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

[JohnR77]

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

This article does an outstanding job of giving in very brief form the reasons why Priestly Ordination has Celibacy as an integral aspect and how this goes back to the time of the Apostles in their following of Christ’s command.

(Mt 19:12), and that, as disciples in the strictest and fullest sense, they must also leave father, mother, spouse, children, brother and sister (Lk 18:29, 14:26).

And Yes, it addresses the issue of priests in some Eastern Rites including married priests. As well as the fact that at least two of the Apostles had been married. And also, Saint Paul’s instructions to his disciples Titus and Timothy that candidates for the priesthood were to have been married only one time (1 Tm 3:2; 3:12)

Excellent and timely article

.

Famed Catholic historian refutes argument that priestly celibacy is merely church discipline - LifeSite

 

[dochawk]

Well, I’m glad they know better than the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, whose writings this contradicts . . .

Hmm, lifesitenews citing the remnant . . . yeah, that’s authoritative . . .

this is the same old re-hashed cherry picking, with the usual willful blinders to the actual historical record.

Stating that the east was “unaware” of the theological development, and continuing to call the east “schismatic” packs a stunning amount of ignorance into a sentence or two, and is a new low in "addresses the issue of priests in some Eastern Rites including married priests. " (in addition to misspelling “substantially all” . . .).

 

[godisgood77]

Very dubious source … Lifesite and the Remnant.

The article starts off by giving up any credibility… ‘The Synod on the Amazon had among its main goals the abolition of ecclesiastical celibacy.’…which of course was not an aim of the Synod. Once again Lifesite proves that they are not really interested in doing anything constructive . Sad stuff

Priestly celibacy is a Church discipline…not ‘merely a disciple’, but a discipline.

 

[on_the_hill]

Oh . . . is this another Lifesite article?
In that case, I won’t bother clicking the link . . . .

 

[jack63]

Strangely, the teaching of marriage that Jesus made clear in Matthew 19:1-12 seems to be one of the hardest for people to except. I would encourage people to read it in its entirety. It ends by saying that people who can accept marriage and his teaching on marriage ought to. It is not hard to understand. It is not ambiguous. Whatever confusing article LifeSite writes can’t undo what Jesus said.

Instead, there is a strong desire to misread this scripture or ignore it. Jesus basically says that some people’s path is to give up marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. However, some people really want celibacy to be considered superior which is not the teaching of Jesus at all.

Celibacy is not a Christian invention. It was in multiple cultures before the time of Christ. There can be motivations for celibacy that are not Christian and instead are economic. These are likely LifeSite’s motivations.

 

[Cathoholic]

jack63 . . .

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

.

SESSION 24 COUNCIL OF TRENT 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.

In the Mass, we see special veneration given to three different states in life. Virgins, Confessors (Priests), and Martyrs.

Revelation 14 refers to people who are virgins. Recall “virgins” are men/women who have “made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven” (c.f. Matt. 19:12).

REVELATION 14:1-5 1 Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpers playing on their harps, 3 and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste ; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb, 5 and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are spotless.

“Chaste” in Revelation 14:4 = “parthenos” = “virgins”

REVELATION 14:4a It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste ;

Literally “they are virgins”.

REVELATION 14:4a (NIV) It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins

REVELATION 14:4 (New Jerusalem Bible) These are the sons who have kept their virginity and not been defiled with women; they follow the Lamb wherever he goes; they, out of all people, have been redeemed to be the first-fruits for God and for the Lamb.

CCC 1618 Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social. From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming. Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model:

“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

CCC 1619 Virginity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is an unfolding of baptismal grace, a powerful sign of the supremacy of the bond with Christ and of the ardent expectation of his return, a sign which also recalls that marriage is a reality of this present age which is passing away.

 

[jack63]

Who are we calling an anathema…?

Saint JP2 specifically said that all vocations are equal.

All vocations are born in Christ, and this is what is expressed by every anointing with Chrism-- from Holy Baptism to the anointing of the head of a bishop. This is the source of the dignity common to all Christian vocations, which, from this point of view, are all equal. They differ according to the role that Christ assigns to each individual within the community of the Church and the responsibility attached to the role. Great care must be taken so that “nothing is wasted” (John 6:12): no vocation should be wasted because all are valuable and necessary.

From Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way, John Paul II (excerpt from, section “Vocation,” subsection, “Sacred Chrism,” page 37)…google it…it will take you right to google books and this section…

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

“This point of view” suggests that they are equal only from a certain angle.

 

[jack63]

The entire teaching from Jesus… Not just Matthew 19:10-12, but Matthew 19:1-12. I’m taking from the NARVACE. It is…

19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he cured them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ 4 He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”, 5 and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ 7 They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’ 8 He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.’

10 His disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.’ 11 But he said to them, ‘ Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can. ’

So let anybody accept marriage who can. It is not that hard to understand.

 

[PetraG]

Whoever said it was “merely” a discipline? It is a discipline in the sense that it is not a dogmatic necessity, such as the necessity that only males be ordained. That is not to say the Church does not consider it very important or an ideal. The evangelical counsels are obviously an ideal; who has ever said otherwise?

I think someone is making arguments to the Church about things the Church understands very well. The Pope isn’t considering giving himself a dispensation so he can marry. The cardinals aren’t looking for wives. They know the value of celibacy in their ministry.

 

[adamhovey1988]

First of all, it’s lifesitenews so I can safely ignore it. Second of all, I don’t know of anyone who takes their faith seriously that is arguing for the abolition of celibacy. there are about two hundred married Catholic priests in the United States , I haven’t heard a single one of them argue for abolition of celibacy in the western church. I have heard, from an Eastern Catholic priest, who is married that celibacy is a good idea, but I’ve heard from other Eastern Catholics, that celibacy might be a good idea, but a western idea should not be forced on the east. I don’t understand, why no one ever brings this up whenever we talk about married priests, the truth is, the culture in the west and the culture in the East developed differently. Being a priest in the west took on more of a monastic role. In the East, there was different theological emphasis. When we keep arguing against or for married priests, in spite of the fact that Church has always had both, we’re doing ourselves a disservice, and we’re making it next to impossible to have Unity with groups like The Eastern Orthodox. I highly doubt they will want to come into full communion with the pope of Rome, if they can’t keep that very tradition.

 

[jack63]

Second of all, I don’t know of anyone who takes their faith seriously that is arguing for the abolition of celibacy.

…and I’m certainly not arguing for the abolition of this tradition. Celibacy is a blessed and beautiful tradition. I really do admire it.

When we keep arguing against or for married priests, in spite of the fact that Church has always had both, we’re doing ourselves a disservice, and we’re making it next to impossible to have Unity with groups like The Eastern Orthodox. I highly doubt they will want to come into full communion with the pope of Rome, if they can’t keep that very tradition.

I very much agree with this. Both celibacy and married priests are beautiful traditions.

celibacy might be a good idea, but a western idea should not be forced on the east.

I’d like to see more opportunities for married men to be ordained as priests in the Latin Rite. I really do like the idea of Viri Probati. I don’t see married priests as a necessarily eastern rite idea. I do think the Latin Rite should figure out the best way to implement married priests for their culture and heritage. They don’t need to exactly follow the model of the eastern rite.

 

[CatholicELATeacher]

There’s no denying that having a wife and raising kids is time consuming. Very time consuming.

 

[JulianN]

Is this available from a credible source?

 

[strita]

The focus on celibacy has been constant throughout the history of the Church, but the issue equally as large , if not larger today, is the issue of homosexuality in the priesthood. Were that as much attention was paid to that issue and to the larger issue of sexual dysphoria in general – is it enough for the Church to say that homosexuality is a disorder? or, more precisely, immoral?

 

[Cathoholic]

jack63 . . . .

Who are we calling an anathema…?

I did not anathematize anyone.

Seems your problem is with the Church’s teaching that I quoted.

Not with me.

 

[ziapueblo]

There’s no denying that having a wife and raising kids is time consuming. Very time consuming.

It is. My priest has five children and manages his time very well.

ZP

 

[jack63]

Seems your problem is with the Church’s teaching that I quoted.

None of the passages from the CCC you quoted said celibacy or virginity was superior to marriage. I do not have problem with the church’s teaching.

 

[PetraG]

I can imagine the church relaxing the rule with respect to much older married men, never divorced, who are willing to vow celibacy: that is, that they will not remarry if their wives die first.

For young men, though, let’s be real. Fidelity to wife and family is hard enough in our fidelity-hostile times without asking those families to support a priestly vocation. (The best interest of children and the difficulty for an adolescent to be “the priest’s kid” is one of the most practical reasons to avoid ordaining young married men—that is, a reason that someone with no concept of the value of virginity for the sake of the kingdom could even recognize.)

 

[rom]

Well, I’m glad they know better than the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, whose writings this contradicts . . .

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?

Strangely, the teaching of marriage that Jesus made clear in Matthew 19:1-12 seems to be one of the hardest for people to except. I would encourage people to read it in its entirety. It ends by saying that people who can accept marriage and his teaching on marriage ought to.

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.”