I have been reading about celibacy of priests including articles on CA as well as Tim Staples and others. I am struggling to get my head around it.
I understand that 1 Tim 3:2 doesn’t mean that a bishop HAS to be married. …
However to me it means bishops CAN be married (as long as only once) and Paul taught that if celibacy were to cause issues with sin, it was better to marry.
I also think Peter was married if I remember rightly.
So why does the Catholic Church teach that priests HAVE to be celibate?
It is also important to note that the preponderance of documentary evidence we have from the early Church indicates married men who became priests and bishops ceased conjugal living with their wives and devoted themselves wholly to their priesthood. Their understanding of their call was shaped from earliest times by those teachings of Christ and Paul that pointed to living in complete continence and chastity.
For more information on this please consider the historical data offered by Christian Cochini, S.J., in his book The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy which was published by Ignatius in 1990. This book is a complete historical study on the question of when priestly celibacy was required and what tradition was passed down by the Apostles. This book is also a complete Bible study on the following verse from Sacred Scripture:
1 Timothy 3:2 "Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher…"
The arguments presented by Cochini overwhelming.
Please read Cochini’s book, as it is an in-depth study of this specific verse. A 469 page Bible study on this verse to be exact.
We have to be careful not assume that a Bible passage’s meaning is always self evident. This passage cannot be proving that bishops were required to have conjugal relations with wives. Such a reading makes St. Paul an invalid Bishop
Paul points to celibacy for early church leaders.
** “I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.” (1 Cor. 7: 32-35)**
The interpretation that 1 Timothy required bishops to be married is also irreconcilable with Christ’s appeal in Matthew 19 that early church leaders be celibate.
Matthew 19:10-12
**The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.”11 But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” **
RSV
In his book Christian Cochini, S.J. points out the similarity it the phrases “husband of one wife” and “wife of one husband…” in the verses below.
1 Timothy 3:2 "Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher…"
RSV
1 Timothy 5:9 "Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband…"
RSV
Cochini makes a strong case that the phrase “husband of one wife” was like an idiom. [Although he does not use that word] He reasons that the “wife of one husband…” had taken a vow of celibacy and it is obvious that she is no longer married, being a widow. He reasons that the parallel Greek phrase of “husband of one wife” meant the same thing, a widower who had taken a vow of celibacy.
I can’t do justice to his book in this short article so I recommend to all interested that they read it, especially pages 436-439. In the book he quotes Fathers who say the celibacy of the priesthood came from the Apostles. He says, “On the other hand, the opposite movement poses more problems, and it is more difficult to see how Fathers concerned with Tradition and respecting the will of the apostles could have been obstinate enough to impose a discipline of continence if it had been flatly denied by Scripture.”
He makes the point that although Peter had a mother-in-law, ( and Philip had three daughters,) there is no mention of their wives and presumably they are widowers.
Some priests were married, that is non-celibate, individuals were ordained. But upon their ordination they were no longer allowed conjugal relations with their wives. I believe that this celibate requirement was meant to be understood as just a discipline of the early church from the time of the Apostles. [The Church can change disciplines to fit the needs of the times.] Never in the early Church do you see an ordained priest being praised for having children after ordination. On the contrary, that was considered as wrong since they were expected to be celibate.
.
