a rule which it admits could be changed (albeit the Church has shown little inclination to change the rule). So, on the one hand, you have Scripture saying that marriage is not an impediment to being ordained a priest and, on the other hand, the Church responding by saying that it has decided that its priests shall be single notwithstanding that Scripture allows them to be married. This is wrong because the Church is making mandatory that which God has declared to be optional.

Well said, rr: up to the last sentence. The Church has made mandatory (for the Latin Church only) not what “God has declared to be optional” but what God has declared to be preferable. Therefore it is not “wrong.” Clerical celibacy is a special charism, given to few, for building up the Church. It is a very great good.

 

[scylla]

Of course you would have the Church preferring a celibate lifestyle for priest as that is the best imitation of Christ possible as He was celibate.

To argue otherwise is to deny Jesus as an example to be followed.

So the statement that this goes against the Word of God is inaccurate.

Since the Catholic Church allows for both married and unmarried priests with a preference toward celibacy, then you have a Church which is expressly exampled in Scripture.

As the choice to be celibate is chosen by those who are called to it then there is no conflict with Scripture except for those sects which do not imitate Jesus by having celibate clergy.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[mlchance]

What I am saying is that Scripture explicitly allows for a priest to be single or to be married. In contrast, the Catholic Church (with some acknowledged exceptions) requires men who are to be priests in the Church to be single.

So, IOW, the Church requires priests to not be married (except for the ones that are married).

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[rr1213]

Well said, rr: up to the last sentence. The Church has made mandatory (for the Latin Church only) not what “God has declared to be optional” but what God has declared to be preferable. Therefore it is not “wrong.” Clerical celibacy is a special charism, given to few, for building up the Church. It is a very great good.

Thanks for the kind words. Still, by making celibacy mandatory for priests, the Church has extinguished the preference. Something is not a preference if it is mandatory…it is a requirement instead. Here, the Scriptures reflect an aspect of Christian liberty that the Church denies to candidates for the priesthood by converting a preference into a mandate. It is as if Scriptures had said “you may live in a house or in an apartment, although a house is better” and, then, the Church told its members “you shall live in a house and not in an apartment”. I know, I know…stupid analogy, but the point I’m trying to make is that when Scripture allows something to be within the realm of Christian liberty then–it is in the realm of Christian liberty and the Church is not acting correctly to take out fo the realm of Christian liberty.

 

[rr1213]

So, IOW, the Church requires priests to not be married (except for the ones that are married).

– Mark L. Chance.

Ah, yes, but who is allowed to married? Not young men in the Latin Church who wish to become priests. They must choose, right? Take a vow of celibacy or you shall not be a priest.

 

[RyanL]

rr1213,

Did you even bother to read the link I provided before launching your assault on the Church’s teachings?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[mercygate]

Thanks for the kind words. Still, by making celibacy mandatory for priests, the Church has extinguished the preference. Something is not a preference if it is mandatory…it is a requirement instead. Here, the Scriptures reflect an aspect of Christian liberty that the Church denies to candidates for the priesthood by converting a preference into a mandate. It is as if Scriptures had said “you may live in a house or in an apartment, although a house is better” and, then, the Church told its members “you shall live in a house and not in an apartment”. I know, I know…stupid analogy, but the point I’m trying to make is that when Scripture allows something to be within the realm of Christian liberty then–it is in the realm of Christian liberty and the Church is not acting correctly to take out fo the realm of Christian liberty.

But no man is required to be a priest. One is quite at liberty not to become a priest.

You seem not to be comfortable with the Church’s upholding the dominical preference for celibacy expressed in Matthew 19, where he says, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.” There is no want of liberty in following Christ.

 

[Evan]

Ah, yes, but who is allowed to married? Not young men in the Latin Church who wish to become priests. They must choose, right? Take a vow of celibacy or you shall not be a priest.

That is freedom at it’s best.

Able to make a choice and live with that choice. I chose to marry my wife and I put all my energy into making that activity the center of my human relationships.

God chose to create you and new He is free to bring you to Himself within the gifts He has given you (free will).

A man makes a choice to live exclusively for God, clinging to no others. He can then live with no distractions for he has made his choice and has no need to second guess himself. He is free.

That is what St Paul was offering, full commitment to the kingdom of God. Freedom in it’s greatest sense.

 

[rr1213]

rr1213,

Did you even bother to read the link I provided before launching your assault on the Church’s teachings?

God Bless,
RyanL

For what it’s worth, it was not very persuasive to me. If I understand the argument in the paper you cite, the essence seems to be that in the context of the early church there were married priests but the priests were expected to abstain from marital relations once they were ordained. That being the case, the reference in 1 Timothy that the overseer be “the husband of but one wife” simply applies to those married priests who are, now that they are priests, subject to the mandate of continence. (Interestingly, btw, the same passage in 1 Timothy also requires the priest to be a good manager of his own family, whose children obey him with proper respect because, after all, how can the priest take care of God’s church if he cannot manage his own family?). The paper further makes the point that it is wholly proper for the priest to be celibate because he his married to the Church and stands as priest in the image of Christ who, of course, was not married. Later, separation was introduced between priesthood and marriage so, as in today’s church, priests for the most part are not married.

So…where does this leave us? We have a justification for the rule of priestly celibacy based primarily on the assertion that married priests in the early Church abstained from sexual relationships. This in the face of scripture that not only refers to married priests --and the managment of their families–but, also, the warning in 1 Corinthians 7 that:

“3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 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.”

The paper you cited at one point poses the question: “This was, of course, an immense paradox: how can one base the celibacy of priests on the evidence of texts which talk about married ministers?” With all respect, I don’t think it has offered a convincing resolution of that paradox.

 

[mercygate]

. . .

So…where does this leave us? We have a justification for the rule of priestly celibacy based primarily on the assertion that married priests in the early Church abstained from sexual relationships. This in the face of scripture that not only refers to married priests --and the managment of their families–but, also, the warning in 1 Corinthians 7 that:

“3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 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.”

In verse 29 of the same chapter he counsels those who have wives “to live as though they had none.” In the Resurrection, Jesus tells us that people “neither marry nor are given in marriage” so celibacy points toward the Resurrection.

The paper you cited at one point poses the question: “This was, of course, an immense paradox: how can one base the celibacy of priests on the evidence of texts which talk about married ministers?” With all respect, I don’t think it has offered a convincing resolution of that paradox.

The author of that question must have been asleep. You mentioned in a sentence I deleted for brevity’s sake that it was inconsistent to require someone to manage his children if he were to live in continence. But the presbyter’s were not young men, they were “presbyteros” – wise in age. Continence gets easier for many as they get older. Trust me: I know! The presbyter would still be the head of his household and thus could be judged on the management of that household.

 

[Nechasin]

I don’t have any scripture to quote, but I personally think it would be extremely hard if not impossible to be both a good Husband/Father and a good Priest. I know the demands that are placed on me being a Husband/Father and I see the obligations that my pastor and other priest have at the church. I for one wouldn’t be able to do both. Both are Full Time Jobs.

 

[rr1213]

I don’t have any scripture to quote, but I personally think it would be extremely hard if not impossible to be both a good Husband/Father and a good Priest. I know the demands that are placed on me being a Husband/Father and I see the obligations that my pastor and other priest have at the church. I for one wouldn’t be able to do both. Both are Full Time Jobs.

That very well might be true in most cases. On the other hand, a married priest may bring different life experiences to the bear that would enable him to more effectively deal with some family issues on a pastoral level.

 

[RyanL]

On the other hand, a married priest may bring different life experiences to the bear that would enable him to more effectively deal with some family issues on a pastoral level.

Would you want the same from a psychiatrist? Being looney might give him some real insight…

Perhaps by being unmarried a priest can see more clearly from the outside, and is not biased by his own experiences. Have you considered the possibility?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[rr1213]

Perhaps by being unmarried a priest can see more clearly from the outside, and is not biased by his own experiences. Have you considered the possibility?

Sure, that’s just as likely to happen with some folks as is the possibility I posted above…all the more reason why the Church ought not to mandate priestly celibacy. It will be interesting to see how the discussion might change on these forums if, in the future, the Church exercised its discretion to change the rule (which it could conceivably do, right?). If that happens 50 years from now, and God willing we all are still alive here and posting, will the arguments set forth above change?

 

[mercygate]

Would you want the same from a psychiatrist? Being looney might give him some real insight…

Perhaps by being unmarried a priest can see more clearly from the outside, and is not biased by his own experiences. Have you considered the possibility?

God Bless,
RyanL

This has been my experience. My Spiritual Director is a Catholic priest with an exalted and healing view of the nature of the spousal relationship. I, a married person, reflect that in my “exalted and healing view” of celibate lilfe. We need one another to express the fullness of the relationship between God and his people. We need one another.

 

[mercygate]

Sure, that’s just as likely to happen with some folks as is the possibility I posted above…all the more reason why the Church ought not to mandate priestly celibacy. It will be interesting to see how the discussion might change on these forums if, in the future, the Church exercised its discretion to change the rule (which it could conceivably do, right?). If that happens 50 years from now, and God willing we all are still alive here and posting, will the arguments set forth above change?

Y’know, rr, I have a lot of sympathy with your position as stated in your signature line, since I came from the same side of the river and struggled every inch of the way. But it really stretches my patience when you tell us that the Catholic position is “wrong” and tell us what the Church “ought not to mandate.”

Nobody is holding a gun to your head to accept this stuff. The Catholic Church has good reasons for what she teaches and for what she holds as discipline. A lot of it can’t be easily understood from the outside (although this issue is about as clear as gin, if you ask me). Some of the staunchest defenders of priestly celibacy area those who have been ordained under the pastoral provision. I direct you to Fr. Ray Ryland.