priest having sex is not against his vow of celibacy. is this true?

[jmcrae]

You know… I think there is a term for a marriage with marriageless sex, but I am coming to a complete blank right now.
Apparently St. Isidore the Farmer and his wife lived together chastely after many years of trying to have children and couldn’t. She also became a saint.

They had a marriage without sex, though - not “marriageless sex” which of course no matter how you phrase it is always a sin, because sex belongs in marriage.

 

[bengal_fan]

The highlighted statement is incorrect. Celibacy means complete abstinence from sexual relations, not marriage.

not according to medieval practices of many bishops and popes. i’m sure the church has changed its stance on this, but the medieval ones thought this and acted accordingly.

 

[jmcrae]

not according to medieval practices of many bishops and popes. i’m sure the church has changed its stance on this, but the medieval ones thought this and acted accordingly.

Yeah, and then there was the baby-eating Bishop of Barthon Wells.

(Do you watch a lot of Blackadder, by any chance?)

 

[bengal_fan]

, Roman Catholic priests, take a vow of celibacy (from marriage). By extension (using the rationale explained in previous posts), a person who has taken a vow of celibacy must also remain abstain from sexual relations.

but if one only takes a vow of celibacy and they have sex, they have not broken the vow, they have just sinned.

 

[LilyM]

But the ex-seminarian was saying it wouldn’t be a SIN of any kind for a priest to have sex, not just that it wouldn’t be a breach of his vow of celibacy.

There are plenty of 12-year-old Catholic (and even non-Catholic) schoolkids who could tell you that it’s an unalterable principle of our faith that NO unmarried persons may have sex, on pain of sin, priests included.

I am highly doubtful that any Catholic seminary would even let anyone in who had such a glaring lack of knowledge of the fundamental tenets of Catholic teaching.

Edit - by the way it’s Bishop of BATH AND Wells Blackadder nerd alert

 

[mschrank]

Yeah, and then there was the baby-eating Bishop of Barthon Wells.

(Do you watch a lot of Blackadder, by any chance?)

TIME FOR THE POKER!

Yeah seriously… I think the ex-seminarian needed to pay more attention to his Catechism and not get all his information about the faith from British comedy.

 

[bengal_fan]

Yeah, and then there was the baby-eating Bishop of Barthon Wells.

(Do you watch a lot of Blackadder, by any chance?)

i don’t know the references you made, but mine are historically accurate. nepostism comes from giving special treatment to the bishops’ and popes’ “nephews” (who were really children sired by them… out of wedlock of course because they had taken a vow of celibacy… not to marry).

 

[bengal_fan]

But the ex-seminarian was saying it wouldn’t be a SIN of any kind for a priest to have sex, not just that it wouldn’t be a breach of his vow of celibacy.

right, and that is why i said the priest would be sinning but not breaking their vow of celibacy. if they took a vow of chastity, they would be breaking that.

 

[LilyM]

i don’t know the references you made, but mine are historically accurate. nepostism comes from giving special treatment to the bishops’ and popes’ “nephews” (who were really children sired by them… out of wedlock of course because they had taken a vow of celibacy… not to marry).

Yes, and? They were sinning grievously by siring those children in the first place, wedlock or no, vow of celibacy or no. To my mind a vow of celibacy necessarily constitutes a vow never to have sex, abstaining from sex is a necessary requirement of the unmarried state to which a priest is vowed in perpetuity.

 

[bengal_fan]

Yes, and? They were sinning grievously by siring those children in the first place, wedlock or no, vow of celibacy or no. To my mind a vow of celibacy necessarily constitutes a vow never to have sex, abstaining from sex is a necessary requirement of the unmarried state to which a priest is vowed in perpetuity.

i have no “and”. i was simply responding to a post that sounded like they believed the fact that many bishops and popes sinned by engaging in sex was a conspiracy theory that was not true. it is true. it does not break down papal infallibility, it was simply an abuse born out of the “spick-et” theory espoused by augustine when he was writing against the donatists.

 

[jmcrae]

i don’t know the references you made, but mine are historically accurate. nepostism comes from giving special treatment to the bishops’ and popes’ “nephews” (who were really children sired by them… out of wedlock of course because they had taken a vow of celibacy… not to marry).

If they sinned, they sinned - Christ died for sinners, so it is not very surprising to find sinners in the Church.

But if they were within their rights to have sex outside of marriage, and it was acceptable to the Church for them to do so, then why would they hide the fact by referring to their male offspring as “nephews”?

After all, folks today who live together before marriage, who are honestly under the impression that this is acceptable behaviour, certainly don’t deny the parenthood of their children. They believe that they have not done anything wrong, and they acknowledge, often with pride, “My girlfriend and I are having a baby!” And when the child is born, he or she is given all the privileges of a son or daughter - no “nephews” or “cousins” around there!

So, I ask again - if the Church approved of this behaviour and didn’t consider it sinful, why would these men have hidden the origin of these children?

 

[bengal_fan]

i have never once said the church did not consider it sinful. not once. i said it did not break the vow of celibacy. it was sinful. it was always taught as sinful (this actually helps the argument for papal infallibility… despite the sinful man in peter’s chair, he continues to teach truth even though he might not be living it). that is why they were called “nephews”. but everyone knew. the bishops and the popes were (and still are in some respects) extremely powerful. the people who crossed them usually ended up in bad situations.

 

[jmcrae]

i have never once said the church did not consider it sinful. not once. i said it did not break the vow of celibacy. it was sinful. it was always taught as sinful (this actually helps the argument for papal infallibility… despite the sinful man in peter’s chair, he continues to teach truth even though he might not be living it). that is why they were called “nephews”. but everyone knew. the bishops and the popes were (and still are in some respects) extremely powerful. the people who crossed them usually ended up in bad situations.

So why bring it up? Since obviously, from the point of view of the Church, to be celibate implies that one must refrain from sex altogether.

 

[LilyM]

If they sinned, they sinned - Christ died for sinners, so it is not very surprising to find sinners in the Church.

But if they were within their rights to have sex outside of marriage, and it was acceptable to the Church for them to do so, then why would they hide the fact by referring to their male offspring as “nephews”?

After all, folks today who live together before marriage, who are honestly under the impression that this is acceptable behaviour, certainly don’t deny the parenthood of their children. They believe that they have not done anything wrong, and they acknowledge, often with pride, “My girlfriend and I are having a baby!” And when the child is born, he or she is given all the privileges of a son or daughter - no “nephews” or “cousins” around there!

So, I ask again - if the Church approved of this behaviour and didn’t consider it sinful, why would these men have hidden the origin of these children?

Bengal - note that popes and clerics would at least attempt to hide the paternity of their children who were conceived outside of wedlock.

Contrast this with the behaviour of kings and nobles of the same time who also frequently took mistresses and had illegitimate children - and who were very definitely breaking their marital vows. Never a ‘nephew’ or ‘niece’ or ‘cousin’ among those children!

Some of these noble illegitimates, such as William of Normandy (known as The Conqueror, who became William I of England) in fact succeeded to the dignities of their fathers regardless of their legitimacy. Many others received high rank and offices of other kinds as an open acknowledgement of their royal or noble paternity.

So why the coverup among the clergy in regard to their children unless it was considered MORE scandalous in some way for a priest or Bishop to have children than for a married man? And how could it be considered more scandalous except that it was considered a breach of their vow of celibacy?

 

[bengal_fan]

So why bring it up? Since obviously, from the point of view of the Church, to be celibate implies that one must refrain from sex altogether.

did you not read the first question of the thread? it asked if having sex broke the vow of celibacy. then he said that his friend said it also wasn’t a sin. i was demonstrating that he was right on the first part and wrong on the second. i used an example of history where church practiced demonstrated it.

that is why i brought it up.

and celibacy implies it, but doesn’t say it. it wasn’t so obvious throughout the entire history of the church.

 

[bengal_fan]

Bengal - note that popes and clerics would at least attempt to hide the paternity of their children who were conceived outside of wedlock.

Contrast this with the behaviour of kings and nobles of the same time who also frequently took mistresses and had illegitimate children - and who were very definitely breaking their marital vows. Never a ‘nephew’ or ‘niece’ or ‘cousin’ among those children!

Some of these noble illegitimates, such as William of Normandy (known as The Conqueror, who became William I of England) in fact succeeded to the dignities of their fathers regardless of their legitimacy. Many others received high rank and offices of other kinds as an open acknowledgement of their royal or noble paternity.

So why the coverup among the clergy in regard to their children unless it was considered MORE scandalous in some way for a priest or Bishop to have children than for a married man?** And how could it be considered more scandalous except that it was considered a breach of their vow of celibacy?**

oh my goodness. please read my posts entirely before responding. i already said they made an attempt to “hide” (although not too big of an attempt considering they put these children into prominent positions… at one point there was a 5 year old cardinal… i’ll get the reference later for you).

it was not considered a breach of their vow of celibacy. it was considered sinful behavior which is why they didn’t just come out and say they had kids. most kings did the same thing. we do find some exceptions. also, the belief in royal blood plays a part in the reasoning of the kings.

if you don’t believe this stuff happened, that is fine (although you would be going against all historical evidence). as others on here pointed out, the vow of celibacy only applies to marriage. it does imply chastity but it does not state it. therefore, having sex does not break the vow of celibacy. it is a sin though.

the part i bolded is a jump in logic. you are attempting to say what a medieval person thought.

i could turn the question around a little. if celibacy and chastity are the same thing, why do some priests have to take a vow of celibacy (as a priest) AND a vow of chastity (as part of an order)? because they are different.

 

[jmcrae]

did you not read the first question of the thread? it asked if having sex broke the vow of celibacy.

The answer is, “Yes, it does.”

then he said that his friend said it also wasn’t a sin. i was demonstrating that he was right on the first part and wrong on the second. i used an example of history where church practiced demonstrated it.

All your demonstration showed was that clergy who fornicated called their sons “nephews” to cover up the fact that they had sinned. Which means that they were perfectly well aware of their sins.

and celibacy implies it, but doesn’t say it. it wasn’t so obvious throughout the entire history of the church.

If it wasn’t obvious to them that sex outside of marriage was a sin, then why did they go to such lengths to cover it up?

 

[bengal_fan]

this is a pointless argument. i answered the opening post correctly, i used an historical example to prove my point, and i backed it up.

i’m out. peace

 

[bengal_fan]

The answer is, “Yes, it does.”

wrong. the priests who molested women and children (a small minority amongst a plethera of great men), had sex. it did not break their vows of celibacy. it did break their vows (if they took one) of chastity.

All your demonstration showed was that clergy who fornicated called their sons “nephews” to cover up the fact that they had sinned. Which means that they were perfectly well aware of their sins.

as i said. but they did it that way because they KNEW it didn’t break their vow of celibacy. that is how it demonstrates the point. to quote c.s. lewis “don’t they teach the kids logic these days?”

If it wasn’t obvious to them that sex outside of marriage was a sin, then why did they go to such lengths to cover it up?

again, not understanding my words and twisting them. they understood the sin of sex outside marriage. they did not understand celibacy and chastity to mean the same thing.

now i’m out

 

[Bruised_Reed]

hello, i heard from an ex-seminarian now anti-cathoilc that a priest is permitted to have sex, saying that its not a sin and that he has not broken his vow, so far he deosn’t get married. is this true?
pls i really need help on this.

It’s not true as others have answered.

I don’t know what seminaries are teaching this but I heard it from a seminarian as well. Don’t if he’s an “ex” though. Trust me when I say it would not be a bad thing if he was.