Celibacy vs. Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andyman1517
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The reason that I would not agree with married priests is because it is not tradition and is not sanctioned by the Church (I’m sorry if that’s not a satisfying answer on my part personally 🙂 I believe that the Church is the instrument of God, and that if things are done this way, it is because they ought to be done this way.)
Click to expand...
The Church DOES sanction married priests, even in the Latin Rite, just in special circumstances. It’s something that can indeed wax and wane in practice. It’s definately a tradition in the Latin Rite to not have married priests, but it’s not a Tradition 😉
 
Andyman1517,

Some Fundamentalists and Reformed Protestants who are quite literate, will never be satisfied with the Catholic answer to their question.

**Andyman 1517, I would suggest that you brush up a bit on what you think that you understand about the Holy Mother Church. You have some misunderstandings. **

**Bishop J. Fulton Sheen of New York was a famous TV personality and author in the 1950s. He said, there are hundreds of people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church: but, there are millions of people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church for what they misunderstand about the Church. **

Such men as Jack Chick, Jimmy Swaggart and Tony Alamo are Professional Anti-Catholics. Often they promote anti-Catholic foolishness out of pure ignorance about the Catholic Church. Your ignorance is showing through.

It is acceptable to ask, but when you are answered, why act like Jimmy Swaggart and ignore the answer - and twist the question again? That is not profitable. Or maybe you are just fishing for a Catholic you can outwit.
 
Hello Andyman and all,

I think allowing additional married priests may be good. I have given many reasons in other threads.

Jesus and St. Paul both spoke of the good of celibacy. However, I do not understand the strict requirement for clergy and I don’t see this in Scripture.

At the same time, we must remember that some of the full meanings of Scripture and practices of the Church are known by the Church based on experience starting with Peter, Paul and the apostles. These unwritten “words” are contained in Christ’s living body - His Church.

Therefore, I usually raise no question regarding Church teaching and its relationship to Scripture. In fact I have been enlightened by Church teaching regarding Scripture. However, this one issue of the practice of the requirement of celibacy actually seems to slightly contradict Scripture since “bishop of one wife” certainly seems to allow for both celibate and married priests. Some people say that doesn’t mean a bishop must be married and I agree, but it certainly doesn’t seem to authorize a strict requirement of celibacy and it certainly seems to allow a bishop to be married.

Greg
 
Andyman1517 said:
2a. Not having experienced sexual intercourse; virginal.

Come on Rich, we all know what we’re talking about here, lets not be pedantic about it. Besides definition 2a appears to blatantly say that being chaste means not having sex. 😉
Click to expand...

In marriage, “chastity” means coming together conjugally with one’s spouse frequently and with relish! :love:

For scholarly documentation on bishops and their wives in the early Church forsaking their conjugal privileges after ordination, see Christian Cochini’s book, *Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy. *
 
40.png
Cherub:
I would say to that that a married person who would be a priest might also not be a spiritual person. There have been priests (even Popes) in the Church who were not especially spiritual, yet they functioned in the spiritual capacity and performed the spiritual works.

The reason that I would not agree with married priests is because it is not tradition and is not sanctioned by the Church (I’m sorry if that’s not a satisfying answer on my part personally 🙂 I believe that the Church is the instrument of God, and that if things are done this way, it is because they ought to be done this way.)
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the married priests of our Eastern Rite brothers are not as spritual as our Latin Rite priests? What about the Anglicans and Lutherans who converted and were accepted as Latin Rite priests? :confused:
 
40.png
mercygate:
For scholarly documentation on bishops and their wives in the early Church forsaking their conjugal privileges after ordination, see Christian Cochini’s book, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy.
Click to expand...
In Scripture, “bishop of one wife” certainly seems to allow for both celibate and married priests. Some people say that doesn’t mean a bishop must be married and I agree, but it certainly doesn’t seem to authorize a strict requirement of celibacy and it certainly seems to allow a bishop to be married.

Greg
 
The original question seems to focus on the issue of the value of celibacy in the priesthood, and why we have nearly universal celibacy in the priesthood.

Celibacy, as any other charism or gift, is of great value to the Church as a witness to our relation to Christ and the Trinity, both now and in the afterlife. Because of problems in the Church, specifically in the Roman Rite, including various clergy with concubines (as if a wife wasn’t enough!), and further issues of inheritance, and perhaps a not very well developed theology of marriage, celibacy was imposed as a rule.

The fact that it is near universal has much to do with the fact that in the Catholic Church, the dominant rite is the Roman rite. I do not know enough of the statistics to know what would happen to those figures if all of the Orthodox were to suddenly reunite with Rome; I suspect that the Roman rite would not be so nearly dominant, but probably still the largest (there are what? 20? 22 other rites?).

It would seem to me that if celibacy is such a gift in relationship to the priesthood, and if it is such a fine tradition, then making it optional should cause no problems at all: it will “sell” itself. Making it optional should see little, or no change in those presenting themselves to the Church as candidates for ordination if it is so truly linked. I submit that the link is less than those who so vehemently defend it would have.

And should it be made optional ( and I would assume, widely and strongly promoted), and we then have a significant number of married men presenting themselves as candidates, then for heavens sake, what harm or evil has prevailed?

Almost all objections that I read in this and other threads, and in other discussions show an abysmal ignorance of the other rites in union with Rome. They are also objections that have nothing to do with the intrinsic nature of priesthood, and often sound an awful lot like Jansenism; somehow sex is at least slightly dirty, and certainly hardly sacramental. I see no threat to either marriage or priesthood by optional celibacy. In no way do I suggest that celibacy should be “done away with”. Nor do I suggest that it is a cure for any crisis in vocations (which crisis may be more of a local issue than universal; local to North America and Europe). I just think it is more honest to admit these are really two different vocations, and neither is dependent on the other.
 
Andyman1517 said:
2a. Not having experienced sexual intercourse; virginal.

Come on Rich, we all know what we’re talking about here, lets not be pedantic about it. Besides definition 2a appears to blatantly say that being chaste means not having sex. 😉
Click to expand...

Apparently you have re-read the defination since this post. But just in case you haven’t, 2b clearly refers to unlawful sex, such as adultery. So, yes the married priests and bishops could live a chaste life and still have sexual relations with their wives.
 
Holy Mother Church has better reasons than the simple reasons I will post, BUT:
  1. Jesus was celibate as were the early Church Fathers, there was a reason. Holy Mother Church didn’t do this on a whim!
  2. If a man is to take on a lifetime in the clergy and possiby be moved, advance to a high position in which teaching faith and morals to the layity is his responsibility- then we want a man DEVOTED TO GOD, JESUS & the HOLY SPIRIT - not Encombered with a family. Like the Marines : We Need a Few Good Men.:clapping:
3*. We have 3 permanent priests in my parish, a school of 8 grades and two sisters. The upkeep is very high. Now if we had three married priests and two married nuns - how much more would it cost?
 
Exporter:
  1. The early church fathers were not necesarily celibate. I have no idea where you got this from.
  2. There are Catholic priests who are married, just typically not in the Latin Rite (which my thread focuses on). To say that these priests cannot devote enough time to their duties because they are “encumbered” with families is to speak heretically.
  3. The solution to this problem is easy: Give more money. Catholics, for the most part, go to Mass every Sunday but typically give very little compared to other denominations.
 
Exporter: “Holy Mother Church” did not do this.

The Roman rite within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church did it. You are confusing the Roman rite of the Catholic Church with the Catholic Church, an all too common occurance. Furthermore, there have been married clergy in the Roman rite ( and it amuses me that, while some who were married may have chosen, after ordination to remain continent, people attempt to prove from that, or at least imply, that all did), and there are married clergy now in the Roman rite.

Various other rites of the Catholic church continue to ordain married men.

What does marriage, or the lack of marriage, have to do with teaching faith and morals? Are you implying that celibacy somehow leads to truth, and marriage doesn’t?

And given that marriage is a sacrament and celibacy is not, how do you come to the conclusion that one who is married is not devoted to the Trinity? Never mind the slam you just made to each and every married clergy (Roman rite converts, Eastern rite priests, and our growing order of married deacons, each one of whom are ordained). :nope:
 
Andyman wrote," To say that these priests cannot devote enough time to their duties because they are “encumbered” with families is to speak heretically."

“to speak heretically?” That cannot be. Celibacy IS A DISICIPLINE not a Doctrine.
To speak against a discipline is not heretical.

To speak heretically, one must speak against a DOCTRINE. Celibacy IS NOT a Doctrine. A heretic is one who maintains a religious belief or doctrine that is at variance with accepted church doctrine; therefore Andyman, I am not speaking heretically!

John of the Gospels and the Apocalypse along with Paul ( Saul) were never married.See 1Cor7:26 and 1Cor7:32-33.

Jimmy Swaggart and other Fundamentalists object to a celibate clergy based on one New Testament entry, 1Timothy4:1-3. They claim the Virgin Mary was not ever-virgin, contrary to thee Gospels.They hope to undermine the examples of Mary and Jesus by undermining priests and nuns.

Bishop Fulton Sheen remarked that usually the first thing to go with people who leave the Church is the belief in the Real Presence. Andyman has questioned the discipline of celibacy for priests of Holy Mother Church. It seems his objection is that it is “unnatural”. He is using a secular mentality as opposed to the Church’s spiritual reasoning.

I know that nothing Catholic will satisfy Andyman. He is trying to express his own private beliefs hoping he will find support. It could be that he is a masochist. The Church will not change.
 
Exporter,

Please don’t compare me to Jimmy Swaggart. I may not be a fundamentalist, but I do believe in the virgin birth. There are few christians out there who don’t. What I don’t believe is that Mary remained a virgin even after Jesus’ birth.

You may not technically be a heretic, but you certainly are one who shows a great deal of disrespect for Catholic priests outside the Latin Rite who are married.
 
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut AndyMan. I am a Catholic who thinks more married priests might be a good idea but I also accept that the magisterium may have more insight about this than I do.

You have a very reasonable attitude and you seem to be a sincere Protestant. You might like to see the threads on John 6 explaining the Eucharist.

Greg
 
Now Ghosty, use the correct terminology. According to the pope I am not a heretic, just a “seperated brethern” 😉
 
40.png
Andyman1517:
Now Ghosty, use the correct terminology. According to the pope I am not a heretic, just a “seperated brethern” 😉
Click to expand...
True. You would have to profess to be Catholic in order for that view of Mary to make you a heretic. As a protestant, you are merely “invicibly ignorant” of the truth of Marian dogma.

And a “separated brethren”, of course.

😉
 
First get and read the book: Sex and the Sacred City by Steven Kellmeyer. This is a meditation on the Theology of the Body. Then return to this posting.
 
Andyman,

Thank you for admitting your error. Thanks for admitting that I didn’t speak in a heretical manner.

Celibacy for religious in the Catholic Church is classified as a Discipline - Not a Doctrine.

Andyman I did not “compare” you to Jimmy Swaggart. You were never mentioned in the same sentence with J. Swaggart. :ehh:

A Question for you , Andyman.** Do you believe in the Real Presence?** That is the Doctrine that Jesus is in the Eucharist body, soul and divinity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top