N
notredame_999
Guest
As I have noted in other posts, I am a young man who has thought seriously about the latin-rite priesthood. Yet for some reason I just can’t get over the issue of mandatory celibacy. The issue has consumed me, and I have tried to convince myself why it is necessary but its becoming extremely difficult.
I have studied the issue and found that the latin church was heavily influenced by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose who believed that sexual relations made a man “impure” to imitate the sacrifice of the mass and be present on the altar. Thus, the gradual trend toward a celibate clergy and then a mandatory celibate clergy was created. This was eventually confirmed in 1139.
Meanwhile the east had a different perspective of celibcy. Yes, Celibacy was a higher state than marriage as defined by both Christ himself and St. Paul. However, celibacy was something to be freely chosen by the individual and not a pre-requisite to ordination. Celibacy was recognized as an extraordinary calling and something to be lived out in a monastic environment. Priests, with their families and even outside professions, were a part of the community and had not renounced the world to the extent of the monks and bishops. This view was supported by St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Athanasius.
"Saint Athanasius the Great: “There are two ways in life. One is ordinary and worldly, that is marriage; the other one is angelic and a higher one, that is celibacy. If someone chooses the worldly way — marriage — he will not be censured, but he will not receive the same gifts. However, he will receive some of them, because he brings the thirty-fold fruit. But if one chooses a glorious way which is high above the world he will receive more wonderful gifts, though this way is more mournful and difficult than the first one: because he has brought a perfect and hundred-fold fruit.”
Saint Gregory the Theologian: “There are two possible ways in life — marriage and celibacy, and the latter is higher and more godlike, but it is more difficult and dangerous, and the former is lower, but more safe…” “Neither celibacy, nor marriage connect or disconnect us with God or with the world entirely, so that one could be worthy of abhorrence, and the other of unconditional praise. On the contrary, the mind must be a good governor both in marriage and in celibacy, and to create virtue in them like an artist in a certain material…” “Though marriage has an earthly origin and celibacy makes us brides to Christ the King, it happens, however, that celibacy throws us down to earth, and marriage brings us to Heaven. That is why, if one began to blame marriage and another one celibacy, both would be wrong…” “Virginal life is better, really better; but if it serves the world and the earth it is worse than marriage.”
My question is how come most latin catholics in the defense of mandatory celibate clergy, immediately state issues like “being married to the church,” or “what if they got divorced,” or “what if they get a sick call at 3am,” or “how will their family be supported,” when in reality the whole latin church basis for instituting celibacy has nothing to do with these reasons but rather was about recognizing the sexual act itself was unclean and made a man unfit to consecrate the eucharist?
Another issue with this is that most people who are in favor of allowing a married priesthood are radical catholic liberals who believe in womens ordination, artifical birth control, eliminating the tridentine mass, masturbation, no confession, pre-marital sex, divorce, homosexuality- all things contrary to God’s law. It seems like I am the only traditional catholic who believes that mandatory celibacy should be lifted. Furthermore, I bet I am one of the very few who enjoys the latin mass who also believes mandatory celibacy should be lifted.
Some catholics on CAF have said that a married priesthood would encourage young men to follow their fathers. What is wrong with that? Wasn’t St. Patrick’s grandfather a priest? How many popes following in their fathers footsteps who were also popes?
Some people have told me I am a hypocrite because I believe in all the latin church theology but I believe in the eastern church definition of the priesthood and celibacy. But the way I see it, I am just going back to remnants of the Latin Church before 1139. Thoughts?
I have studied the issue and found that the latin church was heavily influenced by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose who believed that sexual relations made a man “impure” to imitate the sacrifice of the mass and be present on the altar. Thus, the gradual trend toward a celibate clergy and then a mandatory celibate clergy was created. This was eventually confirmed in 1139.
Meanwhile the east had a different perspective of celibcy. Yes, Celibacy was a higher state than marriage as defined by both Christ himself and St. Paul. However, celibacy was something to be freely chosen by the individual and not a pre-requisite to ordination. Celibacy was recognized as an extraordinary calling and something to be lived out in a monastic environment. Priests, with their families and even outside professions, were a part of the community and had not renounced the world to the extent of the monks and bishops. This view was supported by St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Athanasius.
"Saint Athanasius the Great: “There are two ways in life. One is ordinary and worldly, that is marriage; the other one is angelic and a higher one, that is celibacy. If someone chooses the worldly way — marriage — he will not be censured, but he will not receive the same gifts. However, he will receive some of them, because he brings the thirty-fold fruit. But if one chooses a glorious way which is high above the world he will receive more wonderful gifts, though this way is more mournful and difficult than the first one: because he has brought a perfect and hundred-fold fruit.”
Saint Gregory the Theologian: “There are two possible ways in life — marriage and celibacy, and the latter is higher and more godlike, but it is more difficult and dangerous, and the former is lower, but more safe…” “Neither celibacy, nor marriage connect or disconnect us with God or with the world entirely, so that one could be worthy of abhorrence, and the other of unconditional praise. On the contrary, the mind must be a good governor both in marriage and in celibacy, and to create virtue in them like an artist in a certain material…” “Though marriage has an earthly origin and celibacy makes us brides to Christ the King, it happens, however, that celibacy throws us down to earth, and marriage brings us to Heaven. That is why, if one began to blame marriage and another one celibacy, both would be wrong…” “Virginal life is better, really better; but if it serves the world and the earth it is worse than marriage.”
My question is how come most latin catholics in the defense of mandatory celibate clergy, immediately state issues like “being married to the church,” or “what if they got divorced,” or “what if they get a sick call at 3am,” or “how will their family be supported,” when in reality the whole latin church basis for instituting celibacy has nothing to do with these reasons but rather was about recognizing the sexual act itself was unclean and made a man unfit to consecrate the eucharist?
Another issue with this is that most people who are in favor of allowing a married priesthood are radical catholic liberals who believe in womens ordination, artifical birth control, eliminating the tridentine mass, masturbation, no confession, pre-marital sex, divorce, homosexuality- all things contrary to God’s law. It seems like I am the only traditional catholic who believes that mandatory celibacy should be lifted. Furthermore, I bet I am one of the very few who enjoys the latin mass who also believes mandatory celibacy should be lifted.
Some catholics on CAF have said that a married priesthood would encourage young men to follow their fathers. What is wrong with that? Wasn’t St. Patrick’s grandfather a priest? How many popes following in their fathers footsteps who were also popes?
Some people have told me I am a hypocrite because I believe in all the latin church theology but I believe in the eastern church definition of the priesthood and celibacy. But the way I see it, I am just going back to remnants of the Latin Church before 1139. Thoughts?
). That’s my rant for the day. Truly sorry if I upset anyone 
