Get Rid of the Celibacy Requirement

  • Thread starter Thread starter CampionTheChampion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think opening the pool to already married men is a good idea. I do think it’d be a bad idea for priests to be dating though.
 
Catholicwife32 said:
I think opening the pool to already married men is a good idea. I do think it’d be a bad idea for priests to be dating though.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%. In the Eastern Catholic Churches priests must be married before being ordained, otherwise they must remain celibate. Definitely the right way to go.
 
Absolutely not. The celibacy of the priesthood is the only pure lily we have left. Celibacy should be PRAISED during these times. Not looked down upon.
 
I am not saying that priests can not be married, except that right now that is the discipline of the Catholic church, at least for the most part in the Latin Rite. I am also saying that I do not believe it will solve sex abuse problems but just bring in new ones.

Of course 1 Timothy isn’t wrong. As Catholics we accept the inerrancy of all Bible verses. Plus in 1 Corinthians the apostle Paul wasn’t making a mandate of celibacy.

Yes, there were married clergy in the early Church but as time went on the Church adopted the discipline of celibacy of it’s priests.

Celibacy in the Priesthood :
_St. Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403) stated, “Holy Church respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the deaconate, the priesthood or the episcopate, nor even to the subdeaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death, especially in those places where the ecclesiastical canons are strictly attended to.” The local, Spanish Council of Elvira (306) imposed celibacy on bishops, priests, and deacons: “We decree that all bishops, priests, deacons, and all clerics engaged in the ministry are forbidden entirely to live with their wives and to beget children: whoever shall do so will be deposed from the clerical dignity.”
 
Last edited:
Did you consider that the shortage of priests was intentional? That these bishops and priests sifted out the pious men who loved the rosary and helped out at the soup kitchen as ‘undesirable’ to the priesthood?

That occurred to me decades ago by the comments of Catholics who visit over coffee and ask why this or that fellow was declined by the bishop. Daily mass, stays for rosary, helps in a variety of ways in the parish. Pleasant personality, gets along with people. At the time I thought that maybe the bishop made a decision on reasons that he wouldn’t wish to broadcast to everyone. My view of that has turned upside down. Now I think there were true vocations of pious men that were turned away.
 
PennyinCanada said:
Did you consider that the shortage of priests was intentional? That these bishops and priests sifted out the pious men who loved the rosary and helped out at the soup kitchen as ‘undesirable’ to the priesthood?
Click to expand...
Definitely. Good point.

Author of the book Goodbye Good Men. He discusses this situation exactly.
 
Last edited:
Hoosier-Daddy said:
The answer to the sex abuse crisis is not “more sex” and thinking that way is showing we are not capable of dealing with this.
Click to expand...
I think it shows that a lot of people don’t understand the problem, at least. I hate to use the word stupid, but what else can I call people who do not understand that celibate people do not have sex with children, or anyone else. If someone is have sex, then by definition, they are not celibate.

The problem is to do all we can to make sure priest are actually celibate, not lying about it.
 
I can only speak for myself, but I’m not looking at a married priesthood as a solution to child abuse at all (though I know the OP mentioned it). Rather, I support it for three reasons: 1)Alleviate the shortage of clergy. 2)Married priests would (hopefully) set a great example for their parishioners on how to live a truly authentic Christian family life. 3) End the problem of homosexuality that is reportedly rampant in some of our seminaries.
 
Celibacy is not doctrine; it’s a discipline. If it was doctrine, how could it have changed? Doctrines do not change.
 
I know at least 10 men in their early 20’s (two of which are teenagers) from my college and home parish who are entering the seminary, that’s an absolute false statement that young sexually healthy heterosexual men don’t want to be celibate priests. If you have the call, you have the call.
 
It is both. The value of celibacy for the priesthood is a doctrine that extends back to St. Paul. Mandatory celibacy for the priesthood is a discipline based in that doctrine.
 
Last edited:
I myself am entering into the convent next fall, and I tell you what, I won’t be attacking little children just because I’ll be living out celibacy the rest of my life. If you have the call to the religious life, you follow it, no matter what it means giving up. Because that call is greater and more precious than anything any desires of the world or flesh could ever offer. Period.
 
This is quite possible. But it would take much investigation to find out, and all the more difficult because those possibly guilty would likely be the parties conducting the investigation. In any case, I doubt if the pious men would be sufficient in number to ease the shortage.
 
The celibacy rule has never caused any one to molest children. But quite possibly it makes the priesthood less attractive to males without psychosexual disorders. And with the need for priests so great and the pool so small, and with vocational directors not being trained psychologists, the sick slip through to be ordained. FWIW, this doesn’t affect sisters or nuns at all, because women tend to be sexual abusers less frequently than men.
 
Last edited:
You’re very right. But it does appear that either God isn’t calling many sexually healthy heterosexual men, or they just aren’t interested in answering.
 
No one is talking about getting rid of celibacy or looking down on it. We are talking about removing the requirement that any who become priests must be celibate. Celibacy would remain the ideal, and the discipline for most religous orders.

Christ and St. Paul obviously argued celibacy was better. They also obviously supported the ordination of married men. The idea that all priests should have a gift St. Peter did not is a later innovation and extrordinary claim.
 
Why are so many Catholics against a married priesthood, especially since it has only been the norm in the Latin church for half of Christian history? What do Catholics think they lose with a married priesthood? Seriously, are Catholics unable to adapt? What is the real opposition to having a married and celibate priesthood, as in the east? There is so much to gain by having hundreds or thousands of holy, married priests. I was raised Protestant so the opposition to married ministers is completely alien to me.
 
Last edited:
It’s not a dogma. It’s a discipline. Some would argue the Pope did not have the authority to impose it, since it was not decided at a full council.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top