Priestly Celebacy

[fix]

otm:

I don’t intend to sound angry and defensive; I am trying to shake you out of complacency and accepting the status quo just because it is the status quo. I didn’t make any accusations, I asked questions. You didn’t answer them. How do you feel about celibacy?

I have met too many people who, if one probes deeply enough, really do approach Jansenism. They have been impacted by the world’s view of sex; that is is something to joke about because it is too difficult for them to handle in a mature, Christian fashion. Both celibacy and marriage require one to give up. Both require a selflessness that is daunting. You were the one who made the remark about keeping one foot in heaven and one on earth. Do you think marriage is keeping one( or both) feet on earth?

I thought this was a forum where there could be a vigorous exchange of ideas and opinions. I asked several pointed questions. Is your response really accurately reflected in your last statement above?

I live a life of celibacy. I am not anti celibacy. I am not out to destroy the priesthood, or put my values over the Church’s. But am I supposed to say nothing when I think that the Roman rite has been, and continues to be, overbearing, even if unintentionally? Is the fact that the Church has chosen a discipline mean that I am forbidden to question it on pain of not being a loyal Catholic? The Church, and this Pope, has chosen the discipline of a pastoral approach to dissenters, and he has admitted such, recently. Your comment about my desires over the Church’s desires certainly seems to imply that I should not question his approach.

I invite you to answer the questions I raised, not duck out by saying I am making accusations and that I have an exalted opinion.

Look, you sound to me like you are either an Eastern rite Catholic or Eastern Orthodox? Many of these folks have a mentality where they want to argue with the Latin rite over everything because they “feel” marginalized. They think they are overlooked, or the Pope is ruling them and suppressing their authentic spirituality. One of the key issues is a married priesthood. They cling to this issue as if it is more important than anything else.

Celibacy is a discipline that goes back to Christ. It is suppported and encouraged bu this Pope and many others throughout history. Now, I hear all the time from folks who immediately say…it’s a discipline…it’s a discipline…I am allowed to disagree. They immediately launch into a diatribe about how wrong Mother Church is and how their private, poorly formed opinion needs to be listened to and debated like that TV show Cross Fire. Well, I disagree. Yes, we may hold a different opinion about this topic and not be quilty of mortal sin, but is that minimalist approach what Christ asks of us? Are we to latch onto the idea that because we may hold an opposing view that we are annointed by Christ to criticize His vicar and his plans and view for the Church? Are we to openly state we want a married priesthood at every chance? How does that foster unity? Is that authentic obedience?

I have not stated my view of marriage or why celibacy is to be valued. You implied many things. None of which are accurate.

My statement about one foot in heaven and one on earth did not refer to being married. It referred to claiming to do the Lord’s will, but only obeying when we agreed with it.

 

[fix]

KathyT:

I didn’t mean that an ordination mimics a wedding, but there is something that I read about the priest being married to the Holy Mother Church.

BTW, which Church do you attend? I am at St. Cecilia’s in Beaverton.

Yes, the Church is referred to as the bride of Christ. Priests are “another” Christ. The push for a loosening of the celibacy requirement comes from a few places. It comes from the heterodox, the Eastern rites and from those who think almost entirely in secular terms.

 

[otm]

It also comes from those who think that a charism has the ability to stand on its own, who realize that both married and celibte clergy go back to the time of Christ, who value celibacy for what it is: a tremendous witness; and who realize that those who are not celibate can also be a tremendous witness to Christ. We are loyal to the Magesterium and members of the Roman rite, and have enough sense of history to see that the Roman rite has its own set of flaws and issues.

 

[Sherlock]

Otm,

You are correct: a person can be a faithful, orthodox Catholic and still favor optional celibacy. However, to be perfectly frank, the groups and voices that I hear supporting an optional celibacy could not be described in those terms, by and large. If the Church ever changes her discipline regarding celibacy (and I hope she does not, as I respect the theology behind it), it won’t be when these heterodox groups are pressuring her to do so. So don’t hold your breath: it is unlikely to happen in our lifetime. With the younger, more orthodox priests coming into positions of leadership within the Church in the coming years, it won’t happen in your kids’ lifetimes either. For which I am grateful…

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

Celibacy is a discipline that goes back to Christ. It is suppported and encouraged bu this Pope and many others throughout history. Now, I hear all the time from folks who immediately say…it’s a discipline…it’s a discipline…I am allowed to disagree. They immediately launch into a diatribe about how wrong Mother Church is and how their private, poorly formed opinion needs to be listened to and debated like that TV show Cross Fire. Well, I disagree. Yes, we may hold a different opinion about this topic and not be quilty of mortal sin, but is that minimalist approach what Christ asks of us? Are we to latch onto the idea that because we may hold an opposing view that we are annointed by Christ to criticize His vicar and his plans and view for the Church? Are we to openly state we want a married priesthood at every chance? How does that foster unity? Is that authentic obedience?

What do think about 1 Tim 3:2-5, which states:
“Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?”

Why, would you say, the Church follow a practice, discipline, whatever you call it, other than what seems to be recommended in the New Testament? I am not criticizing Christ’s vicar here; I simply am asking a question – or do you think we have no right to ask questions of our leaders?

By the way, a couple years ago we had a married associate priest in our parish. He was a minister in another religion and converted to Catholicism. Obviously the Church doesn’t consider celibacy a requirement for priesthood, or it would never allow that. I’ve often wondered why the Church believes married non-Catholics can and should obey a call to priesthood, but married Catholics cannot. My wife works on the vocation committee at our church, and for the first time in my life, I actually have thought seriously about becoming a priest, except I can’t because I’m married. If I were Lutheran, I could go through RCIA and I’m in. Since I’m Catholic, it’s “sorry Charlie.” Can you defend the Church’s stance on that other than by asserting that the Church’s stance is not to be questioned? If so, please enlighten me.

Alan

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

What do think about 1 Tim 3:2-5, which states:
“Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?”

What do you think about Christ being celibate? Every verse of the bible must reconciled. That is why we Catholics do not belive in self interpretation of the bible.

Why, would you say, the Church follow a practice, discipline, whatever you call it, other than what seems to be recommended in the New Testament? I am not criticizing Christ’s vicar here; I simply am asking a question – or do you think we have no right to ask questions of our leaders?

Questions are good and fine. The problem is they are not really questions, but adolescent demands. Read back through history, then tell me that the bible speaks as you wish it to speak.

By the way, a couple years ago we had a married associate priest in our parish. He was a minister in another religion and converted to Catholicism. Obviously the Church doesn’t consider celibacy a requirement for priesthood, or it would never allow that.

The Church has the authority to make exceptions as She sees fit.

I’ve often wondered why the Church believes married non-Catholics can and should obey a call to priesthood, but married Catholics cannot.

Those folks did not start out as Catholics. They are not bound by the same laws, because they did not know the full faith.

My wife works on the vocation committee at our church, and for the first time in my life, I actually have thought seriously about becoming a priest, except I can’t because I’m married. If I were Lutheran, I could go through RCIA and I’m in. Since I’m Catholic, it’s “sorry Charlie.”

ah, there we have it. It is always about “me”. My will first, Lord, then Yours.

Can you defend the Church’s stance on that other than by asserting that the Church’s stance is not to be questioned? If so, please enlighten me.

Yes, I have and many others have, but to be honest I do not think that is needed here. I am sick and tired of teenage-like Catholics always wanting their way. Do the words sacrafice or obedient even exist in your world? Is everything about you? In your post and the other post by the Eastern rite person I have not read about what Christ wants. What His Church desires. It is always about me or us.

BTW, I never said the Church can’t be questioned. What I resent is the know-it-alls who claim a married clergy is right for the Church. I would bet the majority of those who call for a married clergy dissent on central issues of the faith.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

Questions are good and fine. The problem is they are not really questions, but adolescent demands. Read back through history, then tell me that the bible speaks as you wish it to speak.

Yes, I have and many others have, but to be honest I do not think that is needed here. I am sick and tired of teenage-like Catholics always wanting their way. Do the words sacrafice or obedient even exist in your world? Is everything about you? In your post and the other post by the Eastern rite person I have not read about what Christ wants. What His Church desires. It is always about me or us.

BTW, I never said the Church can’t be questioned. What I resent is the know-it-alls who claim a married clergy is right for the Church. I would bet the majority of those who call for a married clergy dissent on central issues of the faith.

Dear fix,

I’m sorry you are so quick to judge my motives. I am also sorry that you resorted to name-calling because you apparently couldn’t answer my question.

When you ask whether the words sacrafice [sic] or obedient even exist in my world, you must be assuming that I am trying to change the Church’s mind and become a priest. Are you saying that by having a desire – a desire I know I never will be able to fulfill – to become a priest that I am somehow disobedient? What would you have me do? Go to confession to be absolved of a passing idea that it would be nice to be a priest? Go get electroshock therapy to erase the memory from my mind? Really, if name-calling is the best you can do, then you aren’t doing the Church any favors in trying to defend her.

So may I assume that you think people who claim a married clergy is right for the Church.are “know-it-alls?” That means that if I think that way, I am in good company with the author of 1 Tim.

Alan

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

We should remember the context of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

There exists no right, whatsoever, for anyone, to receive Holy Orders. Where a vocation is discerned, it is brought to the Church to be examined and confirmed. The mere existance of a perceived call to the priesthood gives no one a right to demand the Sacrament.

Often, I find, discussions concerning married priests (and women “priests” as well) are tinged with rights issues. These rights do not exist, for anyone.

We might also remember, to keep things in perspective, from the Council of Trent:

SESSION THE TWENTY-FOURTH
ON THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY.
CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[larryo]

There are many good replies to this thread about priestly celibacy. One aspect of the issue that I would like to raise is that of practicality. If we had a married priesthood, the following considerations would need to be addressed:

• For priests who are not independently wealthy, how would they be able to support families?
• Wouldn’t married priests have to divert much of their energy and time to their families?
• Would separate homes have to be established for each priest in a parish?
• Would the parish be responsible for financing the higher education of the priests’ children?
• What if a priest and his wife have marital difficulties and seek a legal separation? Divorce? Annulment?
• What about the need of the diocese to sometimes reassign priests abruptly? Effects on children in school? Real estate arrangements?
• What about the costs of various types of insurance to maintain a family?
• What about the potential for family scandals and bad behavior by family members?

I’m sure there are many more questions that can be raised.

 

[fix]

Here is a small argument to get you started from EWTN:

Until Christ came along (Mt 19:12), and then Paul (1 Cor. 7:32-35), the only state of life known was marriage. The rabbis taught that a man was only half a man if he wasn’t married by 20. But even in the Old Testament some of the prophets, like Elijah and Jeremiah, chose celibacy. By Jesus’ time the great rabbis spoke of the possibility of “marrying Torah,” that is, dedicating their whole life to the study of the Word. Paul was one who did, both before and after his conversion. Jesus is, of course, THE WORD, and infinitely more deserving of total dedication than the written word.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that Jesus should speak of some who would remain celibate (“eunuchs”) for the sake of the Kingdom of God (Mt 19:12). St. Paul not only continued his pre-conversion celibacy as a Christian but recommended it for those who would be dedicated to serving God in this world (1 Cor. 7:7, 17, 32-35). He was speaking to a general audience and so he does not oblige it. But observe what he says in verse 17, “Only, everyone should live as the Lord has assigned, just as God called each one. I give this order in all the churches.” This coincides with the admonition of Jesus to follow the vocation given by God, whether celibacy (Mt 19:12) or marriage (v.11).

Now Jesus said that if one could accept celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom one should and Paul says it is the best way for those dedicated to the Kingdom, and BOTH of them lived this total dedication to the will of the Father for the salvation of souls. Given the mentality of the world, both Jewish and Pagan, it was impossible at the beginning to find mature candidates for the priesthood who were not already married. Only with the arrival of a generally Christian milieu, where virginity and celibacy were honored into adult life, would celibate candidates for Holy Orders be generally available. Not surprisingly, then, the Church discerned with time that the gift of celibacy from God (who alone can give such a gift), together with the desire to serve God and His people, was an indication of a vocation to the priesthood. THIS has not always and everywhere been imposed in the Church, but almost immediately in Church history we find it recommended and even required in some places. Although Latin Rite Catholic priests for the last 1000 years have had to be celibate, Eastern Rite Catholic priests and priests of the Orthodox Churches (not in union with Rome) do not. However, ALL bishops in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches MUST be celibates. They represent Christ to the people in their dioceses and Christ’s bride is the Church (Eph 5:21-33) not someone else. So, it is entirely fitting that bishops not marry EVER and that priests not marry either, though in some traditions it is allowed PRIOR to ordination.

The fact that the apostles were married says nothing about the practice, since they were Jewish and followed the practices of their day, until Christ came along. Tradition affirms that they remained celibates after they followed Christ.

With the grace of Redemption came the possibility of celibacy and virginity for the sake of the Kingdom of God for more than the privileged few. It is a total gift of self to the Lord, fitting for those whose vocation is dedicated to love and service of God and neighbor. Unfortunately, it is something the worldly who do not understand the power of God have difficulty accepting, then as now.

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

 

[otm]

Sherlock: I am not entirely sure what you mean by the "theology behind it (celibacy). My comments are not intended in the least to question the value of ceilibacy. But I would hesitate to say that the discipline of the Roman rite (only a celibate may be ordained) is based on the theology. That would seem to imply that the theology was rite limited or circumstance limited. Else, how to explain the difference in discipline between Eastern rites and the Roman rite? I suspect that the motives to make the rule were much more convoluted than an issue of theology. Throughout the history there have been abuses (popes and cardinals with concubines comes to mind), and I suspect that the motives were more based on cracking heads than lofty theological persuits.

I do agree with you that we are not likely to see the issue change. I suspect a resonable likelyhood that we could have a 3rd world pope the next time; if so, their focus will be on other issues, unless this comes about in terms of the other rites.

And again, I do not see it as a “fix” to any crisis in vocations. I see it as an honest approach to the charisms possible within the gamet of the Sacrament.

 

[otm]

larryo: good questions. I suspect that some, if not all of it could be answered by asking a basic question: what is intrinsic to the priesthood, in terms of activities? Must they balance the books and write the checks? Must they attend every meeting, from Knights of Columbus to the liturgy committee, to the parents/teachers night at the school (if the parish has one)? Must they counsel people (or should they even be allowed to without a degree in sounseling)?

Or are they the ministers of the sacraments?

We have large rectories, most of which stand empty, as they were designed for a time when we had more priests; could they be converted to apartments?

Aren’t some of your questions also applicable to married deacons? And are we not surviving those issues with the deacons? and are they also not questions the Eastern rites manage?

 

[fix]

**The Canon of Criticism

**JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER **

Curiously, nothing enrages people more than the question of celibacy. Even though it concerns directly only a tiny fraction of the people in the Church. Why is there celibacy?

**
It arises from a saying of Christ. There are, Christ says, those who give up marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and bear testimony to the kingdom of heaven with their whole existence. Very early on the Church came to the conviction that to be a priest means to give this testimony to the kingdom of heaven. In this regard, it could fall back analogously to an Old Testament parallel of another nature. Israel marches into the land. Each of the eleven tribes gets its land, its territory. Only the tribe of Levi, the priestly tribe, doesn’t get an inheritance; its inheritance is God alone. This means in practical terms that its members live on the cult offerings and not, like the other tribes, from the cultivation of land. The essential point is that they have no property. In Psalm 16 we read, You are my assigned portion; I have drawn you as my lot; God is my land. This figure, that is, the fact that in the Old Testament the priestly tribe is landless and, as it were, lives on God — and thereby also really bears witness to him — was later translated, on the basis of Jesus’ words, to this: The land where the priest lives is God.

The poorer an age is in faith, the more frequent the falls. This robs celibacy of its credibility and obscures the real point of it. People need to get straight in their minds that times of crisis for celibacy are always times of crisis for marriage as well. For, as a matter of fact, today we are experiencing not only violations of celibacy; marriage itself is becoming increasingly fragile as the basis of our society. In the legislation of Western nations we see how it is increasingly placed on the same level as other forms and is thereby largely “dissolved” as a legal form. Nor is the hard work needed really to live marriage negligible. Put in practical terms, after the abolition of celibacy we would only have a different kind of problem with divorced priests. That is not unknown in the Protestant Churches. In this sense, we see, of course, that the lofty forms of human existence involve great risks.

Recent studies show that celibacy goes back much farther than the usually acknowledged canonical sources would indicate, back to the second century. In the East, too, it was much more widespread than we have been able to realize up until now. In the East it isn’t until the seventh century that there is a parting of the ways. Today as before, monasticism in the East is still the foundation that sustains the priesthood and the hierarchy. In that sense, celibacy also has a very major significance in the East.
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0633.html

 

[otm]

fix: sounds like an excellent reason to make celibacy optional. Making it optional does not drive it out of existence. It does not minimize it. It does not denigrate it.

What it does is lift it up as the charism it is; a giving of self, selflessly made and chosen for the witness that it is.

If this is truly the better choice (and there has certainly been enough of that language over the centuries) then to those whom the gift is given, will we not most certainly see the choice being freely made? Given the fact that many women have chosen to serve the over the centruries as professed celibates, and through the centuries men have chosen likewise (we call them brothers), I have no fear. And given through the centuries that a married priesthood goes back directly to the earliest Church (read 1 Timothy again), I fail to see the threat, if that it be, to a change of the discipline in the Roman rite.

And as to Ratzinger’s charge that we would be only substituting another problem, that of divorced priests, look at the following:

1. Neither I, nor anyone else I have ever heard discuss this issue, is proposing that celibacy be abolished. Sorry Cardinal, that’s called a “straw man” arguement;
2. That exact issue of divorce is hardly new; there is a continual history back to the time of Christ of married clergy and we seem to have managed thus far to deal with it; in addition, the resurgence of the married permanent diaconite hasn’t derailed itself, or the Church with the issue. Frankly, I’d rather deal with the issue of divorce than the issue of child and youth sexual abuse, and homosexual activity by priests. Notice, I did not say that marriage fixes that; only that I’d rather deal with one issue than the other(s).

Married clergy are no threat to the charism of priesthood nor to the charism of celibacy. Married people are as capable of holiness as celibate. I agree with Ratzinger that celibacy is a great witness. But at the very base of the question, let’s not pretend that that everyone the Church calls to the sacrament of priesthood is given this charism. That fact is self evident, unless you choose to ignore the other 20 + rites.

 

[fix]

otm:

fix: sounds like an excellent reason to make celibacy optional. Making it optional does not drive it out of existence. It does not minimize it. It does not denigrate it.

What it does is lift it up as the charism it is; a giving of self, selflessly made and chosen for the witness that it is.

If this is truly the better choice (and there has certainly been enough of that language over the centuries) then to those whom the gift is given, will we not most certainly see the choice being freely made? Given the fact that many women have chosen to serve the over the centruries as professed celibates, and through the centuries men have chosen likewise (we call them brothers), I have no fear. And given through the centuries that a married priesthood goes back directly to the earliest Church (read 1 Timothy again), I fail to see the threat, if that it be, to a change of the discipline in the Roman rite.

And as to Ratzinger’s charge that we would be only substituting another problem, that of divorced priests, look at the following:

1. Neither I, nor anyone else I have ever heard discuss this issue, is proposing that celibacy be abolished. Sorry Cardinal, that’s called a “straw man” arguement;
2. That exact issue of divorce is hardly new; there is a continual history back to the time of Christ of married clergy and we seem to have managed thus far to deal with it; in addition, the resurgence of the married permanent diaconite hasn’t derailed itself, or the Church with the issue. Frankly, I’d rather deal with the issue of divorce than the issue of child and youth sexual abuse, and homosexual activity by priests. Notice, I did not say that marriage fixes that; only that I’d rather deal with one issue than the other(s).

Married clergy are no threat to the charism of priesthood nor to the charism of celibacy. Married people are as capable of holiness as celibate. I agree with Ratzinger that celibacy is a great witness. But at the very base of the question, let’s not pretend that that everyone the Church calls to the sacrament of priesthood is given this charism. That fact is self evident, unless you choose to ignore the other 20 + rites.

From EWTN:

Answer by Karl Keating on 10-23-2000: I recommend that you read Fr. Christian Cochini’s book “The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy.” He demonstates that it is NOT true that in the early centuries most priests were married. In fact, he lists by name ALL of the priests of the early centuries who were known to have been married, either while they were priests or before they became priests–only about 200 in all. The fact is that the rule of celibacy (which St. Paul endorsed) was the rule from the first. The Eastern Orthodox usage actually came along much later. KK

 

[fix]

And given through the centuries that a married priesthood goes back directly to the earliest Church (read 1 Timothy again

Are you saying St. Paul endorsed a married priesthood?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

Are you saying St. Paul endorsed a married priesthood?

Dear fix,

If you don’t mind my answering on behalf of otm, I am saying that it sure sounds like it. At least St. Paul seemed to endorse married bishops and deacons (NAB and KJV, or "overseers and deacons in NIV).

I may be wrong, but it sure looks clear to me. What do you think?

1 Tim 3:1-7 (NAB):
“This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God? He should not be a recent convert, so that he may not become conceited and thus incur the devil’s punishment. He must also have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, the devil’s trap.”

The next verses speak similarly about deacons. You can find the rest of the chapter at usccb.org/nab/bible/1timothy/1timothy3.htm

Alan

 

[fix]

From this very site we can see he did not endorse a married clergy, but the exact opposite:

*Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be “the husband of one wife” is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).

The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely “concerned about the affairs of the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to “renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom” (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have “left everything” to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).

Thus Paul warned Timothy, a young bishop, that those called to be “soldiers” of Christ must avoid “civilian pursuits”: “Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him” (2 Tim. 2:3–4). In light of Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 7 about the advantages of celibacy, marriage and family clearly stand out in connection with these “civilian pursuits.”

An example of ministerial celibacy can also be seen in the Old Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry, was forbidden to take a wife: “The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’” (Jer. 16:1–2). Of course, this is different from Catholic priestly celibacy, which is not divinely ordained; yet the divine precedent still supports the legitimacy of the human institution.
Forbidden to Marry?

*Yet none of these passages give us an example of humanly mandated celibacy. Jeremiah’s celibacy was mandatory, but it was from the Lord. Paul’s remark to Timothy about “civilian pursuits” is only a general admonition, not a specific command; and even in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul qualifies his strong endorsement of celibacy by adding: “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” (7:35).

This brings us to Fundamentalism’s last line of attack: that, by requiring at least some of its clerics and its religious not to marry, the Catholic Church falls under Paul’s condemnation in 1 Timothy 4:3 against apostates who “forbid marriage.”

In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They “renounce marriage” (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.

But is there scriptural precedent for this practice of restricting membership in a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy? Yes. Paul, writing once again to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: “But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge” (5:11–12).
*

 

[otm]

Considering that Karl has a legal background, perhaps he could have been more articulate than to say that a celibate clergy was the “rule”. I believe he is using the term in a generic sense: “as a general rule” meaning, there were more celibate than married. The rule of celibacy, as in a specific requirement, didn’t come until much later.

And the fact that we have a list of some 200 married clergy has an implication that it is complete for all priests then existing throughout the then known world. Of that, I have my doubts, given that I know of no original lists purporting to list all.

But the issue of whether or not we have married priests doesn’t rest on whether the majority, in the early church, were married, or were celibate.

Paul acknowledged a married clergy. I don’t see it as either an endorsement or a reluctance concerning it. It just was. In other words, a non-issue.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear fix,

You make some good points.

I suppose you can read 1 Tim 3:1-7 as saying that Paul is not recommending marriage, but restricting it. I agree with that, with the possible exception of verse 5, " for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?" In verse 5, you could say Paul is not requiring a household but again, if he has a household he has restrictions on how to run it. You could also read that Paul is saying having a household is a good thing, possibly because it either gives the bishop wordly practice with feedback, or maybe because it provides a way for others to see what a good overseer he is. Although I originally saw it the second way, I concede that it is difficult for us to dissect those shades of meaning and Paul could possibly be limiting, not recommending marriage.

Either way, though, do you agree with me that at least in 1 Tim 3:1-7, Paul is not actually forbidding or even recommending against marriage, and thereby is permitting it? If so, then technically you do not disagree with my assertion that Paul is “endorsing” marriage, depending on what definition you use for “endorse.” I consider “endorse” to mean anything from giving permission to outright recommending something. (see the first two entries at dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=endorse)

Admittedly in 1 Cor 7 Paul says that he allows marriage, “by way of concession, however, not as a command. Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.” I will agree from this and other passages you brought up, 1 Tim 3:5 notwithstanding, that Paul generally thinks single life offers advantages in one’s ability to serve the Lord compared to married life. However, unless I’m missing something, I don’t think Paul is requiring or even recommending celebacy for clergy to any greater degree than he is recommending it for laity. As far as the order of widows, I am wary of applying it to clergy because, after all, Paul does treat men and women a lot differently.

In summary, at this point I don’t know of anything in the Bible that recommends that clergy in particular (any more than any man or woman) be celebate. On the other hand, permission – even if by way of concession – is given specifically to bishops to marry. Given that, the Church is not scripturally bound to require celebacy for clergy. Neither is she scripturally bound to allow married clergy.

I support the Church’s right to limit clergy to those who are willing to make a vow of celebacy, but in practice she does not do that across the board. Our parish had a married associate pastor; he was a minister in another faith and converted. He was well liked and worked hard. I cannot fathom any rationale for allowing married converts, single converts, and single Catholics to become priests, but not married Catholics. Until someone can explain it to me, I am tempted to think it is just plain arbitrary and even silly.

Perhaps the Church was looking for the “best” men to become priests, and since being single is preferable, celebacy may have made a certain amount of sense. In our diocese, I know of one priest who is currently a pastor and has had a sexual affair with a woman while serving as pastor, one ex-priest is in jail for child molestation, and several were found out to be engaging in homosexual practices, although I don’t know specifically which ones. The Church, as I have concluded from our discussion, is free to choose whether to require a vow of celebacy for any given priest, and it doesn’t have to explain it to me. I am free to wonder whether her rules are helping or hindering getting the best men for vocations.

Alan