Celibacy of Priests

[rr1213]

I appreciate your kind comments as to my current ecclesial dilemma, although I am a bit puzzled about the remainder of your comments. My posts in this thread have been germane to the primary question posed by the OP (and you will note that I refrained from entering the discussion as to the other issue posed by the OP…his ecclesial dilemma). The positions that I’ve set forth above are held by many (most?) Protestants. From what I’ve seen here and there, I also think a decent number of Roman Catholics question the practice of priestly celibacy as well. Do I think that the Church errs on the issue? Yes. Is it uncharitable to say so? No, I don’t think so. This is a discussion forum where we should expect to see reasoned discussion of the issues. I would say that this is even more the case regarding a rule of the Church for which the Church recognizes exceptions and which, since it is not dogma or doctrine, the Church itself acknowledges could be subject to change. Should I not have nor express an opinion because I am not Catholic? I don’t think that would effectuate the purposes of these forums either. From what I’ve seen, Catholics have no hesitancy in expressing their opinions about Protestant practices either. Nor should they. Nor should I.

 

[mosher]

As a man who lives the chaste celibate life I can speak to the beauty of living as such since the history has already been discussed.

All I can say about this vocation to celibacy is that it is a gift of freedom. With this freedom I am not concerned with the earthly or spiritual needs of only a few but I am free to express my love fully to everyone without measure. While this is perhaps an ideal in married life the reality is that one must have their primary focus on God and the “proto-Church” that he has - his family. Because of this there is a certain limitation in the way in which a person is free to express love for others. However, living as a chaste celibate I am free to give all of my love completely and freely to all that I meet in the measure that they allow me. This is hard to express but I was given an analogy by a priest friend of mine that seems to work well.

There are two men. One man has a garden that he tends and the other a farm. The Gardner tends his garden and loves it but would not be able to govern an entire field. The Farmer loves his whole field, tends it and governs it but would go stir-crazy if he only had a garden.

I think that this sums up the issue. The freedom of chaste celibacy is the freedom of time and effort, a freedom that cannot happen with a married man as he must share his time with his family if he were a good father. This freedom allows the priest or the single person to give all of himself completely to everyone and truly become all things to all men in the order of St. Paul and Jesus. I have not even gone into the depth of the fruits of prayer that come from living this vocation but there is a different sense of prayer and the Church when a person lives their every monemt in service to the whole Church in a decided way.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

The odd thing here (as far as I can see) that all the arguments the RCC makes for celibacy are undermined by them; because all the eastern Catholic churches allow it.

How would that undermine the arguments for celibacy? The arguments for clerical celibacy are the same as the arguments for the higher calling of celibacy.

Because all the reasons for celibacy are undermined by the fact you allow non-celibate clergy.

It’s like
RCC: We are determined that celibate priests are the best priests
Me: But you allow exceptions -are you allowing second best priests?
"Montalban:

Which is an argument that many eastern Catholics might find insulting - because in effect you’re saying that their priests are second-best (not able to give as good a community service as their western and celibate brothers)

Not at all. In fact, I know some Eastern Priests (celibate, notably) who would agree with the Roman Church’s stance that celibacy is a higher calling than married life.

Jeremy

Then why allow it?

In fact, it seems that, at least implicitly, even the Orthodox hold to this view, since Orthodox (and Eastern Catholic) bishops are not permitted to be married.

You assume that why we do something is for the same reason. And then we don’t argue for a celibate clergy per se, whereas you do, but you make exceptions to that rule

 

[Montalban]

If you would like to read the Church in her own words, here’s a link to the Curia’s document Biblical Foundations of Priestly Celibacy, which includes more reasons than have so far been presented.

God Bless, and welcome to the forums,
RyanL

Which are undermined by the fact you allow Eastern Catholics an exemption.

 

[jemfinch]

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.

Remember, Peter, the Apostles, and the Church that was founded upon them was given the power not only to loose, but to bind as well. The Church (to my knowledge) has loosened some things (for instance, the requirement not to eat strangled meat given in Acts 15) but it has also tightened some things (for instance, upgrading celibacy from a preference to a mandate, as you said). This is within its power; we can debate about whether it’s prudent for the Church to do so, but there should be no argument about whether it’s within the Church’s power to do so.

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.

That’s exactly what the power to bind and to loose entails. In biblical times, though there was a clear preference for celibacy (recorded in Scripture), circumstances were such that the Church had to allow married priests (despite its preference) because most people who converted to Christianity were already married. Presently, however, with many people already in the faith having children who are likewise brought up in the faith, the Church can act more consistently with its preference and require that priests be celibate. That’s fully within the power and jurisdiction of the Church.

It’s worth noting that it’s a tradition since the very earliest beginnings of the Church, both in Eastern Churches (Catholic or Orthodox) and in the Western Church, not to ordain married bishops (or, if ordaining one, require him to live celibately; not chastely, but celibately, as if he didn’t have a wife, who generally became a religious at that point).

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

Because all the reasons for celibacy are undermined by the fact you allow non-celibate clergy.

Not at all. If I may make use of an analogy, imagine that I preferred ice cream to frozen yogurt, and then you said that if I eat frozen yogurt when ice cream is not available, I’m undermining my preference for ice cream. That simply wouldn’t be correct.

It’s like
RCC: We are determined that celibate priests are the best priests
Me: But you allow exceptions -are you allowing second best priests?

If the answer of the RCC was “Yes,” what’s wrong with that? I’m not following your reasoning as to how the allowance of married priests (within the Latin Rite) undermines the rule of clerical celibacy.

Allowance of married priests in the Eastern Rite Churches certainly doesn’t undermine the Latin Church’s requirement of celibacy; clerical celibacy is a discipline of the Church, a law, and the Eastern Rites are sui iuris Churches that can have their own disciplines in that regard.

You assume that why we do something is for the same reason. And then we don’t argue for a celibate clergy per se, whereas you do, but you make exceptions to that rule

Then please explain why the Eastern Orthodox Churches require that their bishops be celibate, if it’s for some other reason.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

Which are undermined by the fact you allow Eastern Catholics an exemption.

We don’t “allow Eastern Catholics an exemption.” They’re sui iuris Churches. They can make their own disciplines in that regard.

Jeremy

 

[Montalban]

We don’t “allow Eastern Catholics an exemption.” They’re sui iuris Churches. They can make their own disciplines in that regard.

Jeremy

The Pope is the head of your church and he allows it; unless you wish to suggest that the Pope has no ‘power’ of the Eastern Catholic churches.
"Montalban:

Because all the reasons for celibacy are undermined by the fact you allow non-celibate clergy.

Not at all. If I may make use of an analogy, imagine that I preferred ice cream to frozen yogurt, and then you said that if I eat frozen yogurt when ice cream is not available, I’m undermining my preference for ice cream. That simply wouldn’t be correct.

That’s not a true analogy because in the Catholic church you could allow only one, and you don’t. You argue about the importance of one, but allow the other.
"Montalban:

Quote:It’s like
RCC: We are determined that celibate priests are the best priests
Me: But you allow exceptions -are you allowing second best priests?

If the answer of the RCC was “Yes,” what’s wrong with that? I’m not following your reasoning as to how the allowance of married priests (within the Latin Rite) undermines the rule of clerical celibacy.

Because your church is arguing that the best priests are celibate; one of the arguments put forward is that a celibate priest can better serve his clergy. Yet you allow married priests, suggesting that these must be second-best priests, because they’re not able to give their full attention, as you argue celibate priests do.

Allowance of married priests in the Eastern Rite Churches certainly doesn’t undermine the Latin Church’s requirement of celibacy; clerical celibacy is a discipline of the Church, a law, and the Eastern Rites are sui iuris Churches that can have their own disciplines in that regard.

Allowing them to have their own disciplines, and then saying they have their own disciplines doesn’t negate the fact you’ve allowed them this.

Imagine if you said guns were dangerous but you allowed some of your family to have them. The fact that they have them, because you’ve allowed it, doesn’t negate the fact that they have them BECAUSE you’ve allowed it. It’s rather senseless to keep thrusting the responsibility back on them when YOU HAVE allowed it. And that’s what your argument consists of, pointing out that the Eastern Churches have a ‘right’ to do so, but ignoring that you allow them that right.
"Montalban:

You assume that why we do something is for the same reason. And then we don’t argue for a celibate clergy per se, whereas you do, but you make exceptions to that rule

Then please explain why the Eastern Orthodox Churches require that their bishops be celibate, if it’s for some other reason.

Jeremy

This is a different argument. You’re welcome over on the Eastern faith debates where people are discussing this.

 

[rr1213]

As a man who lives the chaste celibate life I can speak to the beauty of living as such since the history has already been discussed.

All I can say about this vocation to celibacy is that it is a gift of freedom. With this freedom I am not concerned with the earthly or spiritual needs of only a few but I am free to express my love fully to everyone without measure. While this is perhaps an ideal in married life the reality is that one must have their primary focus on God and the “proto-Church” that he has - his family. Because of this there is a certain limitation in the way in which a person is free to express love for others. However, living as a chaste celibate I am free to give all of my love completely and freely to all that I meet in the measure that they allow me. This is hard to express but I was given an analogy by a priest friend of mine that seems to work well.

There are two men. One man has a garden that he tends and the other a farm. The Gardner tends his garden and loves it but would not be able to govern an entire field. The Farmer loves his whole field, tends it and governs it but would go stir-crazy if he only had a garden.

I think that this sums up the issue. The freedom of chaste celibacy is the freedom of time and effort, a freedom that cannot happen with a married man as he must share his time with his family if he were a good father. This freedom allows the priest or the single person to give all of himself completely to everyone and truly become all things to all men in the order of St. Paul and Jesus. I have not even gone into the depth of the fruits of prayer that come from living this vocation but there is a different sense of prayer and the Church when a person lives their every monemt in service to the whole Church in a decided way.

Very well said.

 

[jemfinch]

The Pope is the head of your church and he allows it; unless you wish to suggest that the Pope has no ‘power’ of the Eastern Catholic churches.

He does, but this is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. Sui iuris wouldn’t mean much of the Eastern Catholic Churches couldn’t even have their own disciplines.

That’s not a true analogy because in the Catholic church you could allow only one, and you don’t. You argue about the importance of one, but allow the other.

Clerical celibacy is a matter of discipline, a decision based on prudence; my argument is that it is most prudent, for the Latin Church, to require that priests and bishops be celibate. I’m not arguing that it’s always and everywhere more prudent to require celibacy for the priesthood, and so the decision of sui iuris Catholic Churches not to require celibacy does not undermine in the least my claims.

Because your church is arguing that the best priests are celibate; one of the arguments put forward is that a celibate priest can better serve his clergy.

His flock, I’ll take you to mean. And yes, that is another component of my argument, and it’s an eminently biblical one.

Yet you allow married priests, suggesting that these must be second-best priests, because they’re not able to give their full attention, as you argue celibate priests do.

It’s true, their attention is divided. And insofar as married priests’ attention is divided, they have a harder path before them in overseeing Christ’s flock. I’m not implying they’re “second-best,” just that they have a harder path, and if there are enough celibate priests, there is no need to ordain married priests. We can argue about whether there’s a need, in today’s Church, to allow married priests in order to increase vocations, but that’s a different argument than this one.

Your argument amounts to saying that since Christ gave Peter primacy (in whichever way you choose to interpret it; we need not argue about the nature of Peter’s primacy), the other Apostles were relegated to “second-best” status.

Allowing them to have their own disciplines, and then saying they have their own disciplines doesn’t negate the fact you’ve allowed them this.

Precisely because clerical celibacy is a matter of discipline, not faith. The only thing the practice of permitting married priests in the Eastern Rite proves is this fact: that the celibate priesthood is a matter of practice, not doctrine. No one is arguing this point.

Imagine if you said guns were dangerous but you allowed some of your family to have them. The fact that they have them, because you’ve allowed it, doesn’t negate the fact that they have them BECAUSE you’ve allowed it. It’s rather senseless to keep thrusting the responsibility back on them when YOU HAVE allowed it. And that’s what your argument consists of, pointing out that the Eastern Churches have a ‘right’ to do so, but ignoring that you allow them that right.

What I’m saying is that it doesn’t matter that the Eastern Rites are allowed to have married priests. It proves that clerical celibacy is a matter of discipline instead of faith. Big deal! Who’s arguing that anyway? We’re arguing whether it’s more prudent of the Latin Church to require celibacy for those it ordains to the priesthood. The decision of Eastern Churches has to allow married priests (and the decision of the Pope to allow them to do so) has no real relevance at all to that argument.

Jeremy

This is a different argument. You’re welcome over on the Eastern faith debates where people are discussing this.

 

[mlchance]

I appreciate your kind comments as to my current ecclesial dilemma, although I am a bit puzzled about the remainder of your comments.

The puzzlement perhaps comes from someone (like you), who obviously doesn’t understand Catholicism, having the temerity to condemn in ignorance. If you want to condemn churches that don’t have a biblically based concept of ordination, why not trot over to an Episcopal message board and fuss about ordained women, ordained divorcees, and ordained homosexuals?

The Roman Rite Catholic Church’s “policy” regarding celibacy is biblical, following the example of Christ Himself as well as the Apostle Paul. The Eastern Rite Catholic Church’s “policy” of ordaining married men is also biblical. Either way, The Catholic Church is right.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[rr1213]

The puzzlement perhaps comes from someone (like you), who obviously doesn’t understand Catholicism, having the temerity to condemn in ignorance. If you want to condemn churches that don’t have a biblically based concept of ordination, why not trot over to an Episcopal message board and fuss about ordained women, ordained divorcees, and ordained homosexuals?

The Roman Rite Catholic Church’s “policy” regarding celibacy is biblical, following the example of Christ Himself as well as the Apostle Paul. The Eastern Rite Catholic Church’s “policy” of ordaining married men is also biblical. Either way, The Catholic Church is right.

– Mark L. Chance.

There is nothing ignorant about my comments in this thread. This is an issue that even your own Church is not united on and you condemn me for what I’ve posted? However, I did think that we were having a discussion about the theological grounds for (or against) the Catholic Church’s discipline regarding the celibacy of priests, not making personal attacks. I regret not recognizing the true nature of the discussion before now.

 

[mlchance]

I thought we were discussing the theological grounds for the Catholic Church’s discipline regarding the celibacy of priests, not making personal attacks. I regret not recognizing the true nature of the discusssion before now.

One more time with more emphases: The Roman Rite Catholic Church’s “policy” regarding celibacy is biblical, following the example of Christ Himself as well as the Apostle Paul. The Eastern Rite Catholic Church’s “policy” of ordaining married men is also biblical. Either way, the Catholic Church is right.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[jemfinch]

There is nothing ignorant about my comments in this thread.

“Ignorant” isn’t always an insult; sometimes “lacking in knowledge” is the most charitable way to explain someone’s persistence on an issue.

This is an issue that even your own Church is not united on

Do you understand the difference between doctrine and practice? Do you understand why the Church doesn’t have to be “united” on this issue? This is a matter of freedom, and there is no need for Catholic Churches all to assume the same practice in this regard.

However, I did think that we were having a discussion about the theological grounds for (or against) the Catholic Church’s discipline regarding the celibacy of priests, not making personal attacks.

Calling you ignorant does not amount to a personal attack; I don’t know how otherwise to explain your recalcitrance on this issue. Do you disagree, as a matter of prudence, with the practice of the Roman Church not to ordain married men as priests? If so, then make your argument on matters of prudence. Do you feel that the Bible only supports ordaining married priests, not celibate priests? Then explain the biblical preference for celibacy. Do you feel that it’s outside the Church’s power to practice clerical celibacy? Then make your argument as to why “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” doesn’t apply to the requirements of the priesthood.

But don’t just be obstinate without making an argument, otherwise what recourse have we but to explain your behavior as ignorant?

Jeremy

 

[rr1213]

Calling you ignorant does not amount to a personal attack; I don’t know how otherwise to explain your recalcitrance on this issue…But don’t just be obstinate without making an argument, otherwise what recourse have we but to explain your behavior as ignorant?
Jeremy

I’ve explained myself based on Scripture and reason.

There is a tendency I’ve observed about many Catholic posters both here and at CARM. Catholics often assume that if a Protestant disagrees with the Catholic position then that Protestant must either have sinful motives or, in the charitable cases, simply does not understand the Catholic teaching. When the Catholic explains himself, he gets frustrated if the Protestant does not acknowledge the truth of the Catholic teaching. In the eyes of the Catholic, the Protestant is now willfully obstinate. I suppose that Catholics feel this way because, as the “One True Church”, anyone who is intelligent enough to understand the Church’s teachings must be sinful or obstinate if they do not accept that teaching. (FWIW, I’ve seen a similar response from Protestants when they cite Scripture to Catholics and Catholics persist in interpreting that Scripture different from the Protestant interpretation).

Folks, if the equation was that simple I think we would not have 500 years of separation on the Protestant side and 1,000 years on the Orthodox side. At times, there simply remain areas where Protestants and Catholics disagree theologically. That does not make us obstinate nor ignorant.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I’ve explained myself based on Scripture and reason.

There is a tendency I’ve observed about many Catholic posters both here and at CARM. Catholics often assume that if a Protestant disagrees with the Catholic position then that Protestant must either have sinful motives or, in the charitable cases, simply does not understand the Catholic teaching. When the Catholic explains himself, he gets frustrated if the Protestant does not acknowledge the truth of the Catholic teaching. In the eyes of the Catholic, the Protestant is now willfully obstinate. I suppose that Catholics feel this way because, as the “One True Church”, anyone who is intelligent enough to understand the Church’s teachings must be sinful or obstinate if they do not accept that teaching. (FWIW, I’ve seen a similar response from Protestants when they cite Scripture to Catholics and Catholics persist in interpreting that Scripture different from the Protestant interpretation).

Folks, if the equation was that simple I think we would not have 500 years of separation on the Protestant side and 1,000 years on the Orthodox side. At times, there simply remain areas where Protestants and Catholics disagree theologically. That does not make us obstinate nor ignorant.

Your statement might be meaningful and considered sincere if your comments were couched in the context of “Scripture allows priests to be married and I disagree with the prudential decision to require extra-ordinary requirements”. On matters of prudence, the Church always allows that disagreement does not necessarily impute to violations of Truth. Catholics respect that your tradition allows for and might even encourage married clergy. Instead, your argument is since it is allowed it is preferable and thus the Church’s prudential decision is wrong.

Whether your position is grounded in being obstinate or ignorant, there was never a single time that you acknowledged that criteria for clergy was a perogative of the church. Where is it in the Bible that clergy have to be at least a certain age but I’m sure that you don’t advocate teen clergy? Wouldn’t it be within the rights of a religion to determine that the clergy must have a minimum level of acceptable seminary training (acceptable meaning that a Baptist clergy must have attended a Baptist seminary)? Wouldn’t it be within the right of a church to determine that their clergy may not hold secular jobs or even require that they do hold secular jobs?

So it is with regard to Latin Rite clergy. The Catholic Church has determined that the requirements of the job preclude the Priest from having any vocation (secular or married) other than the Priesthood. While allowed in Scripture (and even within the Church in certain circumstances), the Catholic Church has selected for its model of Priesthood Jesus, Paul, John et. al. who all lived a celibate single life.

You see that what is allowed as thus de facto ideal. But many times Christ conceded that He chose to allow things that were less than the ideal because the heart is weak. The Catholic Church in its prudential judgment has determined to hold their Priests to what they believe is ideal based on the requirements of the Priesthood.

Essentially, and this my friend is why the reaction to your posts were so firm is your tone of demanding the Church conform to your concept of right on a prudential matter (striving for the highest standard even though a lower standard is allowed) while totally dismissing the many responses as “not pursuasive.” Catholics don’t engage with non-Catholic posters (some who are concurrently anti-Catholic) with expectations to persuade you but to explain why we do as we do. This is expecially true in a matter of prudential judgment (discipline) vs. a theological concept such as the divinity of Christ.

 

[jemfinch]

I’ve explained myself based on Scripture and reason.

And likewise we’ve explained ourselves. What you haven’t done is explained what it is you find unsatisfactory about our replies.

When the Catholic explains himself, he gets frustrated if the Protestant does not acknowledge the truth of the Catholic teaching.

I’m not frustrated with you because you don’t acknowledge “the truth of the Catholic teaching” (nevermind, again, that we’re not talking about a Catholic teaching, but a Roman Catholic practice). I’m only somewhat frustrated because I can’t figure out what you want from me. If you want a well-reasoned, Scriptural, logical, historical response, I feel that I’ve given that to you. If you want capitulation, I can’t give you that: I agree with the Church that it is most prudent to require priests to be celibate. But I’m happy to discuss our differences if you’ll interact with me!

In the eyes of the Catholic, the Protestant is now willfully obstinate.

You don’t seem “willfully obstinate” so much as disagreeable. That is, you’re disagreeing with us – I can see that much. But I can’t figure out what exactly you’re disagreeing about, and what the relevance of that disagreement is. I don’t glory in our disagreements – I see them as an opportunity to try to reconcile. But I simply can’t tell, after your initial post, what it is that you find unsatisfactory about the explanations provided and why you and I still have a disagreement that needs to be emphasized.

Let me compare this situation to me and Joe Schmoe, a random Catholic who supports removing the requirement of clerical celibacy. Here’s how that conversation would go:

Joe: I think the Church should allow married priests.
Me: It does, in special circumstances (for instance, priests “coming home” to Catholicism but already married).
Joe: I think it should allow married priests in all circumstances, not just special ones.
Me: But Scripture clearly says that it’s preferable to be single than to be married.
Joe: I recognize that, but that’s a preference, not a mandate. The Church is making it a mandate, unwarrantedly.
Me: The Church has that power, because it has the Keys.
Joe: I recognize that, but as a matter of prudence, I think it should change the practice of requiring celibacy for priests.
Me: We can discuss that prudential decision, or we can just agree to disagree, because our difference is not doctrinal, but practical.
Joe: Either one sounds good to me.

This thread has many of those parts, but it’s missing that last part: the part where both parties recognize that it’s a valid, permissible point of disagreement. Do you not think it’s a permissible point of disagreemnt? Make your argument. Tell us why the Keys don’t give the Church the power to strengthen the requirements for the priesthood. As yet, all I can tell is that our answers don’t satisfy you, but I can’t tell why they don’t satisfy you.

I suppose that Catholics feel this way because, as the “One True Church”, anyone who is intelligent enough to understand the Church’s teachings must be sinful or obstinate if they do not accept that teaching.

Or they’re not applying the proper criteria in the search for an answer.

(FWIW, I’ve seen a similar response from Protestants when they cite Scripture to Catholics and Catholics persist in interpreting that Scripture different from the Protestant interpretation).

Yeah, it can get annoying.

rr1213, this is what I’d like to hear from you: If you still disagree with the people here defending the Roman practice of clerical celibacy, explain whether you feel that we can permissibly disagree about this. As far as I know, the Church says we can permissibly disagree about this. If you don’t feel that we can permissibly disagree about this, then explain why you don’t find the Scriptural, reasonable answers we’ve submitted to be satisfactory.

At times, there simply remain areas where Protestants and Catholics disagree theologically.

As has been noted, this is not a theological disagreement, it’s a practical disagreement.

Jeremy