Priestly Celibacy Not Merely Church Discipline. Famed Catholic Historian Refutes Argument That It Is

[jack63]

I read the text in its entirety. In the last part of his discourse Christ was not talking of those who were married, but of those who were eunuchs (celibate), especially those who were celibate by choice. So, when He said, “Let him accept it who can,” He meant to say, “Let him accept it (i.e., the state of celibacy) who can.”

…and I just don’t agree with that. Jesus gives this long and deep explanation of marriage. His disciples basically ask "Is it better not to marry?. He says not everybody can accept his teaching on marriage. He gives specific examples of people who can’t accept marriage including those who are celibate for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He ends by saying let anybody accept this who can. It makes no sense for Jesus to give a long explanation of marriage, briefly mention celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, and then, without explanation, say anybody who can accept celibacy for the kingdom of heaven ought to accept it. Nobody talks this way. It is not how human’s express ideas.

When Jesus was saying “Let anyone accept this who can”, I believe he was referring to marriage.

 

[jack63]

There was nothing in the referenced article that contradicted any document of Vatican II.

Oh yes there was! Please read section 16 of Vatican II’s Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priest

(Celibacy is to be embraced and esteemed as a gift). Perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, commended by Christ the Lord(33) and through the course of time as well as in our own days freely accepted and observed in a praiseworthy manner by many of the faithful, is held by the Church to be of great value in a special manner for the priestly life. It is at the same time a sign and a stimulus for pastoral charity and a special source of spiritual fecundity in the world.(34) Indeed, it is not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood, as is apparent from the practice of the early Church(35) and from the traditions of the Eastern Churches.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...decree_19651207_presbyterorum-ordinis_en.html

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

What needs to be proven?

 

[JulianN]

No, I mean a link one would actually consider clicking. One that is known for presenting credible information. LifeSite isn’t it, and it’s a strain to imagine a credible source that implies Eastern Rites of Catholicism were just … unaware?

 

[rom]

When Jesus was saying “Let anyone accept this who can”, I believe he was referring to marriage.

That may be your interpretation, but that is not the interpretation given by biblical scholars. I have consulted various bible versions, from the Douay version to the New American Bible Revised Edition, the commentaries and footnotes all agree with my interpretation.

Saint JP2 specifically said that all vocations are equal.

All vocations are equal because all vocations come from God. But Pope St. John Paul II did not mean to say that the consecrated life is not superior to the secular life. If you really want to know what St. JP2 said, read the Apostolic Exhortation Vita Consecrata, especially paragraph 32, where he said, “It is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ’s own way of life, has an objective superiority.”

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

He says not everybody can accept his teaching on marriage

Or He is saying that not everyone can accept celibacy which makes more sense considering the ratio of married people.

 

[jack63]

“It is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ’s own way of life, has an objective superiority.”

OK…but Saint JPII says nothing about celibacy in paragraph 32. Additionally, married Deacons are consecrated through laying on of hands.

That may be your interpretation, but that is not the interpretation given by biblical scholars.

I’ve brought this argument up before here on CAF. If you can give a serious biblical scholar who gives an explanation, I’d be genuinely interested.

 

[gracepoole]

Why is it, exactly, that The Remnant is not a credible source? And the sources contained in this article – why are they not credible?

 

[rom]

OK…but Saint JPII says nothing about celibacy in paragraph 32. Additionally, married Deacons are consecrated through laying on of hands.

You can’t justly infer that Pope JP2 was not referring to celibacy just because he didn’t use the word “celibacy.” The word “purgatory” was not used in the Bible either, but we still believe in its reality. What I mean is that if you read the entire paragraph 32, St. JP2 is talking of a chaste life that mirrors Christ’s own way of life, which was a celibate life. Also, paragraph 32 speaks of the consecrated life as proclaiming our future life in God’s kingdom. Here is JP2’s words: “The consecrated life proclaims and in a certain way anticipates the future age, when the fullness of the Kingdom of heaven, already present in its first fruits and in mystery, will be achieved, and when the children of the resurrection will take neither wife nor husband, but will be like the angels of God (cf. Mt 22:30).” (italics added). The word “celibacy” was not explicitly used, but it was meant.

If you can give a serious biblical scholar who gives an explanation, I’d be genuinely interested.

What about St. Jerome? Will you accept him as a serious biblical scholar? Here is a quote:
Jerome:
“But none of them obtain the kingdom of heaven, save he only who has become a eunuch for Christ’s sake. Whence it follows, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it;” let each calculate his own strength, whether he is able to fulfil the rules of virginity and abstinence. For in itself continence is sweet and alluring, but each man must consider his strength, that he only that is able may receive it.
This is the voice of the Lord exhorting and encouraging on His soldiers to the reward of chastity, that he who can fight might fight and conquer and triumph.”

The quotation was made by St. Thomas Aquinas in a book called, The Catena Aurea. Go to Ch. 19, verse 12 (in red), and look for the last entry of St. Jerome.

Also, you may want to look at the footnotes of the New American Bible, which were composed by more recent biblical scholars.

 

[rom]

Oh yes there was! Please read section 16 of Vatican II’s Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priest

But the article did not contradict that. The article clearly admitted that there were also married priests in the early church. All it was saying is that even in the early church married priests had to observe continence after ordination.

 

[jack63]

How do you not see the following as a contradiction?..

From the LifeSite/Remnant article

The request for the abolition of celibacy comes from afar and is based on the false idea that the discipline that imposes it “ is not required by the very nature of the priesthood .”

From Vatican II Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priest

Indeed, it (i.e. celibacy) is not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood, as is apparent from the practice of the early Church(35) and from the traditions of the Eastern Churches.

 

[rom]

How do you not see the following as a contradiction?..

Vatican II is correct. Celibacy indeed is not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood; otherwise, no married man can possibly be ordained. However, the article is not in conflict with Vatican II when it said that it is a false idea that the discipline (not celibacy itself, but the discipline) that imposes it is not required by the very nature of the priesthood. Celibacy is not required by the priesthood, but the discipline (which includes continence after ordination) that imposes it is required.

The full dedication and consecration required by the priesthood is so important in the early church (at least in the Latin rite) that it has become necessary to mandate that all unmarried men who shall be ordained shall remain unmarried, and those married men who shall be ordained shall remain continent (with the consent of their spouse) after ordination.

 

[dochawk]

There was nothing in the referenced article that contradicted any document of Vatican II. Could you please be more precise and state exactly what Vatican II document and paragraph number the article contradicted?

Yes, there was.

I haven’t read them in decades, and will not do so again for an internet discussion, but they explicitly acknowledged the validity and propriety of married clergy in the churches that had that, and discussed roman celibacy as a good disciplinary practice.

oh, there it is; see @jack63’s quotation.

Why is it, exactly, that The Remnant is not a credible source?

That lifesitenews finds them authoritative could be a good start . . .

Add their demonstrably ignorant but putatively authoritative statement that contradicts VII . . .

 

[rom]

Yes, there was.

The article did not contradict Vatican II, which I explained in Posts #32 and 34. The article admits the existence of married clergy, which agrees with Vatican II. It also agrees with Vatican II that celibacy is not required by the nature of the priesthood. However, there is an important distinction that must be made between celibacy, regarded as a state of being unmarried, and celibacy, as a mandated discipline to observe clerical continence. The first is not required by the nature of the priesthood; the second is required by the sacredness of the priestly office. The article was talking of celibacy as an ecclesiastical discipline.

Why is it, exactly, that The Remnant is not a credible source?

My question, too. Unfortunately, those who do not agree with the opinions expressed in these traditionalist Catholic newspapers are quick to discredit them as “unreliable” or “non-credible” sources. I think Lifesitenews and the Remnant are both good sources of information, but like any responsible reader, we must also do our due diligence to compare and cross-check their opinions and reports with other sources as well. It would be wrong to swallow everything that they publish as all true (and that is true of any other newspaper as well), but it is equally wrong to reject what they publish before they are proved to be untrustworthy.

 

[CTBcin]

Is it “merely” a discipline? No, in the sense that there are strong historical and theological reasons behind it- there’s more to it than simply a practice that came out of a whim. But it is still a discipline and as such, is open to be changed.

 

[AlNg]

Celibacy is not required by the priesthood, but the discipline (which includes continence after ordination) that imposes it is required.

So continence is required of all of the former Anglican married priests in the Catholic Church?

 

[rom]

So continence is required of all of the former Anglican married priests in the Catholic Church?

What I said above was the practice in the early centuries of the Church. However, since celibacy is an ecclesiastical discipline, it is possible to obtain dispensation from the Church on a case-by-case basis.

A married Anglican priest who converts to the Catholic Church will need to be ordained again in order to be a priest in the Catholic Church. If the Anglican priest is celibate, then there is no problem. He can be ordained after some training, of course. If he is a widower and no longer has a wife, then he can also be ordained a Catholic priest. If he is separated or divorced, but his wife is still living, he cannot be ordained.

However, a married Anglican priest who wish to be ordained as a Catholic priest after becoming a Catholic, can be ordained by a special dispensation from the Pope. The Bishop alone cannot grant the dispensation. The Bishop has to petition the Pope to admit already married men to priestly ordination on a case-by-case basis. When this dispensation is granted, the married priest is still obligated to remain chaste, but can enjoy the joys of marriage and family. However, when the wife of the married Anglican priest dies after ordination, the priest cannot marry again.

 

[dochawk]

The article did not contradict Vatican II, which I explained in Posts #32 and 34.

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means . . .

To be blunt, you are arguing (not “explaining”) what is, point blank, a fringe position. Not as far as flat earth or holocaust denial; more like DNC server in the Ukraine level.

 

[Cathoholic]

jack63 . . .

Indeed, it (i.e. celibacy) is not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood, as is apparent from the practice of the early Church(35) and from the traditions of the Eastern Churches.

It isn’t “demanded”.

If it was “demanded” we would not have married men being ordained to the Priesthood in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church (and even the Latin Rite).

Nobody here is saying celibacy is “demanded”. At least I am not.

But your whole argument has morphed jack63.

Here again is your original argument (or the part you are clearly wrong on).

jack63 . . .

some people really want celibacy to be considered superior which is not the teaching of Jesus at all.

Here is the link again.

And I think it HAD TO morph because what you were saying earlier was not in conformity with Catholic teaching.

You have mixed up virginity and celibacy in the objective order, with the subjective order.

Virginity and celibacy which the Church clearly teaches that those who are called to such a state in life, ARE called to a HIGHER order.

That’s WHY in the Misallettes on certain Feast Days of certain Saints, they are formally recognized for their viginity. (i.e. St. so and so, Virgin).

And it IS a more sublime and higher way of life.

But only for those who are called to that state in life.

The objective order, as opposed to the SUBJECTIVE order, where you or I or whoever, may not be called to the celibate life.

And part of the reason the celibate life is higher, is it is in imitation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

That is part of the reason WHY the Church teaches . . . .

SESSION 24 COUNCIL OF TRENT CANON X - If any one saith, that . . .
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.

Do you affirm this or don’t you?

I do affirm it.

 

[jack63]

I affirm the CCC

1620 Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will.117 Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom118and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other