. . . . Such views, of course, contradict:
- “Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral” (Heb. 13:4), - “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,” (1 Tim. 3:2-4), - “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Cor. 9:5). The prophecy stands true:
“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.” (1 Tim. 4:1-3 ).And this is not even to mention, but I’ll mention it anyway, Mark 10:6-9: “But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” . . .
. . . And if you examine closely the history of celibacy, it was all about money/property and assets that the church didn’t want going to offspring: Pope Pelagius I, 556-561 made new priests agree that their offspring could not inherit Church property thereby protecting Church property from inheritance . . .
. . . .A good overview:
criticaltheology.net/II_Chronology_history_of_celibacy.html
Clerical celibacy is not a significant ‘sticking point’ with me. I think the evidence from Scripture is mixed–the ‘husband of one wife’ thing likely to be an injunction against polygamy and/or concubinism, not unheard of among the ‘barbarian’ groups Paul was evangelizing, as opposed to a positive injunction.
The ‘forbidding to marry’ text was clearly directed against Gnostics and others, who were attempting to become so completely divorced from the flesh that they could renounce all manner of fleshly needs. For those groups, the ‘abstaining from marriage’ was a universal injunction of all members, not just a prerequisite for a limited set of members serving a specific role in the Church. I think we engage in eisegesis if we interpret the passage outside of this historical context.
Paul makes it clear elsewhere in his Epistles that he himself was living a celibate life–either he was widowered, had set his wife aside for the Gospel’s sake, or they were living celibate lives. Almost all scholars, Protestant or otherwise, concede this point. Christ was celibate and both Christ and Paul spoke commendably at places of those called to the celibate life.
Celibacy was banned by custom among monastics throughout the Church, and more-or-less regionally among ‘secular’ priests prior to the Council of Trent. It had become the normative practice of the Western rites, although Eastern rites–both Eastern churches in full communion with Rome as well as the various Orthodox rites still allow parish priests to marry. I wonder if Richard Abanes is aware that large numbers of Eastern-Rite bodies that are in union with Rome
do allow married priests? Groups such as the Melkites, Maronites, etcetera? The restriction on celibacy among Roman Catholic priests is a Western-Rite anomaly.
The reason celibacy became an increasingly mandatory practice in the West seems to be related to sexual scandals not unlike those which now rock the RCC concerning pederasty. In those days of course, the issues were with concubinage, frequenting of prostitutes, etcetera–practices common among the married NON-clerical husbands of the time (the laymen in other words), which married priests being products of their culture felt at liberty to imitate. In those days. only the celibate priests were setting forth a compelling model of holy living and increasingly the Church saw mandatory celibacy as the best solution to the scandals otherwise besetting the Church of the time. The policy does seem to have worked for several hundred years.
I don’t think the issue of clerical property rights was a major factor. Protestant clergy do not have such problems today, not even among churches which are established by a particular pastor. Church property is owned by the church or congregation corporately, usually not by the pastor or some other individual. I think this is an issue being magnified needlessly and out of proportion to it’s real importance.
I have suggested on this forum–and suffered the slings-and-arrows of abuse for my trouble–that it might well be time for the RCC to reconsider the rule in light of a sea-change in sexual culture in our era. The Church need not abolish celibacy for ALL clergy–simply do as the Easterns and make it an option among the ‘secular’ clergy, those who normally serve parishes under the direction of a diocese.
I’m talking about the RC only here.
yes yes i know…
Thomas Howard’s Evangelical is Not Enough is one of the first books I read. It put the Scriptures in a whole different light than my non-sacramental background had ever attempted to do.