Celibacy, Scripture and Tradition

[Omyo12]

With Father Cutie all over the news and his disappointing conversion to the Episcopal Church, I would like to talk about Celibacy…

I understand this is not a dogma and therefore not part of the Church’s infallible teachings.
This also means that it is possible for it to be changed in the future.

I know St. Paul was not married and even promoted celibacy in a way.

However:

1 Corinthians 7 (Douay-Rheims)
8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

So my question is, should a priest be require to be celibate? or just strongly encouraged?

Can anyone quote a Church Father who promoted requiring priests to be celibate?
How about other Scriptural passages?

I now would like to add at this point that I do not intend to call for a change in canon law.
Nor do I refuse to accept celibacy. Being a Catholic I accept the Church’s teaching on the matter and I think what Father Cutie did was unacceptable.

However, I do not want to consider celibacy as “complete truth” since it is not dogma.
If the Vatican changes its policy on celibacy, that would put me at a dilemma:

Jehovah’s Witnesses accept all of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society’s teachings as complete truth and whenever a policy is changed they call it “new light” even though it sometimes contradicts the “old light”

 

[TMC]

Celibacy is not a tenet of faith, it is a discipline asked of the ordained. There have always been those in the Church that favor celibacy, and those that do not, so I am sure you could find quotes both ways from every period of Church history. For example, Paul was celibate, but Peter was not. The Church has required it in modern times, but did not for about a thousand years.

 

[Godfollower]

Most of the Catholic Church does not require celibacy; only the Roman Rite does. All of the other rites – I’m talking about parts of the Catholic Church, who answer to the Pope in Rome – allow married priests. In addition, the Roman Rite on occasion allows married clergy: married men may become deacons; widowed deacons may sometimes obtain permission to remarry (usually because they need help raising small children); and some married men – such as married Episcopal priests who convert to Catholicism – may obtain permission to take Holy Orders as priests of the Roman Rite.

Celibacy is just a rule; it is not an article of faith. In that regard, it is just like the rule that pastors have to have parish finance councils, and bishops have to have diocesan finance councils; it is required by canon law for the Roman Rite, but it is merely a rule that is thought to have good results. In canonical terms, it is “merely ecclesiastical” law: it is law, but it is only law written by the Church and can be changed by the Church; it is not law issued by God that the Church cannot change.

 

[banjo]

Celibacy is not a tenet of faith, it is a discipline asked of the ordained. There have always been those in the Church that favor celibacy, and those that do not, so I am sure you could find quotes both ways from every period of Church history. For example, Paul was celibate, but Peter was not. The Church has required it in modern times, but did not for about a thousand years.

There is no indication in Sacred Scripture that Peter was not celibate after he was called by Christ. The first mention I could find of ceibacy for the clergy is from the Council of Illiberi (300/306).

 

[huskerfreak22]

Many sects in communion with Holy Mother Church allow priests to be married AS LONG AS they are married before they become a priest. However, as Christians we are called to imitate the life of Christ especially priests, and, since Christ was celibate, it is good practice to do the same. I am not bashing married people at all as long as they are chaste just saying that priests are often called to greater detachment from this world.

St. Augustine regarded those that are celibate in a “higher status” but still does not say that marriage is wrong and actually is very good since it is from God.

 

[po18guy]

Fr. Cutie´ broke his vows and cheated on the Lord. He has revealed the current state of his heart by doing not only this, but also by renouncing his Holy Order, and his Church. He is in great need of prayer. However, he is the exception which proves the rule. There are not hundreds or thousands of these cases, but only a few. This case has tended to prove the efficacy of the discipline, rather than the failure of it.

From scriptural evidence, the only Apostle who was married was Peter, since we know he had a mother-in-law. We do not know if his wife was living at the time. There is no scriptural evidence that any other Apostle was married. I would tend to think not, since they were itinerant in nature, as they remain today. How is the Archbishop supposed to exercise his ecclesiastic authority in transferring priests if a family is also uprooted at the same time? Consider the scriptures:

Saint Paul wrote about this to the Corinthians

1 Corinthians 7:32-35 “I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—and 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. I 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.”

Now, the target of his writings I do not know. It could have been the average believer, or the leaders. I know of no “bible only” church which follows this scripture, interestingly enough. Saint Paul was worried about immorailty in the early church and wrote this:

1 Corinthians 7 "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The 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. Do 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. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I 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 is not the only one who spoke of celibacy. Our Lord also advised:

Matthew 19:12 “For 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.”

 

[Omyo12]

Fr. Cutie´ broke his vows and cheated on the Lord. He has revealed the current state of his heart by doing not only this, but also by renouncing his Holy Order, and his Church. He is in great need of prayer. However, he is the exception which proves the rule. There are not hundreds or thousands of these cases, but only a few. This case has tended to prove the efficacy of the discipline, rather than the failure of it.

From scriptural evidence, the only Apostle who was married was Peter, since we know he had a mother-in-law. We do not know if his wife was living at the time. There is no scriptural evidence that any other Apostle was married. I would tend to think not, since they were itinerant in nature, as they remain today. How is the Archbishop supposed to exercise his ecclesiastic authority in transferring priests if a family is also uprooted at the same time? Consider the scriptures:

Saint Paul wrote about this to the Corinthians

1 Corinthians 7:32-35 “I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—and 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. I 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.”

Now, the target of his writings I do not know. It could have been the average believer, or the leaders. I know of no “bible only” church which follows this scripture, interestingly enough. Saint Paul was worried about immorailty in the early church and wrote this:

1 Corinthians 7 "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The 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. Do 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. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I 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 is not the only one who spoke of celibacy. Our Lord also advised:

Matthew 19:12 “For 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.”

I see your ideas, however, all I can conclude is that priests should be strongly encouraged not to marry. Not restricted.

As you stated, there are only a few cases. I’m sure if the restriction is lifted but celibacy is still strongly encouraged, most priests will continue to be celibate. For those few who do decide to marry, as St. Paul stated: “Let him do what we will”

You quoted 1 Corinthians 7:32-35, however the following verses read:

36 But if any man think that he seemeth dishonoured, with regard to his virgin, for that she is above the age, and it must so be: let him do what he will; he sinneth not, if she marry. 37 For he that hath determined being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will; and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well. 38 Therefore, both he that giveth his virgin in marriage, doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better.

Yes, it is better for a man not to marry, however if he does it is not bad.

"I 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." 1 Corinthians 7:35

 

[Godfollower]

I see your ideas, however, all I can conclude is that priests should be strongly encouraged not to marry. Not restricted.

As you stated, there are only a few cases. I’m sure if the restriction is lifted but celibacy is still strongly encouraged, most priests will continue to be celibate. For those few who do decide to marry, as St. Paul stated: “Let him do what we will”

You quoted 1 Corinthians 7:32-35, however the following verses read:

Yes, it is better for a man not to marry, however if he does it is not bad.

"I 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." 1 Corinthians 7:35

And if a married Catholic wishes to become a priest, he may do so. There are quite a few branches of the Church that allow married priests: the Antiochean (e.g., Syriac), Byzantine (e.g., Armenian, Byzantine), and Alexandrian (e.g., Coptic, Ethiopian, Abyssinian) families of liturgical rites all allow married priests. It is only the Roman family of rites that generally does not allow married priests. But they all answer equally to the Pope and acknowledge Catholic teaching.

 

[po18guy]

Notice something: How the focus has shifted from a cheating, unfaithful priest to the Church? “After all, he’s only a man, and who is that big bad old-fashioned church to tell him he must remain single?” That’s a sleight of hand trick that the evil one uses to his advantage. It all serves to bring even greater criticism upon the Church.

The root word of disciple is discipline. A Church without discipline has no disciples. That’s how I see it.

 

[Omyo12]

Notice something: How the focus has shifted from a cheating, unfaithful priest to the Church? “After all, he’s only a man, and who is that big bad old-fashioned church to tell him he must remain single?” That’s a sleight of hand trick that the evil one uses to his advantage. It all serves to bring even greater criticism upon the Church.

The root word of disciple is discipline. A Church without discipline has no disciples. That’s how I see it.

Hmm, considering your point, I shouldn’t have started with a reference to Mr. Cutie since this is really not the point of what I’m saying. My intended focus was never on Mr. Cutie to begin with…

Mr. Cutie indeed had no discipline in controlling his sexual needs and I am in no way defending him.

However what I am discussing is the practice itself. It is good and should be strongly encouraged for a man entering the priesthood to CHOOSE to be celibate. As many of my fellow Catholics have stated, this is only REQUIRED in the Roman Rite. So what I’m saying is not “Cutie is not at fault” but in the broader sense of things, is this requirement necessary?

 

[po18guy]

Hmm, considering your point, I shouldn’t have started with a reference to Mr. Cutie since this is really not the point of what I’m saying. My intended focus was never on Mr. Cutie to begin with…

Mr. Cutie indeed had no discipline in controlling his sexual needs and I am in no way defending him.

However what I am discussing is the practice itself. It is good and should be strongly encouraged for a man entering the priesthood to CHOOSE to be celibate. As many of my fellow Catholics have stated, this is only REQUIRED in the Roman Rite. So what I’m saying is not “Cutie is not at fault” but in the broader sense of things, is this requirement necessary?

Look at it this way: praying a Rosary is not required to be a good Catholic. Neither is spending holy hours with our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Both, which are devotions (or disciplines if you will), provide supernatural benefits when practiced. Thus it is with celibacy. Especially so since we are called to live not for this life, but for the next. On the day when a priest sits in the judgment seat of Christ, and our Lord sees that he denied himself by remaining celibate for the sake of the Kingdom, it most certainly will be credited to him as righteousness. As they say, that is a “good thing”.

Compare and contrast this with the ascetic monks and brothers, who deny themselves almost everything out of love for our Lord. Celibate priests live almost in luxury by comparison.

 

[Omyo12]

Look at it this way: praying a Rosary is not required to be a good Catholic. Neither is spending holy hours with our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Both, which are devotions (or disciplines if you will), provide supernatural benefits when practiced. Thus it is with celibacy. Especially so since we are called to live not for this life, but for the next. On the day when a priest sits in the judgment seat of Christ, and our Lord sees that he denied himself by remaining celibate for the sake of the Kingdom, it most certainly will be credited to him as righteousness. As they say, that is a “good thing”.

Compare and contrast this with the ascetic monks and brothers, who deny themselves almost everything out of love for our Lord. Celibate priests live almost in luxury by comparison.

:ehh:

are you just not reading my notes?

I keep stressing time and time again, that is it BETTER for a priest to be celibate. Do you simply skim over that statement??

I can try and explain my point again more clearly if you want… cause it’s not what you’re arguing against

 

[Cashue]

The bible forbids fornication, so of course in order for a priest to NOT be celibate and have sex he would first have to be married. Of course the bible says in 1 Timothy 4: 3 condemns those that “forbid marriage” but that is only for those outside of the church, forbiding certain men to marry is not condemned by 1 Timothy 4: 3.

Peter (the first catholic pope) was married but he did not of course have sex with his wife. Paul said married people can agree not to have sex, so this is of course what Peter and his wife must have done. They never had sex after he became a christian.

As has been said, it is better for a man to be single (and not have sex) that way he can concentrate on the things of the Lord although, it is of course not a sin for a man to marry. A Priest can of course marry (he is not forbidden) but if he does he simply cannot continue to be a priest.

 

[Omyo12]

The bible forbids fornication, so of course in order for a priest to NOT be celibate and have sex he would first have to be married. Of course the bible says in 1 Timothy 4: 3 condemns those that “forbid marriage” but that is only for those outside of the church, forbiding certain men to marry is not condemned by 1 Timothy 4: 3.

Peter (the first catholic pope) was married but he did not of course have sex with his wife. Paul said married people can agree not to have sex, so this is of course what Peter and his wife must have done. They never had sex after he became a christian.

As has been said, it is better for a man to be single (and not have sex) that way he can concentrate on the things of the Lord although, it is of course not a sin for a man to marry. A Priest can of course marry (he is not forbidden) but if he does he simply cannot continue to be a priest.

Ok, fair enough. So what of a man already married? should he be forbidden to become a priest?

(I’m speaking in the context of Roman Rite)

Also, I completely agree that a priest is better celibate. And since I am a Catholic, I support this law as part of the Church against those who claim it to be “unbiblical”

However, IMHO, I don’t think a priest should be necessarily restricted by code of canon law but should be by the priest’s own piety. He chooses to remain celibate and loyal to God by his own will, and not because he is technically restricted by law.

In the end, base on my own views, the canon law is very minuscule. Even if the law is lifted tomorrow, I will still support strong encouragement of celibacy and its continuation by tradition. The only difference is the free will of the priest and his virtue.

one could also argue- “well the fact he chooses to be a priest even though he is restricted to marry is piety enough”

with which I would agree. However for a priest, choosing to be celibate even though you’re allowed to marry and still preach seems more pious at least to me.

— but now that means the priest is tempted to marry and have relations. Something the Church should not do…

Ah, I think the root of my concern is this: what if a man is married and his wife one day leaves and moves to another town and he looses contact with her. He then turns to God and truly finds God and wants to become a Roman Catholic priest, is he forbidden because he is technically married?

Great thread, this is really great faith building for me

…also on a side note. Where does it say Peter did not have sex with his wife? This is not meant to be a confrontational question, but can you provide a Scriptural passage or a Church Father who made this statement? I’m sorry, I’m just weary of taking people’s claims at face value…

 

[peregrinus_sg]

When I was studying in the University, I read a book that discussed how the Latin Church’s discipline of priestly celibacy was a natural development of a custom that originated from the apostles. Part of the scriptural text used was St Paul’s instruction in the pastoral letters, which specified that the bishop or elder should be “the husband of one wife”. The author argued that the phrase was not about polygamy (since all polygamy was a strict no-no for all Christians), nor remarriage after divorce (since this is forbidden strictly for all Christians also), but was about remarriage for widowers: St Paul was saying that widowers who had remarried cannot be ordained. Combined with archeological evidences, the author suggested that by the time the pastoral letters were written, bishops and elders were expected to live in continence, even if they have wives, from the point of their ordination. Thus, widowers who remarried were judged incapable of living continent lives and were thus unsuitable candidates for ordination.

I cannot be sure about the title, but I think it is the “Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy” by Christian Cochini.

 

[TMC]

There is no indication in Sacred Scripture that Peter was not celibate after he was called by Christ. The first mention I could find of ceibacy for the clergy is from the Council of Illiberi (300/306).

Peter was married, and Paul notes that Peter took his wife with him on his travels, as did other apostles. (1 Cor 9:5). There is no explicit mention of their intimate practices, but also no suggestion that they were celibate. It is true that many have supposed or speculated that Peter became celibate, but there is nothing in the bible to support the idea.

 

[Cashue]

Ok, fair enough. So what of a man already married? should he be forbidden to become a priest?

(I’m speaking in the context of Roman Rite)

Also, I completely agree that a priest is better celibate. And since I am a Catholic, I support this law as part of the Church against those who claim it to be “unbiblical”

However, IMHO, I don’t think a priest should be necessarily restricted by code of canon law but should be by the priest’s own piety. He chooses to remain celibate and loyal to God by his own will, and not because he is technically restricted by law.

In the end, base on my own views, the canon law is very minuscule. Even if the law is lifted tomorrow, I will still support strong encouragement of celibacy and its continuation by tradition. The only difference is the free will of the priest and his virtue.

one could also argue- “well the fact he chooses to be a priest even though he is restricted to marry is piety enough”

with which I would agree. However for a priest, choosing to be celibate even though you’re allowed to marry and still preach seems more pious at least to me.

— but now that means the priest is tempted to marry and have relations. Something the Church should not do…

Ah, I think the root of my concern is this: what if a man is married and his wife one day leaves and moves to another town and he looses contact with her. He then turns to God and truly finds God and wants to become a Roman Catholic priest, is he forbidden because he is technically married?

Great thread, this is really great faith building for me

…also on a side note. Where does it say Peter did not have sex with his wife? This is not meant to be a confrontational question, but can you provide a Scriptural passage or a Church Father who made this statement? I’m sorry, I’m just weary of taking people’s claims at face value…

No, if a man is married and wants to be a priest he should not be “forbidden” but since Catholic tradition says that a Priest should make a personal choice to be celebate he should leave his wife and children and then he can concentrate on spiritual things. Or he should request the Pope directly if he can remain married and serve as a priest.

Like I said earlier, when Paul condemned those that forbade marriage he was talking to everyone that isn’t Catholic, that scripture does not apply to the holy church.

You are right, priest should ultimately be like you and should be guided important by personal conviction than canonical law, what the bible says is just a “miniscule” part of what God really wants, so if " the priest is tempted to marry and have relations" as you put it, he is of course free to do so, its better if he is pure for the Lord, but it is his personal code of conduct not a “law” that should be primarily listened to of course.

I’m not sure on the details but if a man’s wife leaves him and he turns to the priesthood, then he should normally be free to get a divorce and do so, but there are those more educated in church law to clarify that point.

On the same line, of course I cannot say for sure that Peter never had sex, but I cannot imagine the Pope going to bed with his wife and havign sex every night, so since Peter was the first Pope I can only presume he either left his wife or refrained from having sex so he could remain pure in the Lord. It seems reasonable to me but again, maybe someone more educated as to church tradition can clarify what Peter did with his wife after he found the Lord (maybe she died or left him)…

Yes, as someone that is unmarried and of course therefore living without sex I find this thread very encouraging. Reaching middle age its not an easy path but its good to know there are many of the faithful that have chosen a life of complete celibacy like myself.

Thank you for this thread.

 

[po18guy]

:ehh:

are you just not reading my notes?

I keep stressing time and time again, that is it BETTER for a priest to be celibate. Do you simply skim over that statement??

I can try and explain my point again more clearly if you want… cause it’s not what you’re arguing against

I am reading between the lines. “BETTER to be celibate” implies that it could be GOOD not to be. Since we are not priests, why do we concern ourselves so much with the disciplines that they voluntarily vow to uphold out of love of God? That is my point. Is there a massive up-rising of the celibate in protest? No. Is defining Church discipline down the way to obtain more vocations? History says no. The American Church tried that in the 60s and 70s and Dioceses are now being bankrupted because of it.

The Lord is providing many vocations. It’s just that they are from Asia and Africa. Praise God!

 

[NoelFitz]

**huskerfreak22 **

I read

Many sects in communion with Holy Mother Church allow priests to be married AS LONG AS they are married before they become a priest. However, as Christians we are called to imitate the life of Christ especially priests, and, since Christ was celibate, it is good practice to do the same. I am not bashing married people at all as long as they are chaste just saying that priests are often called to greater detachment from this world.

I presume you mean rites, not sects.

Are you saying lay people cannot imitate the life of Christ, which Christians are called on to do?

What do you mean by married people being chaste?

I am also interested to read:

Peter (the first catholic pope) was married but he did not of course have sex with his wife.

I never knbew that.

Has the Church decided that it is better for the Faithful to be deprived of the Mass, rather than have married priests?