Church report raises celibacy issue

[weller2]

What do you mean by debatable? When I hear that word, one definition that comes to mind is: there are comparable levels of evidence on both sides. Is that what you mean? Because I think there is tons of evidence for Jesus’ celibacy and zero for the other side.

No, there’s zero strong evidence either way in the primary sources.

While there are good arguments that Jesus was single, a major problem with orthodox interpretation is that it cannot convincingly explain the prominent role of Miriam of Magdala (she was the first witness to Resurrection!) and the rise of Gnosticism, which claimed to possess secret knowledge given by Jesus to her – despite the fact that Peter and his followers were always adamant that there is no secret knowledge of any kind. Rise of Gnosticism means that there had to be reasonable grounds for the claim that Miriam could posses a secret knowledge, although Peter did not. Logically, the only person with more access to Jesus than Peter would be his wife. I don’t want to get into whether the claims of Gnosticism were true, but its popularity in the first two centuries means that they had to be believable. So when someone 1800 years later says that Jesus was definitely not married, then I’m going to take this with a pinch of salt.

Anyway, a much better question to ask is: does it really matter if Jesus was married?

I think I may be misinterpreting you, because it seems as if there is a contradiction in your statement. In your first sentence you seem to say that celibacy drives people with abnormal sexuality into the priesthood, but then in your second sentence you seem to say that false assumptions about celibacy do this. I think there is a very big difference between the two. What do you think?

In a society which shuns homosexuals, all-male priesthood is the only refuge.

And the priesthood. Don’t forget that celibacy is required for most Catholic priests.

Religious orders are out of this world; diocesian priests are those we need in this world.

That verse is often misinterpreted that way, but it doesn’t actually require anybody to be married. The meaning is clarified by another place in 1 Timothy where that phrase is used – 1 Timothy 5:9. This says, “Let a widow be enrolled [who is] not less than 60 years [old], being [the] wife of one husband.”

Quote mining. Here is the the entire paragraph (Douay-Rheims):

2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,

3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity.

5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

Verse 4-5 makes no logical sense if we go with your interpretation. It’s absolutely clear that the writer of 1 Timothy meant that a bishop must be married with children.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Incorrect. Clerical celibacy is a prohibition on marriage, not on sexual contact. The former is illegal (usually results in defrocking), the latter is “merely” a sin, and carries no canonical sanction.

See canon 277.1 and 1087.

LOL.
I disagree with you BECAUSE of the exact canon law you cite. Here it is.
Perpetual continence…and therefore celibacy.

Can. 277 §1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.

§2. Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful.

§3. The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation.

According to Jimmy Akin that includes not just ordinary, regular sexual acts, but all sexual acts.

 

[weller2]

LOL.
I disagree with you BECAUSE of the exact canon law you cite. ]

There is no praxis of defrocking priests for maintaining sexual relations (except for relations with minors, and this is a relatively new development).

There is praxis of defrocking priests for entering marriage.

 

[dmar198]

No, there’s zero strong evidence either way in the primary sources.

How do you define strong evidence? I think that, at least in historical controversies, strong evidence ordinarily consists of evidence from at least one contemporary source with no evidence of a contrary position. I think we have that in favor of Jesus’ celibacy, and I have yet to see a single piece of evidence from any contemporary source that Jesus was married.

While there are good arguments that Jesus was single, a major problem with orthodox interpretation is that it cannot convincingly explain the prominent role of Miriam of Magdala

Didn’t several women have a prominent role? Why single out Mary Magadalene? I don’t think that’s reasonable, any more than it would be to single out Mary the sister of Martha or Salome. And if it’s not reasonable evidence, I don’t think it counts as evidence. What do you think of that counterargument?

and the rise of Gnosticism, which claimed to possess secret knowledge given by Jesus to her

I think the Gnostic beliefs about Jesus and Mary Magdalene are even more evidence that she wasn’t married to Jesus. One reason why is, many of the Gnostics explicitly tried to imitate Jesus’ celibacy, believing marriage to be sinful. The second-century Catholic writer St. Clement of Alexandria, who wrote his book Stromata at the height of Gnostic influence, wrote the following statement, referring to a popular sect of Gnostics: “[They] say outright that marriage is fornication and teach that it was introduced by the devil. They proudly say that they are imitating the Lord who neither married nor had any possession in this world, boasting that they understand the gospel better than anyone else.” (Stromata Book 3 Chapter 6 Paragraph 49 - 195 A.D.)

He goes on to explain why Jesus was unmarried: “Further, they do not know the reason why the Lord did not marry. In the first place he had his own bride, the Church; and in the next place he was no ordinary man that he should also be in need of some helpmeet after the flesh. Nor was it necessary for him to beget children since he abides eternally and was born the only Son of God.” (ibid.)

St. Clement goes on to use Jesus’ statements about marriage not existing in heaven to prove that Jesus was unmarried, because He came from heaven and part of His earthly purpose was to bear witness to the heavenly life. This second-century author is a very early witness to the Catholic tradition concerning Jesus’ celibacy, and he provides evidence that at least one popular sect of the Gnostics agreed, but for the wrong reasons.

In addition to this, we have no record in any Gnostic document, nor in any of the systematic refutations of Gnosticism by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and others, that any Gnostic thought Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married.

From all this, I think we can safely infer that the Gnostics believed Jesus and Mary Magdalene were unmarried. What do you think?

 

[dmar198]

Rise of Gnosticism means that there had to be reasonable grounds for the claim that Miriam could posses a secret knowledge, although Peter did not.

I’m not so sure that’s true. I think people can be duped by unreasonable claims, and that seems to be what happened to converts to Gnosticism, at least according to St. Hippolytus. “Hoodwinking therefore multitudes, he led on many of this description who had become his disciples, by teaching them that they were prone, no doubt, to sin, but beyond the reach of danger, from the fact of their belonging to the perfect power, and of their being participators in the inconceivable potency.” (Refutation of All Heresies Book 6 Chapter 36)

From this, it appears to me that the Gnostics duped their converts with dubious moral teachings, appeals to peoples’ desire to be something special, and (if you read the context) public performances of power over nature. Claims about Mary Magdalene’s “secret knowledge” do not appear to have been a prime reason people converted to Gnosticism, at least not from St. Hippolytus’ testimony. I can’t find any reference to Mary Magdalene in either Hippolytus’ refutation of Gnosticism or in Irenaeus’ or in Epiphanius’.

Logically, the only person with more access to Jesus than Peter would be his wife.

I don’t think the Gnostic documents claim that Mary Magdalene had more access to Jesus than Peter, just that His friendship with her was fuller than with the other disciples. Where are you getting your information?

I don’t want to get into whether the claims of Gnosticism were true, but its popularity in the first two centuries means that they had to be believable.

I explained earlier why I don’t think that’s true. What do you think of my argument?

So when someone 1800 years later says that Jesus was definitely not married, then I’m going to take this with a pinch of salt.

I don’t think that’s a fair characterization. It’s not just people 1800 years later, it’s people from throughout Catholic history from at least the second century forward. Earlier I showed a quotation from St. Clement of Alexandria about Jesus’ celibacy. And this constant tradition of Jesus’ celibacy is based partly on the words of Jesus Himself and the testimony of His disciples.

Verse 4-5 makes no logical sense if we go with your interpretation.

I think they make sense. My interpretation is that 1 Timothy 3 uses a phrase that can refer either to a spouse who is dead or to a present spouse. I gave evidence for this from 1 Timothy 5:9.

In that light, the children in verses 4-5 could have come from either a previous spouse or a present one. But the text is quite clear that bishops can’t be married twice, and I think there is evidence that this refers to remarrying after a spouse’s death. (Again, see the verse I cited earlier – 1 Timothy 5:9.) In light of that, I think 1 Timothy 3:2 is evidence for an early tradition of celibacy, not against it. What do you think? Why does 1 Tim. 3:2 forbid a bishop to remarry, unless celibacy was a more appropriate status for a bishop than marriage?

 

[Sarcelle]

No. I mean you CANNOT be celibate and engage in sex acts.
By definition, having sex means you are not celibate.

Celibacy is simply the state of being unmarried. I believe continent is refraining from sexual relations. To be chaste in the celibate state one must practice continence. Technically you can live with your boyfriend/girlfriend, have sexual relations with them and still be considered celibate.

 

[Sarcelle]

My sense is that the development of the early Church has traditions of both celibate and married clergy. It is inaccurate to depict it without both. For me, the most responsible approach is to allow both in some way. I do believe some are called to the celibate life in the Church and I don’t think the married should be excluded on that grounds alone. But I would like to see the married clergy in a different category somehow were they to come into the Catholic Church. I think celibacy should be honored and protected, a greater sacrifice if you will. We’ve mentioned this point before on other threads, Orthodox and Protestant Churches are also having a tough time getting priests and clergy - so not sure how much allowing some married clergy would help in terms of the priest shortage. And the notion that the married are somehow less prone to sexual corruption is a bit wistful…

I saw in the evening news a while back about cops doing a sting and rounding up the customers of prostitutes in Waikiki. Amazingly all of these men who were about to use the services of a prostitute were all married men.

Maybe we should have convicted pedophiles get married. This should cure them of their pedophilia right? Right?

 

[Sarcelle]

So you do not agree with the inspired Holy Word of God: “But if they can’t control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It’s better to marry than to burn with lust.” 1 Corinthians 7:9

However if a man burns with lust for a child or for another man for that matter do you honestly think marriage to a woman would cure him of that?

If you think yes, there 's a bridge I want to sell you.

 

[weller2]

However if a man burns with lust for a child or for another man for that matter do you honestly think marriage to a woman would cure him of that?

Of course not.

The majority of abuse victims were aged 13-18 and male. This is not pedophilia by clinical definition – this is homosexuality. The misperception that there is a widespread problem of clerical pedophilia came from media reports, which labeled all acts with underage victims as ‘pedophilia’. (While they were also cases of actual clerical pedophilia, they were much more rare). Even the John Jay report explictly cites homosexals entering the priesthood in large numbers in 60s and 70s as one of the causes of the abuse crisis.

Since homosexuals have no interest in marrying women, then restricting ordination to men who have been married for 5+ years would effectively eliminate persons with homosexual orientation.

Another issue is that I have read some very disturbing reports about culture in Catholic seminaries in my country. It appears that clustering a large group of 18-25 men together in isolation from women causes even heteronormative men to exhibit homosexual behaviors.

 

[weller2]

I saw in the evening news a while back about cops doing a sting and rounding up the customers of prostitutes in Waikiki. Amazingly all of these men who were about to use the services of a prostitute were all married men.

Maybe we should have convicted pedophiles get married. This should cure them of their pedophilia right? Right?

Does not follow.

The #1 cause of men using prostitutes is their wifes denying them sex.

 

[weller2]

In light of that, I think 1 Timothy 3:2 is evidence for an early tradition of celibacy, not against it. What do you think? Why does 1 Tim. 3:2 forbid a bishop to remarry, unless celibacy was a more appropriate status for a bishop than marriage?

1 Tim 3:5 says, paraphrased, “If you have no experience managing a family, you have no qualification for managing a church”. It logically follows that those who have never been married should not be bishops. In this aspect, the present practice is clearly un-scriptural.

The interpretation that “man of one woman” means “a widower with children” is possible, but not very logical – it would narrow the possible pool of candidates too much. (And even if we agreed to it, the present-day practice is still un-scriptural!) Another problem with this intepretation is this – why write “a man of one woman” and risk a misunderstanding, when you can simply write “a widower”?

Further, if celibacy was indeed regarded as a preferred status, why doesn’t the text simply say “the candidate should be preferrably unmarried”, instead of saying that the candidate should be “a man of one woman”, “keeping his children in submission”?

Also, we should remember that early churches operated in a society where both divorce and polygamy were common. In such cultural context, “man of one woman” has a pretty obvious meaning – “married once (to one woman)”.

Finally – the formal requirement for episcopal celibacy does not emerge until 7th century, and the requirement for clerical celibacy does not appear until 11th century. If celibacy is required by the scripture, this means that the Church was not following the scripture for the first 700 (1100) years. This would contradict the experience, which shows that the Church tends to diverge from the scripture more and more as the time goes.

 

[Sarcelle]

Does not follow.

The #1 cause of men using prostitutes is their wifes denying them sex.

Source?

You missed my point anyway. The main point of my post was that married people are NOT immune to sexual sin. A man goes who goes to prostitute because his wife denies him sex is not in any way, shape or form excused.

 

[Sarcelle]

Of course not.

The majority of abuse victims were aged 13-18 and male. This is not pedophilia by clinical definition – this is homosexuality. The misperception that there is a widespread problem of clerical pedophilia came from media reports, which labeled all acts with underage victims as ‘pedophilia’. (While they were also cases of actual clerical pedophilia, they were much more rare). Even the John Jay report explictly cites homosexals entering the priesthood in large numbers in 60s and 70s as one of the causes of the abuse crisis.

Since homosexuals have no interest in marrying women, then restricting ordination to men who have been married for 5+ years would effectively eliminate persons with homosexual orientation.

Another issue is that I have read some very disturbing reports about culture in Catholic seminaries in my country. It appears that clustering a large group of 18-25 men together in isolation from women causes even heteronormative men to exhibit homosexual behaviors.

I know several men who after decades, yes decades of marriage, divorce their wives and take up with another man. So yes, homosexuals do get married to women. It is not unheard off. Even if you only ordain married men, I very much doubt that it will prevent scandal from happening. It may not be the pederast scandal but could be a different flavor of scandal altogether. If you doubt this, look to the Protestant churches.

 

[Sarcelle]

Of course not.

The majority of abuse victims were aged 13-18 and male. This is not pedophilia by clinical definition – this is homosexuality. The misperception that there is a widespread problem of clerical pedophilia came from media reports, which labeled all acts with underage victims as ‘pedophilia’. (While they were also cases of actual clerical pedophilia, they were much more rare). Even the John Jay report explictly cites homosexals entering the priesthood in large numbers in 60s and 70s as one of the causes of the abuse crisis.

Since homosexuals have no interest in marrying women, then restricting ordination to men who have been married for 5+ years would effectively eliminate persons with homosexual orientation.

Another issue is that I have read some very disturbing reports about culture in Catholic seminaries in my country. It appears that clustering a large group of 18-25 men together in isolation from women causes even heteronormative men to exhibit homosexual behaviors.

You realize that Catholic seminaries aren’t the only institution where young men live together in large groups. You also gave all male boarding schools and the military. What do you propose? Banning them all?

 

[FollowChrist34]

I saw in the evening news a while back about cops doing a sting and rounding up the customers of prostitutes in Waikiki. Amazingly all of these men who were about to use the services of a prostitute were all married men.

Maybe we should have convicted pedophiles get married. This should cure them of their pedophilia right? Right?

Agreed, what is this naivete about the married state? (I would be surprised how many expressing those views are married, or, if they are, not for very long. ) My goodness - getting married to someone is not a hard thing to do at all, doing it seriously, to the right person, for the right reasons, is a bit more rare.

 

[weller2]

You realize that Catholic seminaries aren’t the only institution where young men live together in large groups. You also gave all male boarding schools and the military. What do you propose? Banning them all?

Neither male boarding schools nor military prohibit contacts with women after hours; Catholic seminaries do. In boarding schools and military sexual exploits are something to brag about; in Catholic seminaries they are grounds for expelling. Military culture treats women as trophies; seminary instruction instills a deep fear of women, as ones who could lead you astray.

 

[Sarcelle]

Neither male boarding schools nor military prohibit contacts with women after hours; Catholic seminaries do. In boarding schools and military sexual exploits are something to brag about; in Catholic seminaries they are grounds for expelling. Military culture treats women as trophies; seminary instruction instills a deep fear of women, as ones who could lead you astray.

Catholic seminaries installing a deep fear of women?

I gather you have this on good authority? Or is this more of a statement of your prejudice?

 

[Sarcelle]

Agreed, what is this naivete about the married state? (I would be surprised how many expressing those views are married, or, if they are, not for very long. ) My goodness - getting married to someone is not a hard thing to do at all, doing it seriously, to the right person, for the right reasons, is a bit more rare.

There seems to be a widespread attitude that marriage is the silver bullet that could have prevented the sex scandal.

 

[Sarcelle]

Neither male boarding schools nor military prohibit contacts with women after hours; Catholic seminaries do. In boarding schools and military sexual exploits are something to brag about; in Catholic seminaries they are grounds for expelling. Military culture treats women as trophies; seminary instruction instills a deep fear of women, as ones who could lead you astray.

i remember my father, who attended an all male boarding school, saying that if you were caught with a girl in your room after curfew, you will be in trouble. Also when I attended technical training in the military, members of the opposite sex were required to NOT be in one’s room after hours. Wait, scratch that, having a member of the opposite sex in your room at all hours was frowned upon and could be the cause of disciplinary action.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Neither male boarding schools nor military prohibit contacts with women after hours; Catholic seminaries do. In boarding schools and military sexual exploits are something to brag about; in Catholic seminaries they are grounds for expelling. Military culture treats women as trophies; seminary instruction instills a deep fear of women, as ones who could lead you astray.

Well, I kind of agree with this a little bit. I have noticed this trend of depicting women as dangerous, but, they are dangerous in this situation. That is the way I have interpreted it. It’s a way of emphasizing the sin of fornication, the problem of temptation. I don’t take it personally. If you are trying to avoid something you don’t have it around, right? If you are trying to lose weight, you don’t stack the cupboard with Doritos and cupcakes. Not to trivialize the issue here.