From Origins to 360 on Celibacy

[Mt_28_19_20]

Here is an irrefutable arguement on celibacy…

Regardless of the practice of earlier times we should always look for the more faithful practice.

It might be more difficult but to get to heaven it is always better to take the more difficult path. The ideal example of a Priest is Christ and it is recommended by Jesus to be celibate.

The origins of Celibacy then lie with Jesus as He is the source of our Priesthood. This doesn’t mean that married priests are bad, but that Celibacy is recommended by Jesus for the Priesthood.

We then take the more faithful and difficult path.

To argue against it is to argue against what Jesus recommended, no matter how many Jesuits we quote.

God Bless
Scylla

Irrefutable? That would be matter of opinion.

What is the more faithful practice, honoring marriage according to how God originally intended, creating male and female? Or renouncing marriage?

Which is the more difficult path? To love a spouse and children according to God’s will, or to avoid that responsibility?

Jesus is our High Priest, a unique role, true God and true man. The first Pope he chose for us had a mother-in-law. Additionally, why would Jesus marry and have children, only to subject them to seeing Him beaten and crucified? Jesus did not need marriage to mirror the image and likeness of God, and John Paul II’s theology of the body looks at marriage.

Quoting a Jesuit, and only one at that, has no importance in itself. Yet, he does document married bishops and Popes in the first centuries, and discusses relevant early Church Fathers. His book’s purpose is to reaffirm celibacy, not to discredit celibacy.

I do not see Jesus recommending celibacy, and certainly not as a requirement for priests. If He had, why did Paul write 1 Tim 3 and 4 as he did? Taken in context, Mt 19:12 does not appear, in my opinion, to be promoting celibacy. If it had, why then were there married priests and Popes in the early centuries?

Michael

 

[tkdnick]

Which is the more difficult path? To love a spouse and children according to God’s will, or to avoid that responsibility?

I think remaining single & celibate is the much more difficult path. I would like nothing more than the get married & have children. However, if God is calling me to a different lifestyle then who am I to argue with Him?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

I think remaining single & celibate is the much more difficult path. I would like nothing more than the get married & have children. However, if God is calling me to a different lifestyle then who am I to argue with Him?

If that is how your conscience leads you, then follow your conscience. If your conscience sees no possible truth in the questions and comments I have made in regard to 1 Tim 3 and 4, Mt 19, Mark 10, then follow your conscience on that as well. Maybe the disciples did get it right one time when they voluntereed an answer in response to the teaching of Jesus? And then he rebuked them just a few verses later. Maybe it is about giving up what God created as good from the beginning, and Jesus was here both to model celibacy and atone for our sins. Here I thought the atoning was key.

Michael

 

[mark_a]

I didn’t read all the posts, so please excuse me if this has been asked:

What were the reasons the Roman Church developed this discipline of celebacy?

Was one of the reasons nepotism? I recall reading that somewhere, but before you ask for a source, I’ll tell you I don’t have one.

Anyway to the op, why all the hostility about celebacy?

Do you fear for the good of the Church?

Are you afraid we will run out of priests?

Is the confession line too long at your parish?

Are the priests being sent here from Latin America, Africa, and India substandard?

If you live by the teachings of the Church, priestly celebacy will become one of the least of your problems.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Clerical celibacy has been reaffirmed by Rome quite recently. Discipline it may be, but Rome has spoken in accordance with long-standing tradition. If you cannot accept that the Church has spoken on the issue for the time being, then you at odds with Her.

It was affirmed before Alexander VI. So history tells us it is a broken tradition. One need look no further than the ex-bishop of Galway, the recent priest in Galway, and the scandal that is still having an impact on God’s Church.

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

I didn’t read all the posts, so please excuse me if this has been asked:

What were the reasons the Roman Church developed this discipline of celebacy?

Was one of the reasons nepotism? I recall reading that somewhere, but before you ask for a source, I’ll tell you I don’t have one.

Anyway to the op, why all the hostility about celebacy?

As far as the reasons, may have been varied. I assume the intention was good, yet am of the opinion that Catholic faith would deepen without celibacy being a significant factor in chosing who our future priests will be.

If I give the impression of hostility, sorry, that is not intended. Yet I do disagree the interpretatins of Mt 19:12 and 1 Tim 3, and wonder if this “holier” call has directly or indirectly led to many Catholics to take less responsibility for their faith. I find it rather pathetic that the average Catholic, myself included, is relatively Scripture illiterate compared to many other Christians. Since the Bible was we have it was handed down from the Church, should we not be the most Bible literate? Why is there a need or seemingly warm reception for lay people like Scott Hahn to promote Bible literacy among lay Catholics and priests?

Michael

 

[ASimpleSinner]

When did celibacy become the requirement for priests, let alone Popes? If it was not a requirment in the first centuries, why now? And why selectively?

Pope Alexander VI 1492-1503:
From newadvent.org/cathen/01289a.htm
“The young Rodrigo had not yet definitely chosen his profession when the** elevation of his uncle to the papacy (1455) opened up new prospects to his ambition**. He was adopted into the immediate family of Callixtus and was known henceforward to the Italians as Rodrigo Borgia. Like so many other princely cadets, he was obtruded upon the Church, the question of a clerical vocation being left completely out of consideration. After conferring several rich benefices on him, his uncle sent him for a short year to study law at the University of Bologna. In 1456, at the age of twenty-five, he was made Cardinal Deacon of St. Nicolo in Carcere, and held that title until 1471, when he became Cardinal-Bishop of Albano; in 1476 he was made Cardinal-Bishop of Porto and Dean of the Sacred College (Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica, II, 12). His official position in the Curia after 1457 was that of Vice-Chancellor of the Roman Church, and though many envied him this lucrative office he seems in his long administration of the Papal Chancery to have given general satisfaction.”

 "**In his twenty-ninth year he drew a scathing letter of reproof from Pope Pius II for misconduct in Sienna which had been so notorious as to shock the whole town and court** (Raynaldus Ann. eccl. ad. an. 1460, n. 31). **Even after his ordination to the priesthood, in 1468, he continued his evil ways.** His contemporaries praise his handsome and imposing figure, his cheerful countenance, persuasive manner, brilliant conversation, and intimate mastery of the ways of polite society. The best portrait of him is said to be that painted by Pinturicchio in the Appartimento Borgia at the Vatican; Yriarte (Autour des Borgia, 79) praises its general air of grandeur incontestable. **Towards 1470 began his relations with the Roman lady, Vanozza Catanei, the mother of his four children: Juan, Caesar, Lucrezia and Jofre, born, respectively according to Gregorovius (Lucrezia Borgia 13) in 1474, 1476, 1480, and 1482."**"

Michael

This posting leaves me more confused still…

Given the text that is in red (I am inferring it is meant to draw attention and give emphasis to such) I can only guess you are demonstrating that there are some very bad Catholics in history.

But this we know - I have been one myself.

 

[Titus]

Celibacy is a discipline. There are married Catholic priests (in the Eastern Rite, and converting Anglican & Episcopalian ministers).

OP: are you saying celibacy as a discipline should be dropped by the Latin Rite?

If so, can you spell out your reasons? (Bear in mind that those you have suggested are invalid- we are discussing the *current *discipline of celibacy and not that there was a past practice of allowing priests to marry).

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Given the text that is in red (I am inferring it is meant to draw attention and give emphasis to such) I can only guess you are demonstrating that there are some very bad Catholics in history.

But this we know - I have been one myself.

I have been one myself as well. Thankful for God’s mercy!

God has remained faithful to His Church with married, unmarried, and sinful Popes. If celibacy was essential for the priesthood, why have we had some of the Popes we have had, starting with Peter?

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Celibacy is a discipline. There are married Catholic priests (in the Eastern Rite, and converting Anglican & Episcopalian ministers).

OP: are you saying celibacy as a discipline should be dropped by the Latin Rite?

If so, can you spell out your reasons? (Bear in mind that those you have suggested are invalid- we are discussing the *current *discipline of celibacy and not that there was a past practice of allowing priests to marry).

Some of the reasons are expressed in the following post/thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=145070

Michael

 

[Titus]

From a read of that thread (admittedly only the first 5 posts) it seems that that passage must be read in context, that is, bearing in mind all St Paul has written about celibacy. I could also see the possibility that a more general point about a bishop being the husband of 1 wife could be the point: how a bishop ought to be organised, determined and clear of purpose and mission- that in addition to the perfectly valid point that he mustn’t have *more than *1 wife.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

From a read of that thread (admittedly only the first 5 posts) it seems that that passage must be read in context, that is, bearing in mind all St Paul has written about celibacy. I could also see the possibility that a more general point about a bishop being the husband of 1 wife could be the point: how a bishop ought to be organised, determined and clear of purpose and mission- that in addition to the perfectly valid point that he mustn’t have *more than *1 wife.

I agree, context is important, not only with surrounding text. Also with other New Testament and Old Testament books and teachings. From that thread, post #24 and #86 relate to 1 Cor 7 and Mt 19. May I suggest keeping in mind whether we really know if Paul was celibate. If Paul was a widower, how would that affect the interpretation of his letters?

Michael

 

[mark_a]

If I give the impression of hostility, sorry, that is not intended.

Ok. We Catholics can be a defensive bunch.

Yet I do disagree the interpretatins of Mt 19:12 and 1 Tim 3, and wonder if this “holier” call has directly or indirectly led to many Catholics to take less responsibility for their faith. I find it rather pathetic that the average Catholic, myself included, is relatively Scripture illiterate compared to many other Christians. Since the Bible was we have it was handed down from the Church, should we not be the most Bible literate?

I felt the same way not too long ago, but I think the lessons taught by the bible are more important than being able to flip right to the chapter and verse during the sermon. Jesus taught in parables for people exactly like me. What good is all that memorization if one misapplies it, misinterprets it, or preaches anti-any-denominational-ism.

Why is there a need or seemingly warm reception for lay people like Scott Hahn to promote Bible literacy among lay Catholics and priests?

I love Scott Hahn and all the convert theologians and apologists. We Catholics have been challenged by SS Proestants, and who is leading the the Catholic rebuttal??? None other than converts from SS Protestantism. Which is, by the way, the only way to do it. These ladies and gentlemen can challenge SS Protestants in a manner that a priest, bishop, or other Church leader could never, ever publicly challenge them.

 

[mark_a]

May I suggest keeping in mind whether we really know if Paul was celibate.
Michael

If you’ve ever read “The Apostle”, you’ll see that there is a lot of speculation that Paul is thought of in some circles as a possible sex addict.

Who knows if he was? He sure preached celebacy, though.

 

[napad]

So lets all stay single so we can live more cheaply and focus on our careers? Only chose judges, police, firemen, nurses, doctors, from those who are not married or else they will not be able to reasonably be available for others?

Rare man who could care for both flock and family? Moses, Aaron, etc… Eastern rite priests, Christian ministers of other denominations, etc…

Michael

Michael

I agree with Caesar that this thread should be in the Apologetics section and not in the Vocation section. If you want to discuss the dificulties you are haveing accepting this disapline, then that would be different. But you seem to be only trying to call the present disapline into question, and that would fall under apologetics.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

I agree with Caesar that this thread should be in the Apologetics section and not in the Vocation section. If you want to discuss the dificulties you are haveing accepting this disapline, then that would be different. But you seem to be only trying to call the present disapline into question, and that would fall under apologetics.

Again, I disagree. I would have hoped that those considering a vow of celibacy, and those who have taken a vow of celibacy, would be able to answer some of the questions I have, and some of the possible Scriptural objections and historical objections.

Agree or disagree, yet with a well informed conscience, and ready to give an explanation why one believes or accepts what they believe. Is this not especially expected with current and future teachers of the flock?

As it is, celibacy is a major issue/topic for vocation discernment. Why put it on a shelf where one can choose to ignore it?

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

I love Scott Hahn and all the convert theologians and apologists. We Catholics have been challenged by SS Proestants, and who is leading the the Catholic rebuttal??? None other than converts from SS Protestantism. Which is, by the way, the only way to do it. These ladies and gentlemen can challenge SS Protestants in a manner that a priest, bishop, or other Church leader could never, ever publicly challenge them.

Yes, Scott is a blessing. Interestingly, he fits 1 Tim 3 pretty well? Maybe he will be the next Pope? Though he is in a less holy vocation, marriage, which seems to so limit his love for God, and how God has been able to use him to be a blessing for the faithful in God’s Church?

Some of his books, and Mike Aquilina’s book, are among by favorites to share with other, whether Catholic or non-Catholic.

I told Scott at his house one day that I had difficulty understanding how celibacy is consistent with Scripture. He didn’t give an explanation, which I was hoping he would, besides saying something like 'it’s what the Church asks"

Michael

 

[mark_a]

Yes, Scott is a blessing. Interestingly, he fits 1 Tim 3 pretty well? Maybe he will be the next Pope? Though he is in a less holy vocation, marriage, which seems to so limit his love for God, and how God has been able to use him to be a blessing for the faithful in God’s Church?

Some of his books, and Mike Aquilina’s book, are among by favorites to share with other, whether Catholic or non-Catholic.

I told Scott at his house one day that I had difficulty understanding how celibacy is consistent with Scripture. He didn’t give an explanation, which I was hoping he would, besides saying something like 'it’s what the Church asks"

Michael

Seems like we most worry about the celibacy issue when we’re running short of priests.

But if one were to join an Eastern Rite. . . . . . . . .

Or convert from a Protestant tradition. . . . . .

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Seems like we most worry about the celibacy issue when we’re running short of priests.

But if one were to join an Eastern Rite. . . . . . . . .

Or convert from a Protestant tradition. . . . . .

Yes, shortages often cause worry.

As far as priests, God will always provide for His people, I do not worry about that. If there is a shortage of priest, that might be the Holy Spirit sending a message to our current Peter.

The Marionite rite has a seminary in Washington D.C. Rome will not allow them to ordain non-celibate priests in Washington. One would have to go to their seminary in Lebanon (?, their origin) to be ordained a non-celibate priest, and then would be only permited to function as a priest in Lebanon. Special permission would be required to be a married Mariontie priest elsewhere. That’s what the local deacon told me after their Mass.

Michael

 

[mark_a]

We have one local priest who would like to see married deacons be able to be ordained as priests.