Interpretation of 1 Cor 9:5 and Priestly Celibacy Requirement

[Josh128]

Hello all. Im a practicing Catholic and Im currently debating with a well studied atheist aquaintance about the celibacy requirement of the Western rites of the Catholic Church (ie the vast majority). He points out that Peter was married ( from the mother-in-law statement from the Gospels) and that all the Apostles took wives with them on their travels (1 Cor 9:5).

Indeed the Latin Vulgate and Douay-Rheims bibles translate the Greek “gunaika” in 1 Cor 9:5 to “woman”, but every subsequent bible translation, including the RSV-CE and NAB translates the word to “wife”. Indeed such Church fathers and early scriptural commentators such as Sts. Cyprian, Jerome, and Augustine and others comment that the Greek word can mean either woman or wife, but these women are not to be seen as wives but as “believing women”, assistants to the Apostles in their missions. But the very nature of making these arguments seems to lend credit to the idea that the term should or could be translated as “wife” to begin with.

Now, Im fully aware of Pauls self-proclaimed celibacy and that to apply the passage of 1 Cor 9:5 to himself and defend his own right to " bring a sister woman/wife" SHOULD imply that he doesnt mean wife in the literal sense, but Im no biblical scholar-- why do the majority of them (seemingly if you look at the number of contemporary bibles translating as wife) continue to translate as wife and not woman??

IMO this is a HUGE problem as the VAST MAJORITY of English speaking Catholics know nothing of the Vulgate or Rheims bibles today. Which is right, if even the Pope accepts texts such as NAB and RSV-CE that translate as wife? This is especially troubling when considered along with 1 Tim 4:3, which Protestants have been quoting against Catholics since the reformation.

Can anyone elaborate on the 1 Cor 9:5 translation and tell me why the Church allows the “wife” translation in official Catholic bibles or provide some information that I might be missing otherwise to defend the Biblia Sacra Vulgata, which basically stands alone in its translation??

Also, is there a solid defense to the requirement of clerical celibacy when BOTH passages are used/cited against it? The more I ponder it, the more it seems to nag me…

 

[Luke65]

Hi Josh, welcome to CAF! A couple points for you. First of all, yes, either “woman” or “wife” is an acceptable translation. But the point is essentially moot for two reasons. First, we were already told that Peter was married since he had a “mother-in-law” (Matt. 8:14). It doesn’t say anything about his wife there, but here it is also implied - and more:

"Peter said to him, “We have left all we had to follow you!” “I tell you the truth,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.” (Luke 18:28-30)

There’s a tradition that married men who become priests live with their wives as “brother and sister”. If that is what St. Peter did then it would harmonize these Scriptures nicely: Peter didn’t literally leave his wife, but gave up marital relations. Here are more Scriptures regarding priestly celibacy and Holy Orders in general:

scripturecatholic.com/the_priesthood.html

God bless.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Josh,

The French language presents the same ambiguity as the Greek, the word femme meaning either woman or wife. The Bible de Jérusalem therefore translates the adelphên gynaika as femme croyante (believing wife/woman), which is fine. Paul claims the privileges of apostleship, which he does not use , as stated later in the chapter. One of these is having a Christian woman with them to help them out. He would have the right to have one too, but he does not. The intent of the passage is to show that not only is he an apostle, but, in all modesty, a better one for all this.

You can also interpret the passage as saying that he would have the right to have a Christian wife with him, as some of the apostles, but he does not, which, to me seems something in favor of celibacy, does it not?

What do you think?

Verbum

 

[Josh128]

Hi Josh, welcome to CAF! A couple points for you. First of all, yes, either “woman” or “wife” is an acceptable translation. But the point is essentially moot for two reasons. First, we were already told that Peter was married since he had a “mother-in-law” (Matt. 8:14). It doesn’t say anything about his wife there, but here it is also implied - and more:

"Peter said to him, “We have left all we had to follow you!” “I tell you the truth,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.” (Luke 18:28-30)

There’s a tradition that married men who become priests live with their wives as “brother and sister”. If that is what St. Peter did then it would harmonize these Scriptures nicely: Peter didn’t literally leave his wife, but gave up marital relations. Here are more Scriptures regarding priestly celibacy and Holy Orders in general:

scripturecatholic.com/the_priesthood.html…

God bless.

Thanks for the response. Yes, I am fully aware about the mother-in-law passages and of what Jesus asked his Apostles to leave everything, and everyone behind to follow him, and that Peter also said to Jesus “Lord, we have left everything behind to follow you”. During the course of our debates, I quoted MT 19:27-30, synoptic passages from MK 10 and LK 18, LK 14:25 regarding the Apostles "leaving everything, MT 19:12 for Jesus teaching on eunachs/celibacy “for the kingdom of heaven”, and also REV 14:1-5 regarding those 144,000 “virgins who will follow the lamb”, and also all the passages from Paul regarding the superiority of celibacy/being single for leading a spiritual life.

The guy, being an atheist, doesnt accept that the Revelation passage was inspired/ dictated to John by our Lord. He also seems to hold the belief that the passages about “leaving everything behind to follow Jesus” only applied for the 3 years of Jesus’ earthly ministry, after that, all bets were off regarding that teaching, and the Apostles were free to return to their homes/wives, etc. while spreading the Gospel. Im not sure if he really believes that or is just latching onto that for the sake of argument. Im also not sure what evangelical protestants would think of that, I think many of them may agree with that interpretation also. Ill post some excerpts from my latest message to him (entire post is too big to post here with 6000 character limit), sent before I posted here yesterday.

 

[Josh128]

Part 1 (split to satify the 6000 character restriction) excerpts from my post to him (the athiest):
Josh Part 1:

First of all, the core of this argument is not whether Peter was married or not. I never claimed he wasn’t. We all assume he was from the mother-in-law passage. This is not news to to anyone worth his salt when it comes to the Bible or Christianity in general, and the Catholic Church certainly doesn’t teach any differently. The core of the argument between you and I here is:

1.) That the Church’s (and Pauls) teaching that a celibate life is superior to married life in the spiritual sense is in accord with Jesus teaching, (which it is, according to the passages where Jesus speaks of his believers leaving everything, and EVERYONE behind to follow him, not to mention what he says about those who are celibate for the kingdom of heaven. Its common sense, and Paul explains it perfectly.

2.) Whether or not the Church has the right to lay out guidelines or requirements for those looking to be ordained into priesthood or monastic life, specifically the requirement of the vow of celibacy/ chastity by those looking to be ordained.

You wrote the following about the Church:
---------:

If THE original guy of teh whole ‘Jesus movement’, which later becomes Christianity, is ok with a apostle of his being married, then that there should be the final word and end of discussion.

But it’s not. Instead, we have the Vatican in Rome tinkering with things for centuries adding all kinds of layers of half truths, coverups, lies and misinterpretations about being celibate as a priest. Completely ridiculous.

First, we do not know for certain if Peter was still married when Jesus came to him. Perhaps he was, or perhaps he was widowed. All we can do is presume he was married at one time. We know nothing more than that. Second, Jesus was not “OK” with his Apostles being married - Jesus told his Apostles that to follow him they must leave everything, and everyone to be his disciple/follow him. If Peter was still married, by Jesus’ own words, he HAD to leave his wife behind to be his Apostle. This is made very clear in the Gospels.

Also, regarding the above, you seem to presume that Jesus only meant this his apostles needed to do this only until he was crucified, or for ~3 years. After that, its a free for all and all bets are off, this is your argument. It was OK after that for the apostles to just forget about that teaching, to go about their previous way of life. Thats a pretty ignorant statement to make, apparently you are having trouble comprehending Jesus’ message there. Jesus never said anything of the sort-- show me where in the Gospels Jesus said anything remotely close to “after I die on the cross, this teaching is null and void, you are then free to buy back your homes, all your possessions, take back your wives, etc.” Where did he say anything like this, or is it only in the book of “(guys name”?? This is truly a very biased interpretation on the message of Jesus, if indeed this is what you believe. In reality I doubt you even really believe this, yet you write it to suit your obviously biased view that celibacy is not given a special place and meaning in the Bible.

Last, regarding the Church adding “layers of lies, half-truths, misinterpretations about being celibate as a priest”, this is a strong statement to make, and completely unfounded. Lies? That the Church changed its requirements for priesthood so that they take an oath of celibacy immediately before ordination? How is that a lie?? Its no different from the requirement of a priest to study 8 years in a seminary. If the Church decides that candidates must be able to hop on one foot while reciting the Lords prayer backwards, how is that any different? The Church, like any other organization, has the right to develop rules and requirements as they see fit for those wishing to become priests, nuns, etc. Jesus clearly gave it the authority to do so in MT 16:18-21. About the half-truths and misinterpretations accusation, I showed you, from the Gospels, and from Pauls letters, and from Revelation:

1.)That Jesus, Paul, and various other significant biblical figures were celibate.
2.) What Jesus and Paul spoke of regarding celibacy, the spiritual advantages of it.
3.) What Jesus said his Apostles must do (leave everything/everyone behind).
4.) What the Book of Revelation said about the celibate that would follow Jesus.
5.) That the passage in 1 Cor 9:5 does not necessarily imply that Peters wife traveled with him.
6.) That the Church has every right to develop or change its requirements, AT ANY TIME, for those to be ordained to priesthood, as long as those requirements do not oppose the teachings and message of Jesus Christ.

 

[Josh128]

Part 2:

Josh:

Yet you, in typical fashion, ignore all arguments contrary to your opinion on the subject and cling to Peter being married for dear life, claiming 1 Cor 9:5 as proof. Whats funny is, I never even ruled that out as a possibility. What I did say is that it is not anywhere close to as cut and dry as you put it in the original Greek. Not even close. The earliest bible translations and even modern use of the word do not agree with your take of it. Whats worse is, Ive never seen the “translation” you posted of the 1 Cor. passage, and its a terrible translation to boot, obviously hand picked by you to suit your argument. In fact, the passage you posted is not merely a simple translation, but a twisted “interpretation” of that passage. Its almost laughable in how much it differs from the extant Greek. I would hope you don’t refer to this version of the bible to engage in scripture debates— then again I know you don’t, you just picked this translation because the passage better suits your argument. Very disingenuous on your part. I dont have to dig nearly as hard for a translation to support my view of the meaning of the passage as you do. I can look directly to the first translation of the Greek ever compiled, the Latin Vulgate:

1 Cor 9:5 “numquid non habemus potestatem **sororem mulierem **circumducendi sicut et ceteri apostoli et fratres Domini et Cephas”

The highlighted words here are translated from Latin “sister” and “woman”, just as I told you before. Next, we can look to the first published English translation of the New Testament, the Douay-Rheims, which was completed before the King James version.

1 Cor 9:5 "My defence with them that do examine me is this. Have not we power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister as well as the rest of the apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?”

Again we see the passage translated as woman and not wife-- yet you still ridicule and belittle me. Its not like Im making this stuff up. The Greek word used by Paul that is translated to “woman” in the Latin Vulgate and Douay-Rheims bibles is “http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/Josh128/yuv.jpg”. The same word is translated by the King James and other Protestant bibles to mean “wife”. Whats interesting is, the passage was never translated in a bible as wife until the protestants began doing it in the 1500’s. Now, its worth noting that the Greek “http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/Josh128/yuv.jpg”. can be correctly translated as woman (its most common usage) or wife—depending on the context. You have a few problems though when you attempt to change this passage to mean “wife” in the 1500s or even today:

1.) For 1500 years, up until the Protestant reformation, it was translated in bibles as woman. At that time, they discovered the Greek could also be rendered as “wife”, and since it better suits their theology, have run with it since then.

2.) Ancient commentators such as St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, St. Augustine translated and interpreted the word as woman.

3.) The Latin Vulgate translation, completed in the late 380s, translates it as woman. This is very significant, as Jerome had a much earlier source Greek text to translate from than any existing today, and was much closer to and familiar with the ancient Greek language and its literary usage than anyone alive in the 1500s. Finally, in the late 380’s, the Church had no celibacy rule for priests, and did not for another 700 years or so—so theres no way you can try to claim he had any kind of “agenda” in translating the passage as he did, other than to translate the original Greek to Latin as accurately as possible.

4.) Ancient commentaries on the passage explain the women were believers who assisted the apostles in their missions, much like the women who followed Jesus in the gospels, much like Peters mother-in-law.

5.) Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Paul was very clear in the fact that he was not married, so it makes absolutely no sense for him to be defending his right to bring a wife with him, as he is doing int the passage. The translation as “wife” is forced and doesn’t match the context of the passage, obvious to any one who knows anything about Paul. Also, the word “sister” being used as a qualifier is in support of the view that Paul was stressing that these women were NOT wives or girlfriends but fellow laborers of the Gospel. Why qualify them as “sisters” if they were to be seen as wives?

 

[Josh128]

Part 3 (final part):

Josh:

In short, the 1 Cor 9:5 passage offers little to no support for your “case closed” view that Peter traveled with his wife. Its definitely not as open and shut as you claim it is. Its very obvious that the Protestants preferred to translate the Greek as wife because they were strongly opposed to the celibacy requirement (see Luther), and because of the dual meaning/usage of the Greek word, they could do so without being accused of “altering” the sacred text. Nonetheless, what we know about Paul, the teachings of Jesus, and early commentaries on the passage suggest that the women traveling with the apostles were much more likely believing women who assisted the Apostles in their missions/travels. Again, unlike what you claim, Im not ruling out the possibility that Peters “sister woman” perhaps was his wife, but Im definitely ruling out that the “http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/Josh128/sister-1.jpg http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/Josh128/yuv.jpg” were all wives as you claim. What we know about Paul clearly opposes that view, not to mention the teachings of Jesus to his apostles to leave everything and everyone behind to follow him and to proclaim the Gospel. If you want to take the predominantly Protestant translation of the verse as the “right” one to suit your argument, go ahead, but at least acknowledge that it was translated differently for about a thousand years prior to that (!). And if you insist on using a Protestant bible for discussion, at least use the King James version, not some obscure version you picked out to further your point.

Now, I havent checked his response yet, but I can guarantee you guys he is going to have ALL kinds of rebuttals to these arguments, he always does (Ive been talking with this guy over message boards for over 5 years), he never gives in. He is an ex-Catholic (imagine that!), but he is very educated and he seems to latch on to a lot of arguments that we would expect from Protestants, but he has no problem ridiculing/bashing them either. In my debates with him we usually go back and forth until EVERYTHING has been exhausted, so Im just trying to be thorough here. Any additional (name removed by moderator)ut/criticism on my argument above would be great

–Josh

 

[Josh128]

Hi Josh,

The French language presents the same ambiguity as the Greek, the word femme meaning either woman or wife. The Bible de Jérusalem therefore translates the adelphên gynaika as femme croyante (believing wife/woman), which is fine. Paul claims the privileges of apostleship, which he does not use , as stated later in the chapter. One of these is having a Christian woman with them to help them out. He would have the right to have one too, but he does not. The intent of the passage is to show that not only is he an apostle, but, in all modesty, a better one for all this.

You can also interpret the passage as saying that he would have the right to have a Christian wife with him, as some of the apostles, but he does not, which, to me seems something in favor of celibacy, does it not?

What do you think?

Verbum

Hey Verbum, thanks for the response. While researching translations for this argument, I did come across the French Jerusalem Bible translation of “femme”, but the English translation of the JB and NJB sadly translates to wife.

As far as Paul arguing the “right” to carry about a woman, one could also argue that he is not saying that the other Apostles bring wives/women, rather he is arguing he has the right, just as they have the right, not necessarily implying that they are excercising that said right.

However, it seems more probable to me that they (at least some of them) are excercising that right-- and I think Paul is too. Why else would he be defending he and Barnabas’ right to bring a woman? Clement of Alexandria takes this position too (but he translates gunaika to wife), as does Karl Keating. Paul seems to be defending accusations against he and/or Barnabas bringing a “sister-woman” along with them for assistance. If he wasnt, I really dont think he would even have mentioned it. That said, by Pauls other statements about being single/unmarried, I believe one can safely conclude that if he/they did have one (at least at one time) this was indeed simply a believing sister, an assistant to Paul and Barnabas, to help in their mission. This lends some support to the assertion that the women were not wives in the first place (at least not all of them).

I cannot deny the possibility of Cephas “sister-woman/wife” being his actual wife, but I can deny that the passage provides “open and shut” proof that Peter in fact traveled with his wife, because Paul is unmarried and applies the argument to himself as well.

What do you think?

 

[FCEGM]

Josh, two article you might find helpful:

catholic-legate.com/dialogues/celibacy.html

catholic-legate.com/qa/celibacyland.html Note especially the last section of this article with its suggestions of further reading; Cochini’s work is especially thorough. An excerpt from Cochini:

Let us next open the archives of the Council of Trent, at the page recording the discussions of the theological commission studying the theses relative to clerical marriage: here is the African document, standing out, in the files of the experts. And when, after hesitating for a long time, Pius IV finally decided to give his answer to the German princes asking Rome to authorize the marriage of priests, his first word on the matter would be a quotation from the decree of Carthage.

"Here then is the document that was to play such a part in the history of ecclesiastical celibacy:

'Epigonius, Bishop of the Royal Region of Bulla, says: The rule of continence and chastity had been discussed in a previous council. Let is [now]
be taught with more emphasis what are the three ranks that, by virtue of their consecration, are under the same obligation of chastity, i.e., the bishop, the priest, and the deacon, and let them be instructed to keep their purity. Bishop Genethlius says: As was previously said, it is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e., those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the apostles taught an what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavor to keep. The bishops declared unanimously: It pleases us all that bishop, priest, and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from [conjugal intercourse] with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.

This text is interesting in many respects. Mention is made of the clerics’ wives, and particularly, the wives of the hierarchy’s high-ranking members: bishops, priests, and deacons. Most of those - or at least a large number - were thus bound by marriage. Such men are being asked by the African synod to give up no less than all conjugal intercourse and to observe perfect chastity. Because they are ministers at the service of the divine sacraments, it is deemed that marital life would prevent them from carrying out simpliciter (in all simplicity) their intercessory function. Moreover, we are assured that such a discipline is not a new one: the Fathers of Carthage are only stressing the obligation of something that was ‘taught by the apostles and observed by antiquity itself.’"

There were simple reasons for this: The Twelve were living celibate when they left their families to follow Our Lord and so were living with and like Him. Moreover, the Apostolic Offices of the Twelve was the highest office of the Church, which the Episcopal offices comes closest to but not equal to. The continence required of bishops followed the Twelve’s vocation to live totally for the Kingdom, as Our Lord says in Matthew 19 that some are eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom.

At first this did not mean separation from one’s wife, but only separation from conjugal sex; this normally would not be a problem, since priests and bishops, and even deacons were chosen from the elders, i.e., those whose children were already raised.

The Church has always allowed couples who had no responsibilities towards offspring or others to mutually separate and enter religious life. In the first period of the Church when spirituality was higher than later (first 300 years) this was not so unusual and the Church following the practice of the Apostles as well as their example chose priests and deacons from among these spiritually mature elders, who though not separating from their wives who needed their financial and social support before such things as monasteries, lived like brothers and sisters with regard to sex. A great example of this in the West is St. Nicholas of Flue: after a prolific marriage, he and his wife spent the last 20 years in continence and he was blessed with prophecy and even living only on the Eucharist (15th century, I believe).

Further, while in the early Church there were many married bishops, even married Popes, we see that the However, this was not always the case; in fact, if you look at the writing St. Ignatius you see that he names the first bishops of 4 major Episcopal sees: Rome, Antioch, Ephesus and Crete. In listing them, he says that the first men appointed to be bishops of the sees of Rome (Clement), Antioch (Evodius, then St. Ignatius of Antioch), Ephesus (St. Timothy, then John, the Beloved Disciple) and Crete (Titus) were all celibate men, and then Alexandria (St. Mark).

So what should that tell your friend? It says that the Apostles preferred to appoint unmarried men to the episcopate.

Lastly, (something I recently mentioned in another thread on the subject) it needs to be mentioned that the discipline of priestly celibacy stems for the most part from the nature of the priesthood itself, namely that a priest offers sacrifice (THE Sacrifice of the Mass). As we see already practiced in Old Testament times, the priests who rotated terms of service in the Temple were required to practice sexual fasting during the time of their service. (We see this at the beginning of St. Luke’s gospel when he presents us with the account of Zachary and Elizabeth and the conception of John (the Baptist).)

So while celibate priests are to practice life-long sexual fasting, it has also been the age-old discipline of married priests to observe life-long continence, or at least sexual fasting before offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[Josh128]

Thanks for the thoughtful response Francis, I will look into that. I do have a question about something you posted though–

Francis:

Further, while in the early Church there were many married bishops, even married Popes, we see that the However, this was not always the case; in fact, if you look at the writing St. Ignatius you see that he names the first bishops of 4 major Episcopal sees: Rome, Antioch, Ephesus and Crete. In listing them, he says that the first men appointed to be bishops of the sees of Rome (Clement), Antioch (Evodius, then St. Ignatius of Antioch), Ephesus (St. Timothy, then John, the Beloved Disciple) and Crete (Titus) were all celibate men, and then Alexandria (St. Mark).

This is St. Ignatius Loyola, correct? Which writing is it in which he speaks of this?

Also, please understand that Im not necessarily asking for (name removed by moderator)ut just to further myself in winning an “internet battle”, but to help develop and broaden my own understanding so I can better defend the true Christian Church against anyone. This is and has always been a very polarized, debated subject. Anyone else here who can add to or critique my arguments in any wayplease do so.

 

[FCEGM]

Thanks for the thoughtful response Francis, I will look into that. I do have a question about something you posted though–

This is St. Ignatius Loyola, correct? Which writing is it in which he speaks of this?

Also, please understand that Im not necessarily asking for (name removed by moderator)ut just to further myself in winning an “internet battle”, but to help develop and broaden my own understanding so I can better defend the true Christian Church against anyone. This is and has always been a very polarized, debated subject. Anyone else here who can add to or critique my arguments in any wayplease do so.

I understand, Josh; that’s how it should be: know our faith for the love of Christ, not to win arguments.

It’s St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Philadelphians:

sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/001/0010191.htm

 

[Randy_Carson]

Also, is there a solid defense to the requirement of clerical celibacy when BOTH passages are used/cited against it? The more I ponder it, the more it seems to nag me…

Celibacy and the Catholic Priest

Many people believe that the Catholic Church violates the Word of God because it forbids people to marry (cf. 1 Timothy 4:3) or that it is wrong for priests to remain celibate. To get a clearer picture of this issue, let’s examine what the Bible has to say about the subject of celibacy.

Matthew 19:11-12
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Jesus offers the celibate life as a gift and tells us that “The one who can accept this should accept it.”

1 Corinthians 7:1
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:7
7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Paul reveals his own celibacy and offers an earnest wish that more people would follow his example.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul concedes that getting married is better than struggling with sexual temptation; for those that “cannot control themselves, they should marry.”

Is Paul completely opposed to marriage? Not at all. The book of Hebrews states:

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Why then does Paul recommend celibacy?

1 Corinthians 7:32-35
32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

From this passage, we can see Paul’s primary reason for advocating celibacy: he wants everyone to live in undivided devotion to the Lord, and in all of these verses, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus calls some men to the priesthood and offers them the gift of a celibate life to be lived in undivided devotion to God. Paul understands that not everyone is offered this gift and that not all to whom it is offered can or will accept it.

There are Catholic priests who are married; typically, these are men who were priests in the Anglican, Orthodox or other faith traditions and have converted to the Catholic faith after they were married in those churches. Under special circumstances, they may be ordained to serve as Catholic priests. Men who are already Catholic when they begin to discern their call to the priesthood must remain celibate.

The Catholic Church forbids no man to marry. However, she does desire that those who will represent Christ, who will stand in persona Christi (in the place of Christ) when administering the sacraments as priests, be like their Lord as fully as possible. This means that like Jesus, they are celibate men prepared to sacrifice their own lives in the service of God and others.

The calling and the gift is offered by God; those who choose to accept it do so freely. Here is an article, “Celibacy is a Gift”, that explains this more fully: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102fea5.asp

 

[Randy_Carson]

Articles on Celibacy

Celibacy and the Priesthood
catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

---

The theological basis for priestly celibacy
By Max Thurian, Theologian
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_theol_en.html

---

**Celibacy Is a Gift **
By Greg Mockeridge
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102fea5.asp

How To Argue For Priestly Celibacy
By Jason Evert
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104sbs.asp

 

[Luke65]

As far as Paul arguing the “right” to carry about a woman, one could also argue that he is not saying that the other Apostles bring wives/women, rather he is arguing he has the right, just as they have the right, not necessarily implying that they are excercising that said right.

However, it seems more probable to me that they (at least some of them) are excercising that right-- and I think Paul is too. Why else would he be defending he and Barnabas’ right to bring a woman? Clement of Alexandria takes this position too (but he translates gunaika to wife), as does Karl Keating. Paul seems to be defending accusations against he and/or Barnabas bringing a “sister-woman” along with them for assistance. If he wasnt, I really dont think he would even have mentioned it. That said, by Pauls other statements about being single/unmarried, I believe one can safely conclude that if he/they did have one (at least at one time) this was indeed simply a believing sister, an assistant to Paul and Barnabas, to help in their mission. This lends some support to the assertion that the women were not wives in the first place (at least not all of them).

I cannot deny the possibility of Cephas “sister-woman/wife” being his actual wife, but I can deny that the passage provides “open and shut” proof that Peter in fact traveled with his wife, because Paul is unmarried and applies the argument to himself as well.

What do you think?

Well, first of all, I think you argued the case very persuasively. And I think you’ve perfectly set up the argument here that Peter could have had his wife with him but as brother and sister, like Paul would have been with any woman. Again, if when our Lord talked about leaving your wife behind, He meant leaving marital relations behind, then all of this can be easily harmonized - and this passage too:

“You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus… Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs—he wants to please his commanding officer.” (2 Timothy 2:1-4)

Paul is talking to Timothy, whom he had ordained (2 Tim. 1:6), again stressing that a priest must be entirely committed to serving the Kingdom. The only argument that hasn’t been pointed out is that when Jesus selected His apostles, and when they ordained priests, they didn’t have very many celibate men to choose from! They were all converts, most of them already married when they first heard the Gospel. But after Christians were raised in the faith, baptized at birth, the Church began to have more and more celibate vocations - those who answered our Lord’s call.

I’m sure you can argue all of this very well, but don’t be surprised if he isn’t convinced, and don’t be discouraged - just pray for him and move on. God bless.

 

[Benadam]

Matthew Chapter 19

**25 And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved? **

Jesus has just finished teaching them how complete one must abandon worldly things. He see’s their fears and strengthens them.

26 And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible. 27 Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have?

Notice it’s Peter who ha the courage to look Jesus in the eye and say 'we have left all things. Then Jesus follows by validating their self sacrifice by teaching them their future reward and what they had given up that is the most difficult and most important in recieving it.

**28 And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. 30 And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first. **

Note that Jesus especially affirms Peter individually and as leader of the 12 by saying ‘you’

 

[Josh128]

I understand, Josh; that’s how it should be: know our faith for the love of Christ, not to win arguments.

It’s St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Philadelphians:

sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/001/0010191.htm

Im very familiar with St. Ignatius of Antioch, but I didnt think of him because he doesnt address the bishop of Rome in his epistle to the Romans (an argument used by some Protestants and atheists that Rome had no bishops till the 150s or so)- you threw me off because you said he said that Clement was the first bishop of Rome-- which he did not say that, and Clement was not, he was the 4th (or 3rd according to some lists)-- he also doesnt specifically say he was the bishop, but I agree that the context implies that. One thing I find very interesting though is this quote from that letter–
St. Ignatius of Antioch:

Not, however, that I blame the other blessed [saints] because they entered into the married state, of which I have just spoken. 910 For I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found at their feet in the kingdom, as at the feet of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; as of Joseph, and Isaiah, and the rest of the prophets; as of Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, that were married men.

Wow, that is very interesting-- Paul and the rest of the Apostles married??! Tradition (and scripture) tells us that at the very least John and Paul never married-- St. Ignatius seems to disagree here. If he is correct perhaps Paul married sometime after settling in Rome before his martyrdom??

 

[FCEGM]

Im very familiar with St. Ignatius of Antioch, but I didnt think of him because he doesnt address the bishop of Rome in his epistle to the Romans (an argument used by some Protestants and atheists that Rome had no bishops till the 150s or so)- you threw me off because you said he said that Clement was the first bishop of Rome-- which he did not say that, and Clement was not, he was the 4th (or 3rd according to some lists)-- he also doesnt specifically say he was the bishop, but I agree that the context implies that. One thing I find very interesting though is this quote from that letter–

You’re right; I should have said “one of the first”.

Wow, that is very interesting-- Paul and the rest of the Apostles married??! Tradition (and scripture) tells us that at the very least John and Paul never married-- St. Ignatius seems to disagree here. If he is correct perhaps Paul married sometime after settling in Rome before his martyrdom??

St. Clement of Alexandria made the same claim. It all boils down to how one should interpret 1 Cor. 7:8, which reads: “Now to the unmarried and to widows I say: It is good for them to remain as they are, even as I do.”

So, does this make Paul someone who was never married or a widower? The consensus of the very early Church forces us to assume that he was a widower. His wife presumedly died before his conversion on the road to Damascus, and probably before he started to persecute the Church. This seems to fit, since his anti-Christian campaign (per Acts 9:1-2) looks like the work of someone who is not tied down with family commitments. So I think we must disagree with Clement of Alexandria’s interpretation of Phil 4:3. Clement assumes that Paul’s reference to “my fellow yokemate” applies to Paul’s wife, which would mean that she was still alive late into Paul’s ministry when Philippians was written. This of course directly contradicts what we see in 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 7:8 & 9:5, etc.), which was written much earlier. Rather, his “fellow yokemate” in Philippians more likely refers to another Apostle or close associate in ministry, not to Paul’s wife. Paul may also be referring to the Philippian church itself as his “yokemate,” which seems the most sensible interpretation.

 

[Josh128]

You’re right; I should have said “one of the first”.

St. Clement of Alexandria made the same claim. It all boils down to how one should interpret 1 Cor. 7:8, which reads: “Now to the unmarried and to widows I say: It is good for them to remain as they are, even as I do.”

So, does this make Paul someone who was never married or a widower? The consensus of the very early Church forces us to assume that he was a widower. His wife presumedly died before his conversion on the road to Damascus, and probably before he started to persecute the Church. This seems to fit, since his anti-Christian campaign (per Acts 9:1-2) looks like the work of someone who is not tied down with family commitments. So I think we must disagree with Clement of Alexandria’s interpretation of Phil 4:3. Clement assumes that Paul’s reference to “my fellow yokemate” applies to Paul’s wife, which would mean that she was still alive late into Paul’s ministry when Philippians was written. This of course directly contradicts what we see in 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 7:8 & 9:5, etc.), which was written much earlier. Rather, his “fellow yokemate” in Philippians more likely refers to another Apostle or close associate in ministry, not to Paul’s wife. Paul may also be referring to the Philippian church itself as his “yokemate,” which seems the most sensible interpretation.

…or perhaps Paul married after settling in Rome, before he was martyred? True, he didnt lead the best lifestyle for a married man, but who really knows? It would seem that Ignatius of Antioch would be one of the best witnesses, as he was supposedly a venerable elder around the year 107, its quite possible he had met Peter and Paul in his lifetime!